Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(October 14, 2010 at 3:54 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You see that's funny because nobody has posted anything that was peer-reviewd.
Why would a video on youtube need to be "peer reviewed"? That's just ridiculous. The videos use established scientific principles that HAVE BEEN PEER REVIEWED. Unless they are proposing some new theory there is no reason to have the video "peer reviewed". This would be like demanding that my conclusion be "peer reviewed" when I say that light travels at 186,000 miles per second.
Quote:All I have observed is wikipedia and youtube.
And I haven't observed anything from you that supports the notion of a 6,000 year old Earth.
Quote:So of course I can emperically conclude that you guys base your conclusions on youtube since it is all you seem to argue with.
I can find youtube videos of brilliant people expounding on pretty much any subject. You can practically get college level instruction in your home. Just because something is on youtube doesn't mean it has no credibility.
Quote:I didn't even watch the video because I do not consider youtube a scholarly source.
So you have no idea what was on the video, and you scoff at it? This is the same attitude as people who want to ban books without having read them.
Quote: You shouldn't either Scooter.
My name isn't "Scooter". And I don't appreciate the condescension.
Quote:I really wish my old fourm didn't go away, at least the Atheists on there understood Science and tried to at least use Scientific sources.
Which I'm sure you disregarded. No matter how good their sources were.
By the way, you have not answered this question I posted for you:
So what do you think created the Earth?
A better question would be, "why would you use a video on youtube instead of a peer-reviewed source?"
Actually all the information I have presented came directly from peer-reviewed sources. If you will notice, I have not used Wiki or youtube becasue they are not scholarly sources. You can try and defend thema all you want, but I think the fact that you would defend the use of youtube in a discussion says a lot about you lol.
You may be able to find good information on youtube, but you can also find information that can back up anything you want. This is why it should never be used in a debate/discussion. There is absolutely no quality or method control on youtube. Feel free to keep using it for yourself but I will never stoop to that inferior level of source.
