|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: "Creation Science" experiments. | |||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Finally, the majority of creationist involved in the debate have also/still publish in peer-rviewed litterature. Just not on origin-related subjects.
I think you are missing the point. The point is this. Why are none of these scientists doing any science in creationism or ID. You can tout their credentials and research all day long, but at the end of the day none of them are doing any creation or ID science. No one is questioning that they have strong religious beliefs. No one is questioning whether they are performing science in their fields. (though I think a questioning of the validity of some of their research may be in order.e.g. Dr Clifford Wilson, Dr Kurt Wise, John Whitmore and Bryant Wood to mention a few).They are just not doing any research into creationism and ID. Why is that? I would have to question the strength of some of their beliefs if they are not willing to try to find evidence for their beliefs. Also,
Finally, the majority of creationist involved in the debate have also/still publish in peer-rviewed litterature.
Seems to be bullshit. A lot of these people are very obscure and I can find no peer reviewed articles by them, in any subject matter. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Of course, his opinion is that this nautiloid graveyard was deposited during the biblical flood. Of course this would never pass peer-review, so he simply pushed a watery mega-castrophy as an explanation as far as the peer-review would allow. So no real creation science then.
The people from the RATE research are there also. What a crock that was. They threw out all the evidence and enacted some sort of magic effect from their god. Do we have to rehash the RATE thread again?
me writes: Seems to be bullshit. A lot of these people are very obscure and I can find no peer reviewed articles by them, in any subject matter. Well let's just take a few examples then: Lets look at you original assertion.
Message 94 Finally, the majority of creationist involved in the debate have also/still publish in peer-rviewed litterature.
You have shown far less than majority. Even just looking at the ones on your list. I have already found that many that are so obscure that hardly anyone knows who they are. You should be very careful on using words like "majority". But the point still stands. Where is the "creation science"? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
What a crock that was. They threw out all the evidence and enacted some sort of magic effect from their god. Do we have to rehash the RATE thread again? Let me guess, you never actually read their actual research right ? I have read papers by the RATE people and criticism's. Are you claiming that they do not invoke a magic effect from their god in order for it all to work? From the ICR
quote: This is from Larry Vardiman. They make sure to highlight his Ph.D. You know what his Ph.D. is in? Atmospheric Science, he is a meteorologist. A highly educated weatherman and he is their point person on nuclear decay? The authors themselves admit they have to invoke godidit. Here is a review.
quote: So explain how they are not invoking godidit. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
but I think you get the point that youy didn't actually search very hard before claiming you couldn't find anyone who published.
Did I say I didn't find anyone that was not published. Lets look at the actual text of what was said.
Message 94slevesque writes: Finally, the majority of creationist involved in the debate have also/still publish in peer-rviewed litterature. Message 96Me writes:
Now maybe you misunderstood me. I am not saying I could not find any peer reviewed articles by any of them. I am saying that a lot of the people on the list are very obscure and for those people I could find nothing. Then again maybe this is your out "the majority of creationists involved in the debate". Seems to be bullshit. A lot of these people are very obscure and I can find no peer reviewed articles by them, in any subject matter.Are you saying the only a minor portion of the people on the "list" are "involved" in the debate. If so that is true, you are correct, but the list is just a disingenuous gish gallop. Now the second comment.
And don't worry that they at least all published in order to get their PhD
Are you going with the idea that to back up you comment every thesis is published and peer reviewed? I mean yeah I guess technically, but that really really sets an incredibly low bar doesn't it. Then again that doesn't really matter because your original comment was this(pay attention to the bold)
Finally, the majority of creationist involved in the debate have also/still publish in peer-rviewed litterature.
In other words something other than their thesis. So I stand by my comment that your majority statement is bullshit that you cannot even confirm. Then again finally. Show the research on creation science. That is the premise of the thread, The premise not that there are not any scientists that believe in creationism and ID. No one has stated that. You have misread something that makes you think that was said, but by continuing down this vein you are just blowing smoke to deflect from the real point that there is no creation or ID science. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
I hop you don't think the article you quote is a paper. Have you read actual papers published in the creationist peer-reviewed litterature, or the 2 RATE volumes of their published results ?
Being a condescending asshole does not become you. I have not read the original articles because I am not proficient in the science. I have read scientific criticisms and writings of members of the RATE tema. It is not necessary for me to read something I wont understand. It is actually conterproductive. The person I quoted read the original and these are his issues with the RATE study. They posit godidit. Not real good science there.
Secondly, a short article on the ICR website does not make him their point person on nuclear decay.
The point is that he himself sees problems with their findings. Yes?
This should seem evident when Humphreys proposes a physical mechanism for removing the excess heat. This should seem evident when Humphreys proposes a physical mechanism for removing the excess heat. If they were really godiditing it, why bother with such a mechanism ?
There is no mechanism. They have faith one will come up because godidit. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Thousands of donations isn't much when you consider the amount of employees they have, and all the rest, don't you think ? Don't you think they would be spending their money on research instead of PR people if they actually had anything to go on? Your comment just proves the point that they have nothing. What do all those employees do? The do PR and raise money to keep the PR machine going. They have nothing to research. One piece of science that gave them evidence for their beliefs would do more to raise funds then all the PR in the world. They know they have nothing scientific. If they did they would be making sure it made the front page of every paper and every news website and every science journal in the world. There would be Nobel's all around. Because anything they came up with that supported their views would completely change the paradigm of science. It would be earth shattering. It would be like Pig's flying or being able to turn lead into gold. But there is nothing is there. There is manipulation and misrepresentation of data that will not stand up to peer-review. Also, I do not think you can accurately call creationists rags peer-reviewed. Please show us the peer-review process for creationist journals. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Given that the list includes Jack Cuozzo (a crazy dentist) I do have to wonder just how many of the entries are pure padding...
How many dentists do you think had to write a thesis? I never thought to look at how many of these Dr.'s are not Ph.D's. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Again, post 155 third paragraph.
Read it. Nothing there. So we are safe to assume you got nothing? Just lots of hot air? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
To make it easier to follow the good dr.'s advice here is a webpage that gives an easy to understand explanation of a hypothesis and a theory. Hint: They are not the same thing.
Scientific Theory, Law, and Hypothesis Explained | Wilstar.com
quote: Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
The second line can not be compressed.
Wrong!! Ever hear of data compression algorithms for computer data? Zip files? With just a quick look I can see how line 2 can be easily compressed to 15. I don't doubt if I spent some time on it, I might be able to compress it even more. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Abstruse: meaning highly complex. Particularized: to be directed towards a specific object or purpose. Communication: to exchange or share information. Never have heard that definition for abstruse. I don't think that word means what you think it means. Abstruse - difficult to comprehend
Synonyms 1. incomprehensible, unfathomable, arcane. Nothing about highly complex. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024