|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Vestiges for Peter B. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7695 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
dear SLPx,
The difference between you and I is, I presume, that I DO read opposite opinions and get out the ideas that are good. Otherwise I get biased and I try to avoid that. I mailed that already, so you could have known it. What colour do you mean: red, blue? both? Other? Best wishesPeter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
quote: Do you understand the concept of satire? As in Creationists mistakenly believe that we were created as we are now, at the top (So far). The reason why Nature didn't accept your "hypothesis" and a creationist journal would is that it wasn't credible. Creationists don't care about facts since belief and faith is far more important to them. [This message has been edited by nos482, 09-25-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5709 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
[QUOTE]My response:
"If one finds something new, than it is a common thing in science to send it in as high as possible, and work downwards. I seems that you are not in science, since you would start submitting your findings as low as possible and than work upwards (sound like evolutionism) sorry to disappoint you, but that's not the way it works in science. It may be that you start submitting your manuscrips to the "Journal of Irreproducable Results", I don't. Besides, you can't work upwards. So, if you have a sensible contribution to the discussion, go ahead, otherwise be silent. And, thanks for the label (pretty predictive)". And you say:"Unlike a Creationist's journal Nature does have standards and they won't publish just any thing sent to them." I say:"Correct. So now I work downwards. Anyway, it was just a hypothesis". best wishesPeter[/B][/QUOTE] JM: Once again with your naivete. You start with the most appropriate and work from there. I suspect if you do really have a PHD it is new. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7695 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear Joe,
In this case it was the most appropriate (I guess). Other suggestions? I will send it there. Thanks in advance, best wishes,Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
So, Peter, what other journals are you going to submit your letter to?
Which Biology journal do your peers in the field consider to be most prestigious? Which journal did you publish your first paper in?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7695 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear Schraf,
Your doubt is amazing. Nothing wrong with doubt, I doubt myself a lot too. However, the first paper I published (as a second author) was in 1992 (if I recall properly). I was still a student and I did my honours on IL-4 receptor gene expression. It was published in Blood. I think it is one of the best journals on blood-related topics.Best wishes, Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Funny, I didn't realise that reading a Spetner (creationist) book, claiming support form papaers that you hadn't even read, and claiming that science will disproof vestigials indicated a lack of bias on your part. I have read the 'opposition' and found it sorely lackiing. Please do not engage in projection - that too is a common creationist trait, and since you finally gave up your ruse (pretending not to be one), I think your desparation is starting to show.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7695 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear SLPx,
You say:Funny, I didn't realise that reading a Spetner (creationist) book, claiming support form papaers that you hadn't even read, and claiming that science will disproof vestigials indicated a lack of bias on your part. I say:One of your characteristics that becomes increasingly visible is that you like repeating mantras. I already explained to you several times that..... about the Science paper (you know what I mean). Be aware of mantras: repeating them is starting to believe them. Spetner a creationist? Reference please. You say:I have read the 'opposition' and found it sorely lackiing. I say:What was lacking? The opposition or Spetners hypothesis? Lacking with respect to what? And if you read his book carefully he pointed out that in fact he (Spetner) revived Darwin's original idea. So what exacly is your point? Atheist? Please explain point by point, I am here to learn too. You say:Please do not engage in projection - that too is a common creationist trait, and since you finally gave up your ruse (pretending not to be one), I think your desparation is starting to show. I say:You really like to label me "creationist", isn't it. Well, maybe it is time for you to come out too. Then we can call each other "creationist" and "atheist". That would be fun! I couldn't find "desparation" in my dictionary. What does it mean? Finally, I say:Still, you ignored almost all of my scientific objections. Of course you don't have to respond. Sometimes silence speaks more words than any reply could possibly do. Anyway, question still to solve: Evolutionism, fact or farce? Let's continue the quest. For the rest, I wish you well. Cheers,Peter [This message has been edited by peter borger, 09-27-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: So, what journals are you going to submit your current Biology work to, other than "Science"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Again, your Creationist slip is showing, Peter! The opposite of a Creationist is a scientist, or maybe an empiricist, not an Atheist. There are plenty of Theist scientists that reject Creationism in favor of real science. This false "either/or" dichtomy is common to Creationists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"There are plenty of Theist scientists that reject Creationism in favor of real science."
--Without objecting to the point of your statement, I think you mean 'there are plenty of Theist scientists that reject Young Earth creationism in...'. Creationist simply (or is it majorly?)implies theist. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Actually, in the way this board and most discussions use the word, "Creationist" means someone who agrees with AIG or the ICR and is a YEC. However, yes, you are right that someone could technically be defined as a Creationist if they believe in, say, Theistic evolution, or in Deism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Actually, in the way this board and most discussions use the word, "Creationist" means someone who agrees with AIG or the ICR and is a YEC."
--I also see this is quite true.. though I would still, most unfortunately, sigh as it is an unwanted given when I am referenced or referred to. --Well anyways, back to vestiges for PB. I'd like to give my thoughts as an alternative to his if you find it an interesting query. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
quote: But around here, someone who believes in theistic evolution is defined as an evolutionist. Now, for the record, what is "Deism"? Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
quote: Deism:1. The form of theological rationalism that believes in God on the basis of reason without reference to revelation In other words, "God doesn't live here anymore."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024