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!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 11:04 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Pranking Christian call show
#31
RE: Pranking Christian call show
(August 12, 2013 at 6:29 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Sure it has. Their predictions about vestigial organs actually serving purposes, residual Carbon in oil, diamonds, and coal, helium retention rates, magnetic field reversals, the magnetic field strengths of both Neptune and Uranus prior to Voyager, and “junk” DNA being a myth were all accurate just to name a few. Perhaps you should read up a bit on the subject matter.

Could you provide some sources, please?


Quote:
Recognized by whom? I smell, “Science is whatever scientists do!”

Your wording is a bit dishonest, but basically, yeah. Who else would decide what science is? There's a fairly rigorous framework in place designed to weed out inaccuracies, and sure it relies on majority participation, but so does everything else.

Quote:I already did bub. See above; so yes, creationism is testable, check! Tongue

I'll happily read through links if you feel like providing them, but I don't feel like weeding through creationist crap to get to the pertinent articles. You've probably got more experience examining this stuff, so show me something interesting. Tongue

Quote:
All you’ve done here is illuminate your ignorance on the subject matter. Here’s several articles filled with many arguments creationists used to view as scientifically valid but no longer believe are valid due to new evidence coming forth (some of the arguments were never viewed as valid by the leading creation groups)….

Oh my...

So, first of all, when the very first line of the article you're quoting states that the author's "primary authority is the infallible word of god," the implication being that they won't change their minds on their central hypothesis, I wouldn't say that these guys are all that interested in being falsified, so much as not being embarrassed by using easily refutable answers in an age of information that can slap them down with a few taps of a smartphone.

Hell, Answers in Genesis has a similar article that, first of all, asserts the same unwillingness to change their minds on the core issue, and then outright states that the reason they're warding people away from these arguments it to avoid losing credibility. One wonders if they'd be doing the same in a world without the internet.

Quote:So yes, creationism is falsifiable and self-correcting, check!

And yet, they hang onto their core belief doggedly... Doesn't Answers in Genesis also have a statement of faith that any evidence that contradicts the bible is wrong by definition, up there? Why would you ever cite those fuckers as a source of falsifiability?


Quote:
Again, you’re apparent lack of understanding of the subject matter is embarrassing. Science does allow for the inference of design and intelligent causes, so proposing God as a creative agent is not ruled out a priori. You seem to be confounding agency with mechanism. Secondly, the creation model has made several very accurate predictions. So it does hold very powerful explanatory power! Check!

You seem to have skipped over my central point, that answering questions with "god" gets us no closer to actually finding out how everything got where it was.

And by all means, show those accurate creationist predictions. Don't just assert them.

Quote:
Again, just plain off the mark. Peer-review is not a necessity for something to be considered science, some of the best science ever done was never peer-reviewed (Newton’s “Principia Mathematica” and Einstein’s “Relativity, The Special and General Theory” come to mind, or are those two not “real” scientists either? Tongue) while some of the worst science was peer-reviewed (the Piltdown man hoax, and Woo-suk’s fraudulent research on embryology come to mind). So this is an improper standard. That being said, creationists still surpass it. Dr. Baumgardner’s work entitled, “The enigma of the ubiquity of 14C in organic samples older than 100 ka” was published in the mainstream peer-reviewed journal Transactions of the American Geophysical Union issue number 84. Dr. Humphrey’s work entitled, “Recently measured helium diffusion rate for zircon suggests inconsistency with U-Pb age for Awards Fenton Hill granodiorite” was also published in the same issue. Dr. Meyer’s article, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories” was published in the mainstream journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. So…check!

It might be an imperfect standard, but not improper; there's a reason peer review tends to bestow credibility. Your objections about hoaxes being peer reviewed are kind of nullified by the fact that it was the scientific community that marked them as hoaxes and publicised them as such, too: that's the point of peer review. It doesn't just end when something gets published. Same deal with Einstein and Newton's work: they may not have been initially peer reviewed, but their works stand or fall on their own. Peer review is a constant process, not one that ends upon publication.

On that note, I'll try looking up those works you list tonight, once I'm at home. Should be interesting.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee

Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Reply
#32
RE: Pranking Christian call show
(August 12, 2013 at 7:26 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: All you've proven with this novel of a post is that Christians are experts at apologetics.

If by apologetics you mean a defense of one’s position, then yes I agree.

Quote: Also, regarding the Scientific community as a Big Boys' club proves how ignorant you are trying to remain by trying to convince others that science has it out for God.

The secular scientific community doesn’t only have it out for God; they have it out for any theory that opposes their Darwinism. Several of you have already admitted that you’ve ruled out the “God hypothesis” as a valid scientific explanation a priori; but then you turn around and try to claim that your view of science doesn’t have it out for God? Ironic to say the least.

Quote: There would have to be a god first for them to be out for him, and, as it currently stands, the evidence is quite lacking in the god department.

No, the very notion of evidence and science prove that God exists. That’s conclusive support.

Quote: Also, if the Scientists really are in a club of their own, they get to decide what's science and what's not.

Nope, that’s a circular argument. Since a scientist is simply defined as a person who does science, then we would not be able to tell who the scientists are without first having a clear definition of science. I could just as easily define only creationists as “real” scientists, and then use your same argument to justify my reasoning, “Well since they are the only real scientists then they get to determine what the definition of science is.” I am sorry but it does not work that way. Science has a specific meaning, and what creationists and secularists do both fit that definition, so they are both scientists.


Quote: Seeing as they don't regard Creationism as a science, your argument is still falling flat.

Creationists founded modern science; not only this but creation science fulfilled all of the criteria provided by you all for something being “real” science, so it seems it’s your argument that is falling flat. By the way, “secular scientists don’t like creationists” is not an argument.

(August 13, 2013 at 4:58 am)Esquilax Wrote: Could you provide some sources, please?

I could. I am not sure why I always seem to have to do the heavy lifting for you though; it’s not like you’re going to admit you were wrong anyways.

Humphrey’s predictions about what we should find if the Earth’s magnetic field had undergone rapid reversals were first published in the article, “Reversals of the earth’s magnetic field during the Genesis Flood” which was published in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, and later in his article entitled, “Has the earth’s magnetic field ever flipped?” in Creation Research Society Quarterly number 25 in 1988. Humphrey’s predictions were confirmed and detailed in his article in 1990 entitled, “New evidence for rapid reversals of the earth’s magnetic field” published in Creation Research Society Quarterly issue number 26. Additional findings confirming his predictions were also published in Coe and Prévot’s article entitled, “Evidence suggesting extremely rapid field variation during a geomagnetic reversal” published in Earth and Planetary Science Letter issue number 92.
In 1984 Humphreys also predicted in his article appearing in Creation Research Society Quarterly issue 21 entitled, “The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields” that due to the hydrologic creation of planets that the magnetic fields of both Uranus and Neptune should be 100,000 times weaker than expected from the deep time model, his predictions were confirmed by the Voyager II mission. Humphrey’s details these findings in his article, “Beyond Neptune: Voyager II supports creation” appearing in Impact issue number 203. [In that same 1984 article Humphreys also predicted the following: Pluto would not have any appreciable magnetic moment at present, Mercury's magnetic field decay rate is so rapid that some future probe could detect it, and in 1990 the planet's magnetic moment should be 1.8 percent smaller than its 1975 value, and older igneous rocks from Mercury or Mars should have natural remnant magnetization, as the Moon's rocks do. All of these predictions were later verified by secular astronomers and are still accepted today.]
.
Humphreys and Baumgardner have made additional accurate predictions detailed in the two secular articles I already referenced for you.
Accurate predictions concerning the death of the “Junk DNA” Hypothesis appear in Woodmorappe’s article, “Potentially decisive evidence against pseudogene ‘shared mistakes’” appearing in the Journal of Creation issue number 18, 2004.
Baumgardner predicted in the initial stages of the RATE research project that measurable levels of C14 should be detectible in organic matter supposed to be far older than the upper limit placed on radiocarbon dating. His predictions were verified during the project and are detailed in the article, “Measurable 14C in fossilized organic materials: confirming the young earth creation-flood model” published in the 5th International Conference on Creationism journal.

Quote:
Your wording is a bit dishonest, but basically, yeah. Who else would decide what science is? There's a fairly rigorous framework in place designed to weed out inaccuracies, and sure it relies on majority participation, but so does everything else.

Without a clear definition of science it is impossible to know who the scientists are, so that’s not going to work. Secondly, scientific facts are not determined by majority opinion or consensus, that’s a very common lay person’s misconception of science. The history of science has taught us that actual scientific facts are often in direct opposition to what the majority of scientists believe at that period in time (see Steady State Theory in the 1920s).

Quote:So, first of all, when the very first line of the article you're quoting states that the author's "primary authority is the infallible word of god," the implication being that they won't change their minds on their central hypothesis, I wouldn't say that these guys are all that interested in being falsified, so much as not being embarrassed by using easily refutable answers in an age of information that can slap them down with a few taps of a smartphone.

So rather than admit you were wrong about Creationists never updating their arguments you want to change the subject to axioms? Scientists are allowed to hold axioms, and all do. Creationists are simply intellectually honest enough to identify theirs, so that’s a moot point.

Quote: i] One wonders if they'd be doing the same in a world without the internet.

They used to publish the same article periodically in Creation magazine and TJ prior to the internet, so that answers that question.

Quote:And yet, they hang onto their core belief doggedly...

Scientists are allowed to possess axioms, and evidence cannot contradict your axioms. Secular sciences adhere to naturalism and uniformity of natural law axiomatically; they also adhere to the axiom that the material world is knowable- none of these are provable or questionable and yet you still consider them to be “real” scientists. You’re not allowed to hold creationists to a different set of rules.


Quote: You seem to have skipped over my central point, that answering questions with "god" gets us no closer to actually finding out how everything got where it was.

Sure it does, it answers the question perfectly. When two anthropologists are examining a pile of rocks stacked upon a high bluff, and one says, “You know, I think a Native American boy created this monument 300 years ago…”
The other one doesn’t snap back, “Stop it! That does not have any explanatory power! I thought you were a real scientist! We have to propose a completely non-intelligent and unguided natural mechanism for how these rocks were stacked upon the top of this bluff!”
Of course you could propose some bizarre natural mechanism involving strong and yet sporadic winds as to explain how those rocks were stacked so neatly on top of the mountain, but you’d be wrong and still no more scientific than the person proposing the creative intelligence. Intelligent agency is a very scientific and useful explanation.

Quote: It might be an imperfect standard, but not improper; there's a reason peer review tends to bestow credibility.

Actually the biggest scientific breakthroughs are often not published in peer-reviewed journals, but rather in scientific works published by the author.

Quote: Your objections about hoaxes being peer reviewed are kind of nullified by the fact that it was the scientific community that marked them as hoaxes and publicised them as such, too: that's the point of peer review.

No, the hoaxes were not identified by anyone on the peer-review board; it was always someone examining the findings from the outside. If your findings agree with the paradigm accepted by the reviewers or even just the editor of the journal, you’ll get published. It’s a corrupt system. The Piltdown man hoax was not exposed for 40 years. The German anthropologist Reiner Protsch von Zieten published fraudulent and fabricated findings in numerous scientific journals for 30 years. However, since his findings were supporting the accepted paradigm concerning the evolution of modern man nobody rejected any of his work for publication. It was not until upon a whim that Oxford University decided to radio-carbon date a few of his fossils that they found that rather than being tens of thousands of years old, most were only a few thousand years old (one of which was less than 300 years old).

Quote: ItSame deal with Einstein and Newton's work: they may not have been initially peer reviewed, but their works stand or fall on their own.

Yes, which is why peer-review is not a necessary criteria for a work to be considered good science. Wink
Reply
#33
RE: Pranking Christian call show
So according to your infinite wisdom as the chosen one, you have now redefined what it means to do science. Apparently, you've reasoned your way into believing that it's not the scientists that decide what's science. This is not only demonstrably wrong (we thankfully don't even have to go so far to prove that to you) but you are obviously wrong. I just feel bad for you. It must be really hard to perform so much mental gymnastics just to get the facts to look like they line up with your world view.
[Image: 10314461_875206779161622_3907189760171701548_n.jpg]
Reply
#34
RE: Pranking Christian call show
(August 2, 2013 at 12:47 am)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote:
(August 1, 2013 at 7:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Sure, it is.

HAHAHA, no, it really isn't, lol. Which branch of science presupposes something based on no evidence, and after being told it's wrong by other branches of science repeatedly, still insists it's right despite not having found any evidence?

Name me one, just one.

How about christian science? LOLOLOLOL
Reply
#35
RE: Pranking Christian call show
(August 14, 2013 at 6:55 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: you have now redefined what it means to do science.

Nope. Obtaining an understanding or knowledge of the natural world through experimentation and observation is a widely accepted definition for science. You just failed to ever look it up before you jumped into this discussion, that’s not surprising.

Quote: Apparently, you've reasoned your way into believing that it's not the scientists that decide what's science.

Weren’t you ever taught you cannot use a form of the word you’re trying to define in your definition?
“Science- Whatever SCIENtists say it is.”

Scientist- an expert in science. (Webster’s)

Ok, how do you know who the scientists are without first knowing what science means? You’re becoming the king of tautology.

Quote: This is not only demonstrably wrong (we thankfully don't even have to go so far to prove that to you) but you are obviously wrong. I just feel bad for you. It must be really hard to perform so much mental gymnastics just to get the facts to look like they line up with your world view.

Assertions won’t get you far here. I’ve already pointed out the fallacious circularity of your argument, you can either remain irrational or revise your argument- frankly, I do not care which you choose.


You: “Science is whatever scientists say it is because scientists do science which is whatever scientists say it is because scientists do science and science is whatever scientists say it is because scientists do science and science is whatever scientists say it is because scientists do science and science is whatever scientists say it is because scientists do science and science is whatever scientists say it is because scientists do science and science is whatever scientists say it is because scientists do science which is whatever scientists say it is because scientists do science and science is whatever scientists say it is because scientists do science and scientists say it is because scientists do science!”

Me: Ok, but what is a scientist?
You: Someone who does science.
Me: Ok, then what is science?
You: Whatever a scientists says it is.
Me: Then how do I know who a scientist is?
You: He’ll be doing science.
Me: Ok, but how do I know what science is?
You: Ask a scientist.
Me: Ok, how do know who a scientist is?
You: He’ll be doing science.

Around and around we go!
Reply
#36
RE: Pranking Christian call show
(August 2, 2013 at 8:03 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Name one person out of the top individuals in the scientific community that's accepts Creationism as a science. The fact that they don't is all the evidence I need to back up my claim. 15% of the scientific community may still believe in a creator, but they hold these views outside of their scientific obligations.

Well, Raymond Damadian (pioneer of the MRI) is a YEC. Which is why he isn't a biologist. I've looked it up, and found that if there are any respected scientists who accept the biblical accounts of creation, they'll invariably be in a field where it doesn't matter as much as in biology.

And, seriously, SW, if you want us to take your story about a fake creationist article getting rejected for bad methodology seriously, you'll have to at least name names. Who were these guys? What journals rejected them? I tried googling the story as you told it and found absolutely nothing.
Comparing the Universal Oneness of All Life to Yo Mama since 2010.

[Image: harmlesskitchen.png]

I was born with the gift of laughter and a sense the world is mad.
Reply
#37
RE: Pranking Christian call show
(August 12, 2013 at 6:29 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:
(August 3, 2013 at 7:40 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: As someone who is in the academic community in the UK, and also being engaged to a scientist who is a member of one of the worlds highest impacting microbiology teams, I'm yet to meet one person who thinks creation 'science' is a science.

You need to meet more people apparently; either way that point is irrelevant.

Theologists, you mean? No need, my second supervisor is actually a theologist. But really, I'd take the opinion of people who work in science over those who don't.

Common sense really. Creation science doesn't exist, because its nonsense.
(August 12, 2013 at 6:29 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:
Quote: Creationism doesn't feature in any research department I know of, well, except theology, but that's not a real subject anyway.

The circularity is palpable.

It's not circular to say that something that isn't a science isn't a science.

RE: 'biggest breakthroughs aren't published in peer reviewed articles'

That's not true.

[Aside from the vagueness of 'most'] Whilst, true, many research breakthroughs aren't published in their entirety in journals, in almost all cases labs/researchers will publish data sets and methodologies in journals that are peer reviwed to gauge both the reception of their data by competitors and dis-interested parties, as well as ensuring that their menthodologies per se are scientifically sound.

Case in point, PhD theses. Very rarely are they published in their entirety in journals, but almost all phd students will publish sections of their theses in journals either as students or post-docs. It's the difference between a good thesis and a 'bend the shelf' thesis.

You also seem to presume that authors of research will often just publish stuff in (say) a book without any review at all.

Nonsense. All aceademic books worth their weight are reviewed by editors, publishers, and, yes, their peers in peer review. Research in contemporary science literature that's worth the paper it's written on will be be peer reviwed in some shape or form during the course of its inception to publication. This is a fact. Most academic texts for example (including text books for undergraduates) will have chapters published in research journals of varying impact factors for validation (among other things; advertising for one).

Also, did you know that a lot of scientific research today is done in collaborative partnerships with institutions around the world? Many hundreds of millions of pounds can go into research sometimes, and often it will necessitate a collaborative effort form various researchers, sometimes in different field (eg CERN as one example). Internal and external peer review is one the staples of such partnerships as many interested parties means that everyone will wish for the research to be as transparent and as accessible as possible.

Is it perfect? No, not at all, but it is the best system by a country mile for ensuring sound methodological enterprises and the uniform testing of results.
Love atheistforums.org? Consider becoming a patreon and helping towards our server costs.

[Image: 146748944129044_zpsomrzyn3d.gif]
Reply
#38
RE: Pranking Christian call show
(August 14, 2013 at 8:32 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: Well, Raymond Damadian (pioneer of the MRI) is a YEC. Which is why he isn't a biologist. I've looked it up, and found that if there are any respected scientists who accept the biblical accounts of creation, they'll invariably be in a field where it doesn't matter as much as in biology.

We’re talking about being scientists in general, and I assure you, you can be a scientist and not be a biologist. Secondly, your statement was simply false, Robert Carter has a PhD in Marine Biology, John C. Sanford has a PhD in Plant Genetics and has been published over 70 times in secular peer-reviewed journals, Vladimir Betina has earned doctorates in Microbiology, Biology, and Biochemistry, Kimberly Berrine has doctorates in Microbiology and Immunology, Raymond G. Bohlin has a PhD in Biology, Andrew Bosanquet has PhDs in Microbiology and Biology, David DeWitt has a PhD in Neuroscience with a Bachelor’s in Biochemistry, Carl Fliermans has a PhD in Biology, James A. Huggins has a PhD in Biology, Arthur Jones has a PhD in Biology, Leonid Korochkin has a PhD in Molecular Biology, Gi-Tai Kim has a PhD in Biology, John Kramer has a PhD in Biochemistry, Myung-Sang Kwon has a PhD in Immunology, John G. Leslie has a PhD in Experimental Pathology, Chris D. Osborne has a PhD in Biology, Jung-Goo Roe has a PhD in Biology, Ariel A. Roth has a PhD in Biology, Timothy G. Standish has a PhD in Biology, Sung-Hee Yoon has a PhD in Biology, and Henry Zuill has a PhD in Biology. All of these scientists are Young Earth Creationists as well.

Quote: And, seriously, SW, if you want us to take your story about a fake creationist article getting rejected for bad methodology seriously, you'll have to at least name names. Who were these guys? What journals rejected them? I tried googling the story as you told it and found absolutely nothing.

I’ll see if I can find the article, it was years ago and I believe it was the Journal of Creation (may have still been called “TJ” at the time) that rejected their article. Of course you’re not going to find anything from the actual group that submitted the article, what are they going to say? “We submitted a bogus article to the Journal of Creation and they rejected it because we do not know what we’re doing!” I quite frankly do not care whether you take the story seriously or not, you’ve already proven you’re not an objective thinker on this subject when you asserted there were no Biologists who believe in Young Earth Creation.

(August 15, 2013 at 2:15 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Theologists, you mean? No need, my second supervisor is actually a theologist. But really, I'd take the opinion of people who work in science over those who don't.

Well the term is Theologian, but no that is not what I meant. What about the opinion of creationists who work in science or do they conveniently not count?

Quote: Common sense really. Creation science doesn't exist, because its nonsense.

An appeal to common sense is a logical fallacy; do you have any arguments that are not logically fallacious?

Quote: It's not circular to say that something that isn't a science isn't a science.

Sure, but that’s not what you said. You claimed creation science wasn’t a science because it doesn’t feature in any research department you know of. That’s an absurd standard; something is not deemed scientific or unscientific by whether or not it is featured in a research department that you know of. Creationists do scientific research. What this all boils down to is, you all do not like creationists so therefore you do not believe they are scientists, well forgive me for rejecting that arbitrary standard. You’ve given me no actual justification for the definition of science excluding creationists.

Quote: That's not true.

It absolutely is true, if you’re working on something that is going to shake the foundation of science, there is no way you’re getting it published in a peer-reviewed journal. For example…

Watson’s and Crick’s groundbreaking work on DNA was never peer-reviewed
J. R Mayer’s work on the 1st Law of Thermodynamics in 1842 was rejected by the peer-review system even though it’s now a cornerstone of modern physics
Stephen Hawkings initial proofs and work concerning the existence of singularities were never peer-reviewed.
Fermi’s work on weak interaction theory of beta decay was rejected by the peer-review process
Darwin’s On the Origins of Species, and The Descent of Man were never peer-reviewed
Newton’s Principia Mathematica was never peer-reviewed.
Einstein’s Relativity, The Special and General Theory was never peer-reviewed
Copernicus' De Revolutionibus was never peer-reviewed
Robert H. Michell’s work on signalling reaction by hormones was rejected by the peer-review system.
Hans Krebs's work on the citric acid cycle was rejected by the peer-review system but later won a Nobel Prize.
Harmut Michel’s work that won the 1988 Nobel prize for chemistry was rejected by the peer-review system.

If you want to conduct further research upon an already generally accepted view in science, then peer-review is the place to go, but if you want to engage in truly groundbreaking research that will change science forever (i.e. Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Hawkings, and Copernicus), then peer-review is not the place to go.

“Mention 'peer review' and almost every scientist will regale you with stories about referees submitting nasty comments, sitting on a manuscript forever, or rejecting a paper only to repeat the study and steal the glory."- “Peer Review and Quality: A Dubious Connection?", Science Volume 293.

Quote: Nonsense. All aceademic books worth their weight are reviewed by editors, publishers, and, yes, their peers in peer review. Research in contemporary science literature that's worth the paper it's written on will be be peer reviwed in some shape or form during the course of its inception to publication. This is a fact. Most academic texts for example (including text books for undergraduates) will have chapters published in research journals of varying impact factors for validation (among other things; advertising for one).

You seem to be confounding the act of having a peer review your work and actually submitting your work to the peer-review system. You’re trying to argue that good science needs to be submitted to the peer-review system, I am pointing out that you’re wrong. A great deal of the best science the world has ever known was either never submitted to the peer-review system or was rejected by it.

Quote: Also, did you know that a lot of scientific research today is done in collaborative partnerships with institutions around the world? Many hundreds of millions of pounds can go into research sometimes, and often it will necessitate a collaborative effort form various researchers, sometimes in different field (eg CERN as one example). Internal and external peer review is one the staples of such partnerships as many interested parties means that everyone will wish for the research to be as transparent and as accessible as possible.

You are still confounding the issue; something does not have to be accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal in order to be considered good science. That’s a misconception held by lay persons.

“Unable or unwilling to investigate scientific methodology and determine just what is orthodox and "generally accepted," the Ninth Circuit instead seized upon publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal as the badge of respectability, the sine qua non of admissible "good science." The court thereby converted that editorial tool into something no scientist or journal editor ever meant it to be: a litmus test for scientific truth. This is not the way scientists work in their laboratories and symposia”- Stephen Jay Gould (1993)

Quote: Is it perfect? No, not at all, but it is the best system by a country mile for ensuring sound methodological enterprises and the uniform testing of results.

Something being the best system simply because it is the only current system is not that impressive. We can do better.
Reply
#39
RE: Pranking Christian call show
And this proves that Biologists who happen to believe in a creation story also support the idiotic notion of Creation Science how? How exactly is the scientific method not impressive? Do you actually have something better, or do you just believe that there's something better out there?
[Image: 10314461_875206779161622_3907189760171701548_n.jpg]
Reply
#40
RE: Pranking Christian call show
(August 15, 2013 at 7:33 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: And this proves that Biologists who happen to believe in a creation story also support the idiotic notion of Creation Science how?

It doesn’t mean they support anything idiotic, but it does mean they support the current Creation model because every one of those Biologists has either worked for, currently works for, or pledged support for the major creation organizations.

Quote: How exactly is the scientific method not impressive?

The scientific method (which was first formulated by a creationist) is very useful and impressive- it’s the peer-review system that first became popular in the mid-twentieth Century that is not very impressive.

Quote: Do you actually have something better, or do you just believe that there's something better out there?

Make the articles submitted anonymous for one; there’s strong evidence suggesting certain people receive favoritism in the process due solely to their name or the University they work for rather than the actual merit of their work. Making the referees not legally anonymous so legal recourse can be taken for the rejection of perfectly valid work would be another good step. Hiring actual professional reviewers, rather than volunteers would be another step in the right direction. Allowing only for the methodology to be reviewed would also cut down on the gross level of censorship that occurs in the system.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Which TV game show would you win? Fake Messiah 6 803 January 18, 2023 at 11:18 pm
Last Post: Neo-Scholastic
  Your opportunity to call me a dumbass. Brian37 14 624 June 6, 2021 at 2:37 pm
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  (Curious) Roll Call Foxaèr 8 637 October 10, 2019 at 4:43 pm
Last Post: Succubus
  What do you call THAT? onlinebiker 8 986 August 29, 2019 at 7:50 pm
Last Post: Gawdzilla Sama
  Why are people so obsessed with the show Game of Thrones? NuclearEnergy 31 6356 October 16, 2017 at 11:33 am
Last Post: Emmett
  What is your favorite BBC show? Foxaèr 47 9768 May 27, 2017 at 11:43 am
Last Post: chimp3
  My Favorite show Amarok 0 626 January 27, 2017 at 3:55 am
Last Post: Amarok
  Your favourite TV show is racist challenge. paulpablo 66 9806 September 15, 2016 at 6:14 pm
Last Post: Athene
  Show off your Mad Photographic skillz ErGingerbreadMandude 22 2093 May 31, 2016 at 7:22 pm
Last Post: energizer bunny
  Your favorite television show theme song. Foxaèr 65 5841 April 1, 2016 at 10:30 am
Last Post: MTL



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)