|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,385 Year: 3,642/9,624 Month: 513/974 Week: 126/276 Day: 0/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Peer Review Conspiracy | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
[Edited out an insult. Shame, too... it was a funny one.]
Once again... what we are looking for in this thread is not flaws in evolution, nor for your theories as to why evolution is successful. There are plenty of other threads for you to post these ideas in. The goal here is to post any findings of creationists which have unjustly been shot down by the scientific community, and explain why the rejection was unjust. This shouldn't be hard to do, if the prejudice and indoctrination you talk about is so widespread. This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 05-14-2004 10:58 AM "As the days go by, we face the increasing inevitability that we are alone in a godless, uninhabited, hostile and meaningless universe. Still, you've got to laugh, haven't you?" -Holly
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
By "take it one step at a time" you mean "lets argue a different point". Let's not. Lets have you actually defend your claims that are relevant to the topic rather than going off on a different topic altogether.
If you want to discuss the other matter I believe that you are currently permitted to open new topics. That is where it belongs.Although given the fact that AiG is a religious organisation dedicated to promoting a particular theological view I do not see how you can hope to prove that evolution is even as religious as AiG is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Almeyda, may I direct your attention to Paul's post, #12, above? We already know that you can find AiG. Now find the "real science" there for us.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
First we must realise the religous nature of evolution. No, there is no need or reason to do that. There is NO religious nature to evolution. But again, that has nothing to do with the thread. Try to stick to peer review conspiricy. So far, you have not pointed or even aluded to a single example that would indicate such a conspiricy exists. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5053 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
The rip or rub in MY, BSM, example NOT appearing is that it is simply a matter of conceiving (as per tolerance and allowance for any transient to permanent fit) CO-adaptation as a POSSIBLY two genetically orginal sources rather than ONE POPULATION aspect in the landscape that Bruce Wallace TAUGHT at CORNELL in the 60s. Will Provine's ONLY question to Phil Johnson was for him to explain adaptations (ON THE INDIVIDUAL LEVEL (WILL MADE THE SLUR TO THE SPECIES AS AN ASIDE))WITHOUT common Decent. I believe this can and will be DONE. Eldgridge however TOOK this slight slur to mean that it would not be OK to have the debate but you see as long as we keep "debating" it and talkin for walkin sake we wont have solved those pieces that ARE doable despite the parental influence. So-NO-just becuase there are none or so if none appear it does not mean that academia is true as to the false fact involved for it STILL is at the level of a generations education not the medias consumption of the same. I could have answered WILL but why I am answering you instead? Will seems to have substituted Darwin's anti-seperate creation with coadaptation where it would be physically possible in effect to invert the relation of tolerance and allowance in a shifting fit population(number) of species (to say so avoiding wrongly the whole group selectionissue).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
almeyda Inactive Member |
Why is evidence for a young earth rejected by evolutionists besides the fact it is in conflict with there framework therefore cannot be accepted?
Missing Link
| Answers in Genesis
Astronomy
| Answers in Genesis
Why is bird-dinasaur evolution promoted so heavily when creation scientist have found such evidence against it?
Missing Link
| Answers in Genesis
Did Dinosaurs Turn into Birds?
| Answers in Genesis
Missing Link
| Answers in Genesis
Why is the evidence for dating method flaws not accepted by evolutionists? Who continue to date things at tremendous ages
Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth Is Old?
| Answers in Genesis
Missing Link
| Answers in Genesis
Doesn’t Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible?
| Answers in Genesis
Ill see how we go from here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 497 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Can I call myself a prophet now?
The Laminator
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 497 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
About the first article, which claims that the amount of helium gas in the atmosphere does support the young earth hypothesis. Creationists claim that the gas can't escape the atmosphere in sufficient amount to no completely fill up the atmosphere with helium gas if the earth has been billions of years old.
This claim neglects the fact that helium gas can easily be heated up in the exosphere and escape into space in large amounts. It doesn't take much to heat up the helium gas because it is so light. talk origins does a really good job at explaining this. Here is an explanation by Dr. Dalrymple on other mechanisms that cause the loss of helium gas in large amounts over the years:
The most probable mechanism for helium loss is photoionization of helium by the polar wind and its escape along open lines of the Earth's magnetic field. Banks and Holzer [1969] have shown that the polar wind can account for an escape of 2 to 4 x 106 ions/cm2 sec of Helium-4, which is nearly identical to the estimated production flux of (2.5 1.5) x 106 atoms/cm2 sec. Calculations for Helium-3 lead to similar results, i.e., a rate virtually identical to the production flux. Another possible escape mechanism is direct interaction of the solar wind with the upper atmosphere during the short periods of lower magnetic-field intensity while the field is reversing. Sheldon and Kern [1972] estimated that 20 geomagnetic-field reversals over the past 3.5 million years would have assured a balance between helium production and loss. Therefore, there are many mechanisms that allow helium gas to escape into space. This explanation completely contradicts Sarfati's claim that "Other escape mechanisms are also inadequate to account for the small amount of helium in the air, about 1/2000th the amount expected after the alleged billions of years." The Laminator
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Almeyda,
What is it with you & bare links? Pick your single best example of creationist "good" science, & argue your case in your own words. I'll happily take you on on the subject of birds or dating. Oop, already have taken you on on dating, that refutes everything in AiG, no less. You had no comment to make if I remember correctly. Mark This message has been edited by mark24, 05-14-2004 12:15 PM There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Lets start with the first one.
Missing Link
| Answers in Genesis
I note that it was published in 1998. Let us start with a simple fact about science. Strongly supported ideas are not thrown out on the basis of a single anomaly. There are huge problems with a young Earth and even if it could be shown that there was no hope of solving the Helium problem it would still be jumping to conclusions to insist that the Earth is young. Another basic requirement of science is that it should be up to date. Excluding creationists, the most recent scientific source quoted dates from 1987. More than ten years old at the time the article was published. In fact an important paper on another mechanism - ion outflow had been published in 1996 - refernced here:CE001: Not Enough Helium? Sarfati completely ignores this mechanism. So the claim that there is insufficient Helium loss to space is rejected because Sarfati ignored an important fact that was certainly known to the scientific community at the time the essay was written. He therefore failed to show that his claims were true. On the basis of these facts please explain why you claim that Sarfati's essay was wrongly rejected.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
Almeyda,
I think of myself as a pretty fair person (my username is really a misnomer, I promise). What people on here are trying to do is get you to support your assertions. So, for the sake of getting things on track, lets pretend that evolution is false, just as you claim. Now that we have gotten this out of the way, please show us how creationist science meets the requirements of accepted science, and how these papers have been unjustly rejected. If you can show that creationist theories are testable, falsifiable, and explain all the data then I will agree that these papers were unjustly rejected. Also, I myself have submitted papers through peer review. Some are rejected and some are accepted. Rejection in itself is not an indication of whether or not the theory being put forth is accepted by the mainstream or not. Rather, peer review is a process that rejects papers on the grounds of incomplete support, or or data found in other papers that falsifies the theory being put forth. So, for you to support your assertion that creationist papers are being unjustly rejected you must show how these papers avoid the following pitfalls: 1. The theory has to be testable and potentially falsifiable. 2. Is not contradicted by other observations. 3. If there is a contradiction, explain how the falsifying data is actually in error. 4. The theory has to be supported by evidence that is repeatable, regardless of religion or ideology held by other scientists. 5. Makes predictions about future observations. If you can do this, then I will agree that there is an unjust bias. PS: There is no need to bring up falsifications of evolution. The evidence that you claim is there should be enough to refute evolution. However, we can't examine the claims unless you bring them forward, in your own words.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
Consider this an official edict almeyda.
Do NOT post bare links, especially 8 of them in one post. Pick one and make your best case in your own words. Use the link as support. Do not continue to make unsupported assertions. I believe AdminNosy called you on that earlier in the topic and you have yet to address it with him. The topic of this thread is Peer Review Conspiracy. Please address the issue and not tangential topics. Pay specific attention to Mark24 post 24, PaulK post 25, and Loudmouth post 26. These are the questions being put to you. Debate the issue in good faith or admit you cannot. AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 497 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
The Laminator
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
All crying posters get sent to the man with the baby on his shoulder.
AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
almeyda Inactive Member |
I still cannot believe many of you do not see the religious nature of evolution. Only until this is recognised can this debate go on. I will make it a top priority to make a topic concerning the religious nature of evolution. Can you imagine debating with creationists with the creationists saying no its not science creation has already proved this. You are just religion. And have this bias against you? It just cannot work like this. Everything creationists say is in conflict with evolution. But the thing is evolution is not fact and has not been proven. So what makes evolution anymore righter than creation?. We need to get to the point that evolution is the science of humanistic and naturalism while creation is the science of the christian and supernaturalism. We must realise that it is the same evidence that they both have found with different interpretations and philosophy. Only when this matter is settled can this debate ever come close to getting resolved. Im resigning from this debate as of now until further matters are settled.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024