Praise for the RATE Group

Some praise for the RATE GroupIt has come to my attention that the RATE Group presented 3 papers at the last American Geophysical Union Meeting. As one who has openly criticized them for shying away from mainstream scientific criticism, this is a refreshing and welcome change. The next step is to have them submit their work to the real scientific literature. At any rate, Kudos to Humphreys, Baumgardner and Snelling for stepping up to the plate. If YEC want to see science change in their favor, then this is definitely the way things must be done.CheersJoe Meert

You know it's a funny thing about those journals. I have recent experiences with both of them. One is personal and the others are anecdotal from a colleague of mine. My article concerned a triggering mechanism for the Snowball Earth and it went through 3 reviews and a final editorial review. It was initially rejected by Science without review. A friend of mine just had an article rejected by Science without review and another's article went through review by Nature and was summarily turned down (the oldest evidence for life on land). I also recall an earlier article I published in Nature (1993) and it went through 2 reviews before acceptance. The reviews are highly critical and you must pursue the research with some confidence. If you think you have something, then you've got to push it through and defend the science. I have another article that will be submitted to Science here in a month or so. It is likely to get rejected, but worth a shot. Some people I know consider it an honor to simply have an article undergo review by those two journals. Creationists need to develop a tough skin if they are ever going to make a change. JP knows absolutely nothing about publishing so anything he says should be taken as Monday morning quarterbacking by someone who never watches football.CheersJoe Meert

I know two things about you JP that are fairly uncontroversial1. You are not a scientist
2. You do not publish in scientific journals.CheersJoe Meert

I also know you're a handsome fellow, but you really should remove that tatoo. It makes you look like a dork. Publishing ones research findings is quite relevant. It gives you some feedback on the quality of your science. From your description, you are more of an engineer than a scientist.CheersJoe Meert

If it's not your picture, then why use it? Quite simply, you are a technician of sorts most likely with an engineering degree or some trade school experience. Your knowledge of science (or more importantly your lack of knowledge) comes through loud and clear everytime you post. For some reason, it bothers you a lot that you are not considered a scientist. It does not bother me that I am not an engineer. We do different things. You toot your own horn enough that if even 1/2 of what you say is true, then you are a good engineer. For some reason, you're seem unhappy with your lot in life.CheersJoe Meert

John Paul:
Oh and that is YOUR picture for your posts?JM: No, it's a picture of a snowball earth, why?John Paul:
Yeah, right. That must mean you are quite simply a school teacher who looks at dirt and rocks.JM: No, I am a Ph.D. scientist at a research institution, but you knew that.JP:If I appear unhappy it has to do directly with dealing with you and your ilk.JM: Actually, it seems to really bother you that you are an engineer and not a scientist. Actually, we don't even know that for a fact since you hide behind a pseudonym. You could be a short-order cook for all we know. However, I tend to think you are being honest about your job even if you embellish a bit on the details.CheersJoe Meert

BTW JM I will take my understanding of science over yours everyday of the week.JM: I don't doubt you believe that for a moment. However, that really does not say all that much other than you've convinced yourself of that fact. Here's the rub, if you want to convince anyone besides yourself of your scientific prowess and understanding, then you've got to do so by demonstrating that you actually know what you are talking about. I see much bragadoccio and very little substance coming from you. In the words of Clara Peller, "Where's the beef"?CheersJoe Meert

JP:All he says is "JP is not a scientist" without anything to substantiate it.JM: You're right. I apologize. I should more properly say that from what I've seen of your posts, you do not appear to be scientifically literate in the topics you choose to discuss. I should also say that we only have your word and your actions from which to base our conclusions. At present, the best conclusion we can make is that you are an engineer of sorts who dabbles in creation evolution debates. Now, how about returning to the scientific discussion at hand? Stop telling us you're a scientist and start showing us.CheersJoe Meert

You said:
What I do helps people of today and people of the future. JM: The implication of this was clear enough that my science does not and is of no practical use. I dare say that anyone who has taken even an introductory course in geology would not have made such a silly insinuation. A geologist is standing behind nearly everything you touch on a daily basis from your toothpaste down to your shoes. While we might rightfully quibble about the pros and cons of fossil fuels, I think I can make a fair case for saying that they have been of benefit to society today and in the future. I don't know if the statement was made out of narrow-minded machismo or simply ignorance of what a geologist does, but given your constant assertion that you are a scientist, the statement does not support your alleged scientific literacy.CheersJoe Meert

And I am not looking down at engineers or other scientists who aren't involved in research. There are days when I wish I had gone into engineering, especially if things start to stagnate in the lab. Research that isn't going anywhere gets pretty frustratingJM: I tried to make this same point. I am not an engineer and it would not bother me if someone pointed this out. It pays well and produces a lot. JP reminds me a bit of George Costanza because being director of field operations was never good enough, he wanted to be thought of as anything but what he was (architect, marine biologist).CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

JP:Just so we are clear I was NOT addressing all geologists, just Meert.

---

JM: As I showed, you are wrong about geologists in general and me in particular. Want to try again? The problem is that you're so intent on attacking me as a person that you make silly statements about geology in general and that leads to minsinformation about me in particular. Once again, you show your ignorance about geology which is all the more reason to question your scientific reasoning abilities. Most scientists would recognize their own shortcomings rather than make silly statements such as the ones you repeat here.CheersJoe Meert

JM: In other words, you are not familiar enough with the science of geology to recognize the practical implications of my work. You could have saved a lot of time by stating that at the outset; however, the fact that you can't understand the practical implications of my work in no way makes it impractical.CheersJoe Meert

Perhaps, it is time to split this thread. For some reason (perhaps something more than a glitch), I cannot start a new thread in any of the discussion groups.CheersJoe Meert