Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peer Review Conspiracy
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 31 of 47 (108359)
05-15-2004 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by almeyda
05-15-2004 3:16 AM


I still cannot believe many of you do not see the religious nature of evolution.
According to good ol' Merriam-Webster, religion is:
quote:
(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
According to scientists, evolution is a model that explains the diversity of life on Earth through changing allele frequencies in populations via natural selection and random mutation.
I don't see what one has to do with the other, and I don't see where "god", "worship", or "supernatural" occur in the definition of "evolution."
If you want to expand the definition of evolution to be "anything that is believed", then where the hell do you stop? Democracy? That's a religion. Medicine? Religion. Science? Religion.
Your personal preference in ice cream flavors? That's a religion, too.
But the thing is evolution is not fact and has not been proven.
You keep saying that, but when we tell you:
1) That evolution is both fact and theory;
2) That nothing in science is ever proven, but;
3) Evolution is as well-supported as any other scientific model;
you can't seem to address those points substantially. That's starting to look dishonest to a lot of us, and moreover, it's against the forum guidelines:
quote:
Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without further elaboration.
If you don't understand what that means, here it is made simple - you have to stop saying "evolution is not fact and isn't proven" until you can address the three points I raised above. You have to stop saying that because it's not true, as we've shown you. It's a lie. You don't get to just tell lies around here.
So what makes evolution anymore righter than creation?.
The fact that it is a fact, as well as a theory, and that as both it's supported by as much evidence as there is in support of the germ theory of disease or the kinetic theory of gases.
You don't get to just show up here and tell lies, Almeyda. And since we've been showing you that "evolution is not a fact and isn't proven" is a lie for some time now, the fact that you keep repeating it makes you a liar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by almeyda, posted 05-15-2004 3:16 AM almeyda has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 32 of 47 (108361)
05-15-2004 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by almeyda
05-15-2004 3:16 AM


religion?
I still cannot believe many of you do not see the religious nature of evolution.
see:
Evolution: Science or Religion?
you may add what you want there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by almeyda, posted 05-15-2004 3:16 AM almeyda has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 33 of 47 (108561)
05-16-2004 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by almeyda
05-15-2004 3:16 AM


Re: The rules of the game
quote:
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.
OK, Evolution is religious in nature.
"PhD" stands for Pretty holy Disciple.
Now that we've accepted that this part of Biology is actually a religion, perhaps you can now explain how Creationist papers are, in fact, scientific, unlike the clear and obvious deeply religious nature of Biology.
I will now paste Loudmouth's lovely list from his post #26 here, as it is perfect for you to use as a checklist.
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.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-16-2004 01:35 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by almeyda, posted 05-15-2004 3:16 AM almeyda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Unseul, posted 05-16-2004 7:36 AM nator has replied

  
Unseul
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 47 (108588)
05-16-2004 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by nator
05-16-2004 2:33 AM


Re: The rules of the game
LOL, like the PhD. Is Bsc Basic science cultist then?? and Msc is obviously Master science cultist (p.s. are the prof's actually prophets )
Unseul

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by nator, posted 05-16-2004 2:33 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by nator, posted 05-16-2004 9:50 AM Unseul has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 35 of 47 (108600)
05-16-2004 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Unseul
05-16-2004 7:36 AM


Re: The rules of the game
quote:
LOL, like the PhD. Is Bsc Basic science cultist then?? and Msc is obviously Master science cultist (p.s. are the prof's actually prophets )
Nah, Bcc stands for "Big conspiracy cover up-er".
Of course, a Msc is a "Majorly serious clergy".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Unseul, posted 05-16-2004 7:36 AM Unseul has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 36 of 47 (112486)
06-02-2004 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by almeyda
05-15-2004 3:16 AM


Re: The rules of the game
This bevy of beavers seems to hold if not conciously at least within reason to some idea like Russel's that otherwise is peculiar where advances (way back in 1900) made "obsolete" or some such wording Kant's distinction of LOGIC and MATH. Most of evouls here are too sophisticated to let words wend wrongly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by almeyda, posted 05-15-2004 3:16 AM almeyda has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 37 of 47 (112542)
06-03-2004 1:01 AM


things go off topic in a hurry here, don't they?
the closest example i have heard is someone not getting hired by science magazine for a being creationist.
i have never heard of a creationist paper being rejected by a peer-reviewed journal for ANY REASON. this is for two reasons:
1. creationism is not science, makes no scientifically testable claims, etc. they'd have no place in a science journal.
2. creationists are not really interested in being legitimate science. they are more interested in saving souls, and so they go straight to a more ignorant public where they get laughed at less.

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Dr Jack, posted 06-03-2004 7:23 AM arachnophilia has not replied
 Message 39 by Brad McFall, posted 06-03-2004 6:43 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 41 by JonF, posted 06-04-2004 10:21 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 38 of 47 (112581)
06-03-2004 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by arachnophilia
06-03-2004 1:01 AM


There was a case in England of a woman being turned down for a science job because she was a creationist - she tried to sue for discrimination on religious grounds but the courts rejected her claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by arachnophilia, posted 06-03-2004 1:01 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 39 of 47 (112681)
06-03-2004 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by arachnophilia
06-03-2004 1:01 AM


not much today- still working in the details-good luck all
Speculative Reason is NOT the reason that practical reason is not pure among evo scientists playing the Philosopher's metaphyics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by arachnophilia, posted 06-03-2004 1:01 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by arachnophilia, posted 06-03-2004 11:47 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 40 of 47 (112710)
06-03-2004 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Brad McFall
06-03-2004 6:43 PM


Re: not much today- still working in the details-good luck all
wow, even your short replies don't make any sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Brad McFall, posted 06-03-2004 6:43 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Brad McFall, posted 06-05-2004 2:25 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 41 of 47 (112749)
06-04-2004 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by arachnophilia
06-03-2004 1:01 AM


I have never heard of a creationist paper being rejected by a peer-reviewed journal for ANY REASON. this is for two reasons:
Well, there's this: Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?:
quote:
In the summer of 1985 Humphreys wrote to the journal Science pointing out that openly creationist articles are suppressed by most journals. He asked if Science had 'a hidden policy of suppressing creationist letters.' Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, 'It is true that we are not likely to publish creationist letters.' This admission is particularly significant since Science's official letters policy is that they represent 'the range of opinions received.' e.g., letters must be representative of part of the spectrum of opinions. Yet of all the opinions they receive, Science does not print the creationist ones. ...
On May 19, 1992 Humphreys submitted his article * 'Compton scattering and the cosmic microwave background bumps' to the Scientific Correspondence section of the British journal Nature. The editorial staff knew Humphreys was a creationist and didn't want to publish it (even though the article did not contain any glaring creationist implications). The editorial staff didn't even want to send it through official peer review. Six months later Nature published an article by someone else on the same topic, having the same conclusions. Thus, most creationist researchers realize it is simply a waste of time to send journal editors openly creationist articles. To say that a 'slight bias' exists on the part of journal editors would be an understatement.
Now, that's obviously got some spin; "not likely to publish creationist letters" is reasonable for a science journal, since most if not all creationist letters have nothing to do with science. And the claim that "Nature published an article by someone else on the same topic, having the same conclusions", implying that Humphreys was rejected without considering the merits of his article, needs a lot of support before I'd believe it. But I've never been able to find any more evidence on this matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by arachnophilia, posted 06-03-2004 1:01 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 42 of 47 (112922)
06-05-2004 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by arachnophilia
06-03-2004 11:47 PM


Re: not much today- still working in the details-good luck all
what part of /p/u/r/E did you not purchase or puurrrrrr?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by arachnophilia, posted 06-03-2004 11:47 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by arachnophilia, posted 06-05-2004 8:01 PM Brad McFall has not replied
 Message 45 by Brad McFall, posted 06-07-2004 1:07 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 43 of 47 (112956)
06-05-2004 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Brad McFall
06-05-2004 2:25 PM


Re: not much today- still working in the details-good luck all
do you speak english?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Brad McFall, posted 06-05-2004 2:25 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 44 of 47 (113004)
06-06-2004 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by coffee_addict
05-14-2004 3:00 AM


In my thread, I simply asked if anyone could give any example at all from the bible besides leviticus that condemns homosexuality, and I got zero examples.
Sorry I wasn't available at the time. I just addressed two of the examples in the one open thread you have on that subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by coffee_addict, posted 05-14-2004 3:00 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 45 of 47 (113319)
06-07-2004 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Brad McFall
06-05-2004 2:25 PM


if you cant review this- NO!
Construction of BirthPlace Cardinality- or- why and how the English sentence fails to use the English word "engineering" properly for for their to be an engineering result their must be the invention that the result produced- and as any organism might decieve another there is no a priori reason (short of a philosophy against the a priori for isntance) that niche(Hutchinson) construction can even aposteriori reconstruct Stebbins OPEN HABITAT. read and weeeeeeeep or dont read I dont really care if the dynamics can not make the cut to the sublime. I did and I was no ant.
This should be publishable even though it wends around the issue of the "image" of GOD which G.Galdshev does not support in the choice but still finds GOD in the NATURAL LAWS he used and uses to find any split between inorganic and organic temporal hierarchies.
1)appropritate the genetic marker "rule" into any seperation of inorganic and organic hierachies.
2)Show the cause and effect of dominance and recessivness can result from disruptive selection (either way) of extremes to the central by some combination of ecology and behavior in neophenogenesis remakring that Carter's understanding of Deme is inaccruate in this respect.
3)Using catastrophe theory calculate the relative "marker: motion of the inorganic hierarchy between an arithemetic organic hierarchy dividing Agassiz's physical agent per some group selection no matter the shifting balance
4)AND POINT F must be reaced and DONE!!,:: Associate the metric of the inorganic hierachy and subdiploid populations etx of supramolecular VOLUMES to a Kirchoff model of perversions where the temporal crosxsxxpoint among all the heritable hierarchies occurs (somewhat poorly diagrammed 000___
**********************************000 which ordinates teh birthplace coordination across kinds/phyla.
The biology has been a fraud so far in education.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Brad McFall, posted 06-05-2004 2:25 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024