The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old

[Esquilax]

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?

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.