Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

[Love]

Incorrect, it's ultimately governed by demonstrable evidence and the reproduction thereof.

The "demonstrable evidence" to which you refer is ultimately worthless (in terms of establishing or disproving a theory) unless it has been sanctioned in the peer review process.

And?

Come on, sir, I am sure your debating skills are better than this!

A career can be made in science without ever advancing a hypothesis of one's own - merely by picking apart the problems of another's. Some fields have such prodigious scientists in this regard that successfully floating a hypothesis past them has become a rite of passage. Meanwhile - we still have plenty of examples of "fringe" or "ridiculed" science becoming the accepted and "authoritative" explanations.

Of course there are a multitude of career options in science, but this is totally irrelevant. I was discussing the peer review process (which I might add is ABSOLUTELY fundamental to the scientific method) and establishing/challenging theories. My point is as follows: to challenge a theory an individual/group of individuals must undertake the following actions: document his or her/their evidential findings, find a relevant and established academic journal, and submit it for peer review. Read the entire passage again (that you dismissed with "And?"), and you should be able to see where I am coming from.

[The Grand Nudger]

The "demonstrable evidence" to which you refer is ultimately worthless (in terms of establishing or disproving a theory) unless it has been sanctioned in the peer review process.

I'm just going to start calling flat out bullshit at this point. Try to float something through peer review without any of that "ultimately worthless" evidence attached. See how that works out for you, and get back to me.

Come on, sir, I am sure your debating skills are better than this!

And - as in, a non- point had been made.

Of course there are a multitude of career options in science, but this is totally irrelevant.

The word you're looking for is "inconvenient" not "irrelevant". It's -inconvenient- to your non-point.

I was discussing the peer review process (which I might add is ABSOLUTELY fundamental to the scientific method) and establishing/challenging theories. My point is as follows: to challenge a theory an individual/group of individuals must undertake the following actions: document his or her/their evidential findings, find a relevant and established academic journal, and submit it for peer review. Read the entire passage again (that you dismissed with "And?"), and you should be able to see where I am coming from.

I read it just fine the first time, a re-reading isn't going to redeem it.

[Minimalist]

GOOD-BYE FOREVER!!!

You fucking people can't ever keep a promise. Don't you know that jesus cries when you lie.

[Love]

I'm just going to start calling flat out bullshit at this point. Try to float something through peer review without any of that "ultimately worthless" evidence attached. See how that works out for you, and get back to me.

You are not reading my posts properly and you're twisting their meaning. I did not come anywhere near close to saying that any old garbage can get through the scientific peer review system. If you re-read my posts properly, you will see that my points are very plain and simple: (1) nothing in science is taken seriously unless it has been verified in the peer review system, and (2) the peer reviewers are human beings, and there is a distinct possibility that one reviewer of the submitted evidence could potentially interpret it in a completely different manner from another reviewer. To repeat, this is one of the main reasons why the mathematical formalisms in quantum mechanics are interpreted in a multitude of different ways.

[LastPoet]

To the contrary of the bullshit you and your ilk spew out, 'Love', science actually works. Contrary to religions, science actually helps people in a tangible way.

You came to this forum demanding intelectual honesty, something you fail to have

[The Grand Nudger]

You are not reading my posts properly and you're twisting their meaning. I did not come anywhere near close to saying that any old garbage can get through the scientific peer review system. If you re-read my posts properly, you will see that my points are very plain and simple: (1) nothing in science is taken seriously unless it has been verified in the peer review system,

1A verification requires reproducible evidence with at least the possibility of falsification- and this is a requirement.

and (2) the peer reviewers are human beings, and there is a distinct possibility that one reviewer of the submitted evidence could potentially interpret it in a completely different manner from another reviewer.

2b there are many reviewers, each with incentives to challenge any given interpretation. This isn't a weakness of the method.......it's one of it's most obvious strengths.

To repeat, this is one of the main reasons why the mathematical formalisms in quantum mechanics are interpreted in a multitude of different ways.

No, the main reason is that thusfar experiments in these areas have not been conclusive enough (largely because they are exceedingly difficult to devise)to put the level of confidence required behind one interpretation or another forward as "the" interpretation- Which is business as usual, and hasn't prevented us from reaching a "best explanation" in the past. Perhaps here it will, I'm not a fortune teller - but regardless it does not to help establish any non-point you've been attempting to make.

The general gist of your objections - from the start- have been that science does not provide, (to your statisfaction, as what else could we be refrencing here) something which it lays no claim to providing - in the timeframe that you demand that it do so - namely the present (nowhere have you given a nod - especially troublesome in -this- thread, to varying interpretations of some other area of science, like biology - that have been laid to rest not in spite of differing interpretations, but -because- of them). To which I say "no shit..and?"

[Love]

To the contrary of the bullshit you and your ilk spew out, 'Love', science actually works. Contrary to religions, science actually helps people in a tangible way.

You came to this forum demanding intelectual honesty, something you fail to have

Terrific debating skills.

At which point did I ever say that science does not work? Firstly, you have spelled "intellectual" incorrectly, and secondly, find a reply or replies in which you perceive that I have been intellectually dishonest, and we can have a discussion about it.

Also, I suggest that you stop wasting your time with petty and vacuous replies and actually make a contribution to the discussion.

[The Grand Nudger]

To be completely blunt, I'm positively baffled as to how you've maintained the pleasant fiction that we're even having a discussion about science after having made such a woeful statement about how "ultimately worthless" evidence was with regards to peer review.

[Love]

To be completely blunt, I'm positively baffled as to how you've maintained the pleasant fiction that we're even having a discussion about science after having made such a woeful statement about how "ultimately worthless" evidence was with regards to peer review.

Mate, you're getting all hung up on the "ultimately worthless" statement. It is not vital to the point I am making. I am not trying to be awkward here, I really do think you are missing my point.

[The Grand Nudger]

Then rephrase it, or make it, (minus ridiculous statements which apparently didn't have to be made anyway) rather than complaining about how I "don't get it". That is a failure of your own, as the communicator of whatever idea you're trying to convey.