|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Peer Review Conspiracy | |||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I still cannot believe many of you do not see the religious nature of evolution. According to good ol' Merriam-Webster, religion is:
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Unseul Inactive Member |
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....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Nah, Bcc stands for "Big conspiracy cover up-er". Of course, a Msc is a "Majorly serious clergy".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Speculative Reason is NOT the reason that practical reason is not pure among evo scientists playing the Philosopher's metaphyics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
wow, even your short replies don't make any sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
what part of /p/u/r/E did you not purchase or puurrrrrr?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
do you speak english?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4087 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024