(November 22, 2013 at 7:11 pm)Minimalist Wrote: And yet...he knows that your invisible sky-daddy is a massive pile of bullshit which puts him several miles up the ladder from you.

You’re such a bore. How does he know that? How do you know what he knows? Too easy.

(November 22, 2013 at 7:11 pm)Minimalist Wrote: And yet...he knows that your invisible sky-daddy is a massive pile of bullshit which puts him several miles up the ladder from you.

No need to avoid the central point in the name of politeness. Statler Wardork is a massive pile of bullshit. Its power of discernment and retention is about on par with any very wet puddle of excrement.

(November 22, 2013 at 7:39 pm)Chuck Wrote: No need to avoid the central point in the name of politeness. Statler Wardork is a massive pile of bullshit. Its power of discernment and retention is about on par with any very wet puddle of excrement.

I knew you’d be in here soon enough, you and Min really are cut from the same cloth. When you cannot beat me in debate…just call me names! I am relieved that nobody takes you and Min seriously on this forum.

(November 22, 2013 at 7:54 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I am relieved that nobody takes you and Min seriously on this forum.

I believe their reputation points, in comparison to yours, is in contrast to that assessment, Waldorf Salad.

(November 22, 2013 at 7:57 pm)Kitanetos Wrote: I believe their reputation points, in comparison to yours, is in contrast to that assessment, Waldorf Salad.

Is a person’s forum reputation a direct metric of how seriously others view their intellectual positions? I doubt that. Those two are here for sophomoric comic relief and nothing more I am afraid. It is troubling that you feel the need to fight their battles for them though.

An embarrassment even to less idiotic of christians. Wordork thinks his shit making machine of an existence can be given meaning by the simple expedient of sticking his finger in his ears, chanting "victory", and sidle off the stage.

(November 22, 2013 at 6:31 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: It’s a bit troubling that you idolize the peer-review system as the gold standard of science but then when something like this happens you merely waive it off.

And I find it telling that you'd focus in on the single fraud that made it through the net, rather than the decades of confirmed, demonstrable evidence that has come before and since, in addition to the numerous frauds and inaccuracies repelled by the same peer review process. It's this same "99%= 0% fallacy" that I warned you about in my initial post. But you'd prefer to just "waive off" the ninety nine percent, which is particularly ironic considering that you just chastised me for doing that with one example. How much more in the wrong must you be?

Quote: This was not a simple mistake that snuck by the reviewers this was an egregious (and rather obvious) fraud that snuck by for 40 years.

Would that be the forty years between the initial period of discovery where we lacked the tools to properly confirm the origins of Piltdown man, and it was displayed in museums as a composite collection of disparate parts and not a whole fossil, between which and its exposure the Piltdown collection spent all its time in storage, whereupon the first time it was brought out and re-examined by modern methods was completely debunked? That forty year period?

See, I did some research, Stat. Everything you said about this thing is at least partial misinformation. And in the process you've still ignored the fact that it was scientists- part of the same peer review process you sneer at- that eventually showed Piltdown to be a fraud. Peer review gets there in the end.

Here's a video for you: it's not all pertinent, but there's a nice part about the actual deal with Piltdown, and it's also got some good information on the logical fallacies you're committing by tossing out peer review based on three things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myfifz3C0...C&index=13

Quote: The reason this happened is because the reviewers wanted the Piltdown man to be genuine because it fit their narrative and theory.

Bullshit: why else would it be taken out of storage by scientists (aka: part of the review system) just to test it further, and why would they publish the findings that it wasn't real if all of science, especially the publishing side, is so against such things that it would be impossible to do so? You're just factually wrong here.

More importantly, you're stuck: if you want to continue doing as you have been and working under the idea that peer reviewers work for individual publications and are restricted there, rather than being the scientific community as a whole, then all you've revealed is that the editors of one single publication at one specific time were biased, not the entire scientific community, as you're striving to do. If you're willing to expand your scope and admit that peer review consists of the entire community, then your argument here is invalid simply because scientists were equally the ones who revealed all of these things to be fraudulent.

What you can't do, is what you're doing now, which is expanding and contracting your definition of peer review, sentence by sentence, in order to retain your dishonest viewpoint.

Oh, also? I find it interesting that, just a page after posting this, you admonished Min using the phrase "how do you know X." How do you know the only reason Piltdown was published was because it "fit the narrative," and not that, at the time, they were unable to test for the requisite inaccuracies?

Quote: This proves my point perfectly, if you are trying to capsize the boat your research will never get published no matter how solid it is and if your research supports the Darwinian model it will get published no matter how fraudulent it is.

Which explains why every single attempted evolutionary hoax has received either published retractions or corrections, and all of the doubts about those very hoaxes, expressed at the time they were made, are also on file in publication. Yes. You're clearly right here.

Quote: D
Time Magazine is not a peer-reviewed journal which proves my point. The peer-reviewed journal published the hoax and never caught it; it took a simple news magazine to catch the hoax.

Actually, it took the three scientists who, as I've said, are part of peer review, taking the Piltdown collection out of storage- where it had been kept off display because of pre-existing doubts as to its authenticity- and testing it with modern scientific means not available at the time of initial publication, and not available to news magazines either. Time published the findings: scientists made them.

Quote:Nope, I am saying that the institution he worked for caught the hoax, his peers approved the work to be published in Science.

Yes, it's called being wrong. Sometimes people do that, whereupon the correct response is to do exactly what all of these scientists did, which is publish corrections. You seem to be sneering at these guys for not having the balls to stick by an incorrect claim the way creationists do, here.

Quote:
Could you do me a favor and stop committing the fallacy of equivocation?

The moment you stop trying to discredit mainstream science by using individual journals, in that case.

Quote: We are clearly talking about the peer-review journal system (which published all of these hoaxes and caught none of them) and not peer review in the general sense of the term.

So then why cast mud at mainstream science because of a few journals? See, this is the problem: you're changing what you're talking about mid-stream. Either continue talking about journalistic peer review, in which case you've discredited individual journal editors at most, or expand your claim to science itself and be proven wrong. Stop retreating behind the smaller definition to avoid having to deal with your errors in using the larger one.

Quote: By your new usage of the term all creation science is therefore “peer-reviewed” because it is reviewed by other creationists (peers) after it is released. Now you have really painted yourself into a corner.

Not really; since creationists rarely have real scientific degrees given out by accredited educational sources, the credibility of their peer review just has to be reduced accordingly. The same thing I'd do if you gave me a scientific source peer reviewed by burger-flippers, since they have the same level of training as creation scientists do.

Quote:
We do not know whether it is unusual or not, who knows how many hoaxes have gone unexposed in such a corrupt system.

And your response to an unknown is to assume all are frauds, we already know.

Quote:Fallacy of equivocation again.

Only because I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed your initial equivocation was simple lack of education, and not the deliberate lie you've revealed it to be.

Quote:
What on Earth are you talking about? I am arguing against the adequacy of the peer-review journal system and advocating for a system more akin to what Darwin and Newton participated in and you’re tossing in red herrings about priests? You also seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that there are theological peer-reviewed journals; so not only was your point irrelevant but it was wrong.

Consider it a tertiary point, adjoining my main one. You're looking to throw out the entire peer review system based on a couple of frauds and the fact that you'd like there to be more but can't prove that; I'm saying the alternative is the same as creation sources: lies piled atop lies, made without fear of being corrected. As to your point about theological journals, they have two choices; they either discard their incorrect theological principles at the door and review the evidence unbiased, in which case they would find themselves agreeing with mainstream science, or they do not, in which case they go the route of creationism and let their presuppositions shape the evidence.

Quote:
Wrong again, using your new usage of the term “peer review”, creationism is just as peer-reviewed as any other science because it is reviewed by other creationists (peers). You’ve tied yourself in all sorts of knots now.

Name a single error that has ever been corrected by a creationist source, and not just swept under the rug. Because I don't see them correcting the definite errors in their publication record, like young earth creationism, intelligent design, irreducible complexity... what I see is the same refuted points trotted out time and again.

(November 22, 2013 at 7:34 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(November 22, 2013 at 7:11 pm)Minimalist Wrote: And yet...he knows that your invisible sky-daddy is a massive pile of bullshit which puts him several miles up the ladder from you.

You’re such a bore. How does he know that? How do you know what he knows? Too easy.

Better a bore than a bible-thumping shithead like you.

(November 22, 2013 at 7:10 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(November 22, 2013 at 6:47 pm)Brian37 Wrote: The data is in, the biblical stories are bullshit, the earth is 4 billion years old and the universe is 14 billion years old. Theists lack of understanding of science does not make their superstition real.

Assertions are fun but prove nothing. I find it funny that 50 years ago people like you would have been asserting that they knew the Universe was less than 10 billion years old, but now you know it is 14 billion years old. I wonder how old atheists will know it is 50 years from now? Too funny. To sum it up, you do not know anything.

Science adapts through testing, religion adapts through public relations and marketing.

Fishing for excuses to cling to invisible magical sky heros is not the same self correcting method scientific method is.

YES I FUCKING DO KNOW JACKASS!

There are no magic babies. There are no zombie gods who survive rigor mortis. You wont get 72 virgins in a fictional afterlife. There are no multiple armed deities. Thor does not make lightening. And the earth is not flat.

50 Years from now we will have even more knowledge of science than we do now and it wont require your myth or any human concocted myth.

Don't laugh at me moron, your the one with the fictional sky hero, not me.

(November 22, 2013 at 6:31 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Thanks for the clarification. What does a young galaxy look like compared to an old galaxy?

New knowledge about early galaxies

Quote:So would that be measured by a clock in Houston or a clock on the vessel? If we are measuring the delay using one clock on Earth then it will be identical under any synchrony convention.

Both, I believe. What I'm getting at, is that if the one way speed of light is infinite, then the reason for transmission delay is positional time dilation (unless I've missed something). But the time dilation should also cause either an expansion/contraction of frequency, respective to the relevant party.

Also, if the time dilation is caused by a change in position rather velocity, then the time dilation would continue for as long as that position is maintained. So the longer the Apollo astronauts were on the moon, the greater the difference in time would have become.

Quote:I think the problem here is that distance is a component of velocity, so it is impossible to move the clocks at different velocities without also forcing them to travel different distances. I’ll have to look more into this though. I really do not believe you are going to find anything inherently wrong with ASC (even the RationalWiki article on it states that the math does in fact work and that it is not wrong to use such a convention); the bigger question is whether or not the Bible is using this convention when it describes the events of creation week. That is the only real objection I have seen made to Lisle’s work.

At the risk of showing my ignorance, I thought that the components of velocity were speed and direction. I'd hardly consider myself to be an expert in relativity, however.

That being said, surely if time dilation is caused by a change in position, then the difference in passage of time would increase as long as that position is maintained. Unless of course I've completely misunderstand and it is literally the change of position rather than the position itself which causes the effect, but this would seem to go against Lisle's proposal.

Quote: Yes there’d be a bit of a gap, but technology did not develop nearly as fast back then so not a huge gap. Given the time Noah was given to build the vessel I believe it is completely feasible. Most of the technology advances seem to be applying more to vessels that needed to travel great distances and navigate; the ark just needed to float and remain floating.

True, but 2300BC is a lot closer to 2500BC than it is to 300BC, so to suggest that the ark would have been closer to ship building techniques used 2000 years later strikes me as special pleading. Also, while the ark may not have have to navigate, it would still have had to survive extreme oceanic conditions for a full year without an opportunity for refit. The prospect of a wooden ship that size surviving those conditions for that long, without the ability to make repairs in drydock, is at best highly implausable. When you factor in events such as tidal waves and rogue waves, the odds of survival shrink to virtually zero - and that's unladen.

It's survival would have basically necessitated direct intervention from god and if that's the case, then the ark was basically an unnecessary detail. You might as well have them all floating on a cloud for a year.

Quote:
He’ll never read that article, that would require work. I am not sure that such time dilations are indeed linear in nature. I believe the time delay is what gives us the instantaneous travel. An imperfect analogy would be time zones. If I fly from Boise, Idaho to Spokane, Washington I can leave Boise at 1PM and arrive in Spokane at 1PM. According to the clocks on the ground my flight was instantaneous. All we have when measuring the speed of light are “the clocks on the ground”. I may be off with this analogy but I have heard Lisle compare ASC to time zones before.

Hmmm, this seems to be an odd claim. If the instantaneous speed of light is merely an "illusion" caused by time dilations, then the speed isn't in fact instantaneous and therefore not location dependant.