Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9038 total)
241 online now:
DrJones* (1 member, 240 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,693 Year: 3,339/14,102 Month: 280/724 Week: 38/91 Day: 3/3 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peer Review or BUST??
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 73 (619178)
06-09-2011 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by nwr
06-07-2011 9:56 AM


From nwr "If those articles are available, then you can certainly cite them in posts here. Expect criticism, particularly criticism about bad methodology."

Thanks nwr, I plan on it. But im sure it's nothing that hasn;t been covered before. We'll see.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by nwr, posted 06-07-2011 9:56 AM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2177
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 17 of 73 (619179)
06-09-2011 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Chuck77
06-09-2011 12:23 AM


No mention of God whatsoevr in any Scientific discussions.

I agree it's a travesty that the Truth of Odin the Allfather isn't being included in science.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Chuck77, posted 06-09-2011 12:23 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Chuck77, posted 06-09-2011 12:31 AM DrJones* has responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 73 (619180)
06-09-2011 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Dr Adequate
06-07-2011 6:30 AM


From Dr Adequate "But this is not true. Hardly any creationists submit their stuff to scientific journals; but when they do they are certainly reviewed. And then rejected 'cos of being crap:"

Really? How would you know it's crap if it never gets a chance? Please, don't tell me they don;t submit them. They sure used to and will good cause, but they refuse to publish any of them and the ONE time they do the guy gets fired for it! You know Stephen Meyers wonderful paper that was said to not have gone thru proper review. Thats a lie. It went thru three respevted Scientists hands before being published byu Eugenie Scott and the rest of the anti god crew were besides themselves and the editor got fired becaise he went against the TOE and let another view in. So after that do you REALLY think anyone will ever publish another article from and ID'er or Creationist. Nope.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-07-2011 6:30 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by PaulK, posted 06-09-2011 2:18 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-10-2011 4:19 AM Chuck77 has responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 73 (619181)
06-09-2011 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by DrJones*
06-09-2011 12:27 AM


Im sorry, Dr Jones, is there some big following and tons of evidence of this Odin for the last 2000 years that he would be worthy of mention?

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by DrJones*, posted 06-09-2011 12:27 AM DrJones* has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by DrJones*, posted 06-09-2011 12:33 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2177
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 20 of 73 (619183)
06-09-2011 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Chuck77
06-09-2011 12:31 AM


Im sorry, Dr Jones, is there is big following of this Odin for the last 2000 years that he would be worthy of mention?

Since when did popularity affect the Truth? What god would you want inserted into science? Zeus? Shiva? Xenu? Vulcan?

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Chuck77, posted 06-09-2011 12:31 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3934
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 21 of 73 (619184)
06-09-2011 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Chuck77
06-09-2011 12:15 AM


I guess we could do it again, but...
I think i'll start will Stephen Meyers peer reviewed article on " Intelligent Design-The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories" Published by the proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.

... there is a 201 message, existing topic on the matter.

Meyer's Hopeless Monster

It's even still open.

Adminnemooseus


Please be familiar with the various topics and other links in the "Essential Links", found in the top of the page menu. Amongst other things, this is where to find where to report various forum problems.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Chuck77, posted 06-09-2011 12:15 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Chuck77, posted 06-09-2011 1:52 AM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply
 Message 25 by Chuck77, posted 06-09-2011 5:16 AM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 73 (619189)
06-09-2011 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Adminnemooseus
06-09-2011 12:40 AM


Re: I guess we could do it again, but...
Oh great, thanks Adminnemooseus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-09-2011 12:40 AM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16861
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 23 of 73 (619190)
06-09-2011 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Chuck77
06-09-2011 12:29 AM


If you have any evidence of a creationist paper being wrongly rejected then I would like to see it.

Note that this requires evidence that the paper is in fact worthy of publication and evidence of multiple submissions to appropriate journals. (Even good papers can receive multiple rejections before being being published so you're going to need some pretty good evidence before you can show that the claim is actually true).

Also note the paper written by Behe & Snokes WAS published (despite not being very good). So any claim of a conspiracy preventing all publication needs to deal with that fact.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Chuck77, posted 06-09-2011 12:29 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2931
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 24 of 73 (619196)
06-09-2011 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Chuck77
06-09-2011 12:23 AM


No mention of God whatsoever in any Scientific discussions.

Well thats because using an unknown to anwser an unknown is silly.

Publishing a paper that a god or an intelligent designer or whatever poofed everything into exsistance the way it is today requires some evidence to back up your claim. And you haveto explain all the other observations by your new hypothesis (or better yet idea).

You haveto explain why every dating method known to man shows that the erth is older then 6000 ears old.

You have to explain away the overwhelming evidence for evolution literary tones uppon tones of it.

You have to find an instance where the laws of physics where suspended by your imaginary friend if you want to call him a supernatural all powerfull being or in other words god.

You provided the claim you have to back it up by evidence writing a paper saying god is responsible for this or that without any hard evidence behind it will only get you ridiculed.

A few replys further you replied to an offtopic message with something like

What did Odin that was so special in the last 2000 years

Well he gave his warriors the berserker rage we have written accounts of this phenomenon by outside sources not only the warriors themselves and the people from that particular religion something that your Christianity lacs.

An Arab scholar wrote the berserker warriors put themselves in a bestial rage before battle or any hard work they bite the edges of their shields and after their ritual they are capable of of lifting huge wights with ease, and in battle they are seemingly immune to slashing and piercing weapons.

Not one outside source for your Jesus rising from the grave, turning water in to wine .....

Richard Dawkins is the the anwser to creationist propaganda he just got fed up with creationist lies and started to "preach" the "atheist gospel".

I suppose the God delusion by Richard Dawkins is trying to prove the existance of God? Or the flying spagetti monster I forget?

Neither he is trying to get you to poen your mind and get you to see your own delusion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Chuck77, posted 06-09-2011 12:23 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 73 (619203)
06-09-2011 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Adminnemooseus
06-09-2011 12:40 AM


Re: I guess we could do it again, but...
From Adminnemooseus:

" there is a 201 message, existing topic on the matter. It's even still open."

Great, I wonder what it would be like here if ALL the moderators weren't Evolutionists. He wants to send me to a thread where the last comment was in 2005.....besides his that was in 2009 as a follow up of the 2005 comment. Yeah, thanks. In other words buzz off. Gotcha. I know it's just crazy to actualy want to maybe start a new thread on it and not comment on one that is 6 yrs old. Too much to ask I suppose. I already feel cramped here. It's the evo way or the highway. Seems fair.

{Adminnemooseus is responding to this via Private Message - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Private message comment.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-09-2011 12:40 AM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Wounded King, posted 06-09-2011 6:36 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 27 by Son, posted 06-09-2011 9:37 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 28 by NoNukes, posted 06-09-2011 10:30 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 31 by misha, posted 06-09-2011 11:48 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2997 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 26 of 73 (619210)
06-09-2011 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Chuck77
06-09-2011 5:16 AM


Re: I guess we could do it again, but...
So even though you yourself acknowledge that the topic you intend to bring up has been discussed before in depth you still want a brand new thread to discuss it and plan to ignore the old one and presumably the other two or three threads there have been on the topic? What you have done here is precisely demonstrate why so many creationists/IDists get accused of presenting PRATTS.

It is an especially succinct demonstration since some of your claims, such as Richard Sternberg having been fired as a result, are so demonstrably false.

Richard Sternberg writes:

In October of 2003 I resigned as managing editor of the Proceedings; after almost two years I was tiring of my editorial responsibilities and eager to have more time for my own research and writing.

So he resigned before the paper was even published, he was not fired.

This demonstrates another aspect of PRATTS, that some of us just can't help ourselves when it comes to responding to them.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Chuck77, posted 06-09-2011 5:16 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Son
Member (Idle past 2732 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 27 of 73 (619232)
06-09-2011 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Chuck77
06-09-2011 5:16 AM


Re: I guess we could do it again, but...
The thing is that when you respond to an old thread, it's put back on top for all to see. This way, you don't need to make too many topic on the same subject and those entering the old thread can see what others had already said about this topic as well as your new message. This way, we can avoid repetition.

And before you're claiming persecution: http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?control=msg&t=15616
As you can see, evolutionists and creationists are treated the same way. Here Frako is also redirected to older threads.

Edited by Son, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Chuck77, posted 06-09-2011 5:16 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 73 (619253)
06-09-2011 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Chuck77
06-09-2011 5:16 AM


Re: I guess we could do it again, but...

Edited by NoNukes, : Redundant. See Son's post


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Chuck77, posted 06-09-2011 5:16 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 252 days)
Posts: 5409
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 29 of 73 (619275)
06-09-2011 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Chuck77
06-09-2011 12:23 AM


Chuck77 writes:

I suppose the God delusion by Richard Dawkins is trying to prove the existance of God?

Hi Chuck

If you are interested there is information around that refutes Dawkins book. Here is a book by Alister McGrath that is well written.

The Dawkins Delusion

Or here is a preview of a debate between Dawkins and John Lennox

Lennox-Dawkins debate preview

McGrath and Lennox are both Christians although not creationists in the way that we use the term here, but it will give you a place to start.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Chuck77, posted 06-09-2011 12:23 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Panda, posted 06-09-2011 11:33 AM GDR has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2615 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 30 of 73 (619290)
06-09-2011 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by GDR
06-09-2011 11:14 AM


GDR writes:

If you are interested there is information around that refutes Dawkins book. Here is a book by Alister McGrath that is well written.

The Dawkins Delusion

quote:
As a Christian who takes this debate seriously I am almost insulted at the level of argument that is presented by the McGraths. Since reading the God Delusion I had been hoping someone would take on Dawkins. I was extremely disappointed to find that this book falls far short of its claim to do exactly that.
quote:
Why was he only able to come up with 96 large print pages against Dawkins's 400 page behemoth? I left the book feeling that McGrath hadn't really tried to respond to Dawkins. He feels like he just gave up half way through. The majority of "The God Delusion" remains completely unmentioned, unrefuted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by GDR, posted 06-09-2011 11:14 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by GDR, posted 06-09-2011 1:32 PM Panda has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021