(April 11, 2016 at 11:16 pm)AAA Wrote:

(April 11, 2016 at 10:43 pm)The_Empress Wrote: I'm sorry; what?? Newton has been regularly peer-reviewed for centuries.

Really? Because most of his writings weren't read until after he died. Also I still don't get why we can't interpret the peer-reviewed information for ourselves. If you agree that we can, then there is no point in us arguing about it.

I don't know why I keep coming back to this thread. My patience is wearing thin; not to mention the wall next to my computer.

(April 11, 2016 at 11:19 pm)AAA Wrote: So what having your interpretations criticized is peer-review? Well then intelligent design one of the most peer reviewed theories out there. 

No, being critiqued is not the same as being peer-reviewed.

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".

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.

(April 12, 2016 at 12:05 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(April 11, 2016 at 11:19 pm)AAA Wrote: So what having your interpretations criticized is peer-review? Well then intelligent design one of the most peer reviewed theories out there. 

No, being critiqued is not the same as being peer-reviewed.

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".

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.

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?

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.

Actually, some ID proponents have managed to start a few ID oriented "scientific" journals. Peer reviewed and all!

Here's one of them: http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/...ue/current

With an article titled "Model and Laboratory Demonstrations That Evolutionary Optimization Works Well Only If Preceded by Invention--Selection Itself Is Not Inventive"... Would you say those "peers" are unbiased?

(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".

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.

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?

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!

(April 11, 2016 at 7:06 pm)AAA Wrote:

(April 11, 2016 at 6:02 pm)Constable Dorfl Wrote: We also know he lies because of his constant boasts of being "a top biology student at a top college", yet he doesn't understand the simplest biological facts or theories, stuff that I learnt shortly after I started secondary school at age 11.

I never said I was "a top biology student at a top college". I'm a biology student who does well. Don't put words in my mouth.

Aww, poor you! Trying to row back on your previous pronouncements now that you've been found out on another lie.

(April 12, 2016 at 12:45 am)AAA Wrote: Ahh, so it's the publishing that makes it science, not the critical analysis of the person's work/hypothesis.

Critical being the operative word here. ID isn't accepted by science. Show me one ID thesis having graduated to an accepted scientific theory. I hope you know the term scientific theory as opposed to you having a theory. Which would be the first step in understanding peer review.

(April 11, 2016 at 7:21 pm)IATIA Wrote: This is the closest I could find.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-41553-po...pid1209598

Actually looking at the thread in question (Junk Status saying Iowa and catholic), I can narrow this down to at most seven universities/colleges possible. Lets go through them:

• Briar Cliff,[; possible, has a biology department
  
• Clarke University, which from their website is postgraduate courses only so out.
  
• Divine Word College, which looks to be a missionary college, and has no science department per their website.
  
• Loras College, which has biology, biochemistry and biological research, unlikely though because the college has the following:
  

  Quote:L.BIO-222: Evolution in Darwin’s CultureThis course is an in-depth introduction to the fundamentals of evolution and an exploration of cultural conflicts that arose because of the idea of evolution. The Origin of Species was published by Charles Darwin in 1859 and immediately started the first worldwide scientific debate. At this time in Victorian England the connections between science and nearly every other aspect of culture were becoming increasingly evident, and there was great tension about the role that science should play in a modern, industrial society. This course uses the “Reacting to the Past” experiential, role-playing game format where students will be reading, writing, and speaking from the perspective of a person in this time and place. The scientific and cultural issues of the time that will be discussed include natural selection and design; implications of Darwinism for: social reform, racial theories, and women’s rights; professionalization of science; and inductive/deductive reasoning. Cultural conflicts related to evolution have continued today even after years of verification of Darwin’s ideas. In the last week of the class, students will read and discuss a book on modern evolutionary facts, comparing it to Darwin’s writings, creationism, and Intelligent Design. Has the debate changed in modern culture? Prerequisites: L.LIB-220. 3 credits. January term. Dependent upon staff and demand.

• Mercy College of Health Sciences, a medical school that offers undergraduate courses, but no biology courses (though of course lots of biology involved)
  
• Mt. Mercy University, which also has a biology department
  
• Saint Ambrose University, also has biology department.

So we've now got four possibilities, but unfortunately for Junk Status all of their websites discuss their biology programmes in evolutionary terms, offering genetics and evolution modules from the modern scientific consensus that the modern synthesis is largely correct and the best explanation currently available for evolution.

So unless Junk Status is going to an unaccredited diploma mill, I'm going to have to state on the balance of probability he is lying through his arsehole.

(April 11, 2016 at 11:09 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(April 11, 2016 at 10:43 pm)The_Empress Wrote: I'm sorry; what?? Newton has been regularly peer-reviewed for centuries.

And it's a bald-faced lie. It was before the time of scientific journals, but not before peer review. Back then, the few major intellects wrote books and then criticized the works directly, in papers/essays. From one history article about Isaac Newton I found in a quick search:


"Newton was not without his critics, however. Many in the scientific community objected to Newton’s idea of gravity. They said that since he had no logical evidence or proof, then gravity was little more than a supernatural idea. Critics were especially vocal in France where Rene Descartes was the scientific guru that everybody looked up to. The Germans at the time were not too keen on some of Newton’s ideas, either, because they looked up to Gottfried Leibniz. Of course Newton's ideas were so cutting edge that many smart people of that time couldn't figure him out. When the Principia Mathematica came to print in 1686 many of the leading scholars couldn't understand what the whole point of calculus. I'm sure most high school students can sympathize. Many questioned Newton about the practicality of a book of abtract formulas and equations that didn't seem to have much to do with anything to do with "the real world".

The English also felt that Newton’s theories left no room for divine intervention as his laws proposed that the universe ran in a strict clockwork-like operation. In some cases, he was even accused of advocating for deism or, worse yet, atheism.

Newton addressed many of the criticisms from his critics when he published the second edition of the Philosophia Naturalis Principia Mathematica in 1713."

- From http://www.gohistorygo.com/#!isaac-newton/c1yfd

(Bold emphasis my own.)

From your quoted bit, they mischaracterise German distrust of Newton, because German natural philosophers thought Newton had stolen the ideas of the Calculus from Liebniz and passed them off as his own, while English natural philosophers argued the opposite. This ugly little spat actually lead to a long period of German and British mathematicians not talking to each other, most likely to the detriment of the British mathematical community (as Liebniz's differential & integral methods have more applications).

Modern supposition is that both men developed the branch of mathematics independently and almost at the same time (much like Darwin and Wallace on natural selection, though those two gents settled the matter far more amicably). (wiki)

The problem with Christians is that their idea of love is control.

"You're gay, and I love you. But you can't have sex with someone of the same gender. If you do, you'll go to hell. The problem is with you, and not with my god who decided to make some bullshit rules about who you can have sex with. You don't get to be happy, because God is more important."

"You're transgender, and I love you, but you can't undergo Sex reassignment surgery because that goes against God. You just have a mental illness that God gave you and expects you to live as the 'wrong' gender. And if you've already had the surgery, you have to use the bathroom of your birth sex, because otherwise the kids will be confused when they see what appears to be a woman in the women's room."

They listen to their god without question. He tells them he's loving, so they believe him. Because God wouldn't LIE! No. Sure, he drowned the fuck out of people, but that's all well and good because he's God. But if I drowned one of MY kids (It'd be the second oldest one) I'd be called a Lunatic. Even if I did it because he wasn't acting the way I wanted him to.