Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total)
11 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,463 Year: 3,720/9,624 Month: 591/974 Week: 204/276 Day: 44/34 Hour: 1/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peer Review or BUST??
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 61 of 73 (625856)
07-26-2011 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Chuck77
07-26-2011 12:44 AM


Re: Peer review and censorship
Chuck77 writes:
It seems fair (the article).
No, it certainly does not. As always, it is impossible for creationists to convey the truth. They don’t expect people to actually go and read up on their twisting of the truth. Discovering the real facts is not difficult. You don’t even have to delve very deep in order to discover their deceit. As an example:
CMI writes:
The First Law of Thermodynamics (law of conservation of energy) was first formulated by German physician J. R Mayer in 1842.
False. It was first definitively formulated by Hermann von Helmholtz in 1847.
CMI writes:
However, Mayer’s revolutionary research was rejected by the leading German physics journal Annalen der Physik.
Mayer’s research was not published due to the fundamental errors he made. From Wiki
Wiki writes:
Mayer was the first person to state the law of the conservation of energy, one of the most fundamental tenets of modern day physics. The law of the conservation of energy states that the total mechanical energy of a system remains constant in any isolated system of objects that interact with each other only by way of forces that are conservative.
Mayer's first attempt at stating the conservation of energy was a paper he sent to Johann Christian Poggendorff's Annalen der Physik, in which he postulated a conservation of force (Erhaltungssatz der Kraft). However, owing to Mayer's lack of advanced training in physics, it contained some fundamental mistakes and was not published.
Mayer continued to pursue the idea steadfastly and argued with the Tbingen physics professor Johann Gottlieb Nrremberg, who rejected his hypothesis. Nrremberg did, however, give Mayer a number of valuable suggestions on how the idea could be examined experimentally; for example, if kinetic energy transforms into heat energy, water should be warmed by vibration.
Mayer not only performed this demonstration, but determined also the quantitative factor of the transformation, calculating the mechanical equivalent of heat. The result of his investigations was published 1842 in the May edition of Justus von ***'s Annalen der Chemie und Pharmacie.[4] In his booklet Die organische Bewegung im Zusammenhang mit dem Stoffwechsel (The Organic Movement in Connection with the Metabolism, 1845) he specified the numerical value of the mechanical equivalent of heat: at first as 365 kgfm/kcal,[5] later as 425 kgfm/kcal; the modern values are 4.184 kJ/kcal (426.6 kgfm/kcal) for the thermochemical calorie and 4.1868 kJ/kcal (426.9 kgfm/kcal) for the international steam table calorie.
This relation implies that, although work and heat are different forms of energy, they can be transformed into one another. This law is called the first law of the caloric theory and led to the formulation of the general principle of conservation of energy, definitively stated by Hermann von Helmholtz in 1847.
Why do creationists love telling falsehoods so much? Isn’t there some kind of law in your holy books stating that lying is a sin and is punishable by eternal burning in some special place created just for sinners?
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Put in blank lines.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Chuck77, posted 07-26-2011 12:44 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Pressie, posted 07-26-2011 8:44 AM Pressie has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 63 of 73 (625868)
07-26-2011 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by PaulK
07-26-2011 2:13 AM


Re: Peer review and censorship
cmi writes:
Apart from the glaring inconsistencies in this line of argument (if young-earth research should only be taken seriously if it passes the peer-review of non young-earth scientists, then shouldn’t old-earth research only be taken seriously if it passes the peer-review of young-earth scientists? Are the ‘peers’ of old-earth scientists not also proponents of an old earth? Would this not cast serious doubt on the validity of their research?),
This one really made me laugh.
Where do we find a geologist who has studied any rock in South Africa and is a YEC? I mean, every single South African geologist, together with all the foreign geologists working here, accepts an old earth. There are currently close to 3 000 trained geologists working in the country. They can all wave their papers around proving that they were trained at recognized institutions. Every single one of them accepted an old earth after studying the evidence. In this case the evidence are the "rocks". Which is what geologists study.
Which YEC would peer-review my work on the Witwatersrand Supergroup (the one where we find all that gold), seeing that everybody who's ever studied anything about that Supergroup came to the conclusion that those rocks are old and are definitely not the result of a creation less than 10 000 years ago?
Of course we could get some "geologist" at CMI to pretend to "peer-review" the work, but what good is "peer-review" by someone who is not a peer and has never seen one of those rocks in his life?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by PaulK, posted 07-26-2011 2:13 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 65 of 73 (625870)
07-26-2011 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by caffeine
07-26-2011 4:31 AM


Re: Peer review and censorship
Any "paper" from creationists should be really closely examined, as no creationist organization is a scientific organization and non of them does any science at all. They all are anti-science. It is a given that they certainly will bring their religion into it. We all know that and we all know for a fact that they try to decieve people in every "article". We also all know that their deceit is camouflaged under some sciency sounding vocabulary. Therefore they have to be more critically reviewed. They flourish on deceit, as this is all they have.
Against that we all know that MIT does really good science. Scientists at MIT would actually be very well critiqued and their research will also be very well studied and discussed at the institution even before it is sent for publication. The name of MIT as a first-class institution will be tarnished if the research is found to be a bit off-color. You don't have to look for deceit, as this is normally weeded out at institutional level.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by caffeine, posted 07-26-2011 4:31 AM caffeine has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 66 of 73 (625890)
07-26-2011 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Pressie
07-26-2011 2:54 AM


Re: Peer review and censorship
Chuck77, are you going to have an answer on this? You answered me in another thread on something else. Why do you ignore this thread?.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Pressie, posted 07-26-2011 2:54 AM Pressie 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