(April 12, 2016 at 12:45 am)AAA Wrote:(April 12, 2016 at 12:05 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Having your fellow scientists review your published scientific papers, look at your ideas, and critique the potential faults in methodology and/or concept is indeed peer review. Thus the word, "peer".Ahh, so it's the publishing that makes it science, not the critical analysis of the person's work/hypothesis. I don't need to rely on what a court thinks about scientific ideas to examine it myself. If a court ruled evolution as unscientific would you concede?
ID/IC, having published nothing of serious scientific value that I've ever seen (yes, including the "not sufficient" crap you try to post), has yet to be peer reviewed. It has, however, been given its day in court-- a result you, oddly, seem to refuse to read.
There have been a few attempts to publish ID/IC-related content in peer-reviewed journals, and they were soundly ripped by the scientists who read those papers. In that sense, ID/IC has been peer-reviwed, I suppose. It simply failed... but hey, maybe you'll be like Newton, and eventually win people over with your sound methodology and data.
Also, I don't think I've ever posted or even read an ID paper for that matter. The only thing that I have done to learn about their position is read Signature in the Cell. All the other things I've talked about have been my own observations from the things i've learned in class. Sorry if they happen to coincide with ID's argument. And I would love to be like Newton. He's proof that one can be rational, scientific, and a Christian, something the person who started this thread seems to deny.
Being critically analyzed for the accuracy of your methodology, and thus your results is what matters. Simply being analyzed and found to fail counts, I suppose, but only in the most roundabout way.
And if a court of law found that evolution was unscientific, I'd sure as hell be curious about why the judge ruled as he did!
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
