Vestiges for Peter B.

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 wishes
Peter

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear whoever,
whomever
Inresponse to:

​

"JM: Of course, the alternative answer is that your paper was not Nature material. Nature rejects many manuscripts, there are other places one can publish. Don't start with the conspiracy because you got a paper rejected. You'll quit before you start. Did Nature send your article out for review or was it rejected by the board? If you got reviews, you can use the critiques to sharpen your argument. If the board rejected it, why not try a different journal. Don't resort automatically to conspiracy.

​

You say:
"Like most creationists he likes to start at the top instead of working his way up through a gradual process and adapting his paper because it is perfect already. "

​

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 wishes
Peter

---

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]

[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 wishes
Peter[/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.CheersJoe Meert

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

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?

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
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 wishes
Peter

---

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.

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]

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
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

---

So, what journals are you going to submit your current Biology work to, other than "Science"?

quote:

---

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!

---

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.

"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.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"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.

​

---

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.

"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.------------------

quote:

---

However, yes, you are right that someone could technically be defined as a Creationist if they believe in, say, Theistic evolution, or in Deism.

---

But around here, someone who believes in theistic evolution is defined as an evolutionist.Now, for the record, what is "Deism"?Moose

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:

quote:

---

However, yes, you are right that someone could technically be defined as a Creationist if they believe in, say, Theistic evolution, or in Deism.

---

​

But around here, someone who believes in theistic evolution is defined as an evolutionist.

​

Now, for the record, what is "Deism"?

​

Moose

---

Deism:
1. The form of theological rationalism that believes in God on the basis of reason without reference to revelationIn other words, "God doesn't live here anymore."