Pranking Christian call show

[Bad Writer]

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,

They support creationism, and since it's an unproven claim, it's idiotic to perpetuate it. They are supporting creationism, a notion that proves itself to be 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.

You still haven't shown how they support creation science.

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.

It just sounds like you're butthurt that if you tried to do "creation science" that you would get shot down in the peer review because you happened to have a few presuppositions there not supported by already accepted scientific theories. I for one am glad they have implemented this system in order to keep the SWs out of real science.

I'm curious though. How does the developer of the scientific method being a creationist make any difference in your argument? If you could somehow prove that an atheist couldn't have come up with the method, then that would be impressive. I'm afraid that's an impossible feat, but maybe the Chosen One SW will come up with a way to mold the evidence to his view!

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.

I'm surprised (well, not really) that you haven't seen the obvious pitfalls in this proposed system. I'm not going to argue that this might be preferable due to perceived unfairness in the system, as politics arise in any field of work in this world, but I wonder if you can see why the system is the way it is right now?

For one thing, with anonymous submissions, there could be a dishonest fellow or two out there that could potentially steal another's work. Intellectual property is something taken very seriously, if I'm not mistaken.

As for preference over one person's affiliations as compared to others', this actually helps to sift through the potential heaps of garbage that might make its way into peer review (not that there's not a ton already).

I don't know if you realized this either, but censorship is not meant to keep people out of some secret club of those who are in-the-know, but rather to protect the individual(s) making the submission. Take National Security in the U.S. as an example: we classify things as Confidential, Secret, and Top-Secret not to keep people from knowing the information, but to protect the source of the information. If someone's work is compromised, then progress in the scientific community would not happen as fast as it currently is.

[Minimalist]

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.

And THAT is what makes them idiotic.

Let's have all the evidence you can muster for all life beginning 6,000 years ago in the middle east when your silly-assed god poofed everything into existence. Take your time. We'll wait.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Is there a point in stating that the early scientists are "creationists" given that the theory of evolution did not have much evidence back then? Some of these scientists even predate the theory itself, so they're, by default, "creationists". But the rest of the world existed even back then, and there were many scientists who weren't christians and who did not subscribe to your christianity's creation story.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

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?

Never met one. Unlikely to ever meet one. However, see below:

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?

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.

I don't care about creationists, they don't feature on mine or anyone else's daily life that I know of. In the UK you're more likely to come across an albino than a YEC. But you're actually inferring a position I don't hold. I laugh at creation science, not creationists doing science. Big difference.

The reason why creation science is tosh is becuase creationism, specifically YEC, is demonstrably a fairy tale. Other forms are assertion without evidence. You want evidence of fallacious reasoning? That's it. Otherwise it's all mental gymnastics, why I see you displaying rather well on this forum this far. No researcher worth her grant will research into creationism becuase it's like pissing money into the wind. Unless your grant is provided by a theological foundation, in which case, they can waste their money on whatever they want.

So, to reiterate, That creationists do 'science' is neither here nor there. If the research is sound it would be fallicious of me to reject it based on their personal beliefs. If they do 'creation' science, however, then I can point and laugh, as can everyone else.

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.

Any my reply; so? Why are you ignoring the countless tomes of research that has been published in PR articles that have lead to countless breakthroughs in the scientific literature?

You seem to judge a 'breakthrough' as something that equals relativity, or gravity and so on. This is simply ignorance to the scientific method and the advances that are made on a daily basis about things you've probably never even heard of or considered. 'Change science forever' - that happens on a daily basis, mate. You just don't know anything about it.

'Conducting research on a generally accepted view' - If what you say were the case, then there wouldn't be won't breakthrough or advances in knowledge at all, would there?

Ones work needs to be reviewed by others that are necessarily competitors to you. Otherwise, familiarity will breed contempt, and poor research.

As for the science article, I will peruse when I'm finished at work this evening. Good to see you quoting from a peer reviwed, high impact science journal.

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.

The process of peer-review, whether it be through the board of a journal or through the peer review system of a publisher (who, by the way, do give texts submitted to people who are both in and out of the field that the text is aimed at, which is actually in many cases a much more rigorous peer review system than what is employed in some low to medium impact journals) is integral to the entirety of the scientific schools. There are few exceptions to the rule. I don't know why but you seem you be convinced that 'peer-review' is the system exclusively utilised by journals.

If you publish something that isn't reviewed by your peers, competitors or otherwise, then what's to say that your methodology or even your findings aren't totally bogus and not worthy of the paper they're written on. And besides, the peer review system has little to do with content, more to do with the structure of the methodology and format of the article. At least, it should be, which is where I actually agree with you (as you state above in another post).

I put it to you that your understanding of 'best science' is very narrow and poorly defined.

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)

The peer review system is not simply to accept what is already known. If this were true, there would be no advances in scientific enquiry outside of the realms of what you define as 'currently accepted' theories or methodological enterprises. I know a lot of stuff for example that goes on with regards to anti-biotic resistance and research into gram-negative/positive bacterial evolution that you would never have heard of, which is changing the face of science and our understand forever.

Just because its not as famous as relativity doesn't mean it isn't excellent ground breaking science. All of it can be found in peer reviwed literatures online.

Your attempt to patronise me as a 'lay person' might hold some ground if it wasnt coming out of your rear end. When was the last time you submitted any original research? To anyone?

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.

Missing the point. But whatever. Nobody is claiming perfection because that is impossible, but its a fluid system that evolves and adapts as time moves forward.

And in fact, statler, regarding your point above about some recommendations of amendments to the peer review methodology, I actually agree that some of the points you raise are worth considering and worth further examination.

[Statler Waldorf]

They support creationism, and since it's an unproven claim, it's idiotic to perpetuate it. They are supporting creationism, a notion that proves itself to be idiotic.

Now that’s quite the assertion. Science does not deal with proof (it’s based upon induction, not deduction), so all scientific claims are “unproven”, so your assertion that believing in something that is unproven is idiotic is itself…well rather idiotic. Secondly, conveniently labeling anyone who disagrees with you as an idiot proves nothing as well. It’s amazing the scientific support that is available for the creation model in light of their meager budget.

You still haven't shown how they support creation science.

Not sure what you mean here, I already pointed out that they do scientific work for the major creation institutions.

It just sounds like you're butthurt that if you tried to do "creation science" that you would get shot down in the peer review because you happened to have a few presuppositions there not supported by already accepted scientific theories. I for one am glad they have implemented this system in order to keep the SWs out of real science.

I think it’s more likely that you just approve of a system that silences descent and novelty because you know your side cannot win the debate upon the merits of their position alone. Peer-review referees are not supposed to reject something because of presuppositions, they’re supposed to reject work because of poor methodology; you obviously have no idea how the system you have such a childish zeal for even works. It’s a corrupt system though; most secular scientists even realize that. It’s based more on who you are and who you work for than how good of science you’re performing.

I'm curious though. How does the developer of the scientific method being a creationist make any difference in your argument?

It makes a huge difference. It points out the fact that your claim that creationists cannot be scientists is utterly absurd because all of modern science is based upon a method of inquiry that was first formulated by a creationist.

If you could somehow prove that an atheist couldn't have come up with the method, then that would be impressive.

Nice fallacious argument from ignorance, “You cannot prove an atheist couldn’t have first formulated the scientific method, therefore an atheist could have first formulated the scientific method!” We know a creationist (not an atheist) first formulated the method, let’s stay within the realm of facts here.

I'm afraid that's an impossible feat, but maybe the Chosen One SW will come up with a way to mold the evidence to his view!

Nope, all I had to do was point out you were making an irrational argument; easy enough to do.

For one thing, with anonymous submissions, there could be a dishonest fellow or two out there that could potentially steal another's work.

That already happens, that’s why we make the reviewers not legally anonymous. With the way the system is now; all the reviewer has to do is reject the work for publishing and then re-submit his own version of it and nobody would ever know because is involvement as a reviewer is completely anonymous. In my system, we’d know who rejected what work, so if they themselves publish the same work later we can take the appropriate legal recourse.

Intellectual property is something taken very seriously, if I'm not mistaken.

Not in the system as it stands now. I am not saying the submission is completely anonymous, I am saying it is anonymous when it is reviewed by the referees and the editors, once it is approved for publishing then the author and institution can be revealed.

As for preference over one person's affiliations as compared to others', this actually helps to sift through the potential heaps of garbage that might make its way into peer review (not that there's not a ton already).

No, scientific work should be evaluated upon their scientific merit, not based upon which University it came from or who submitted it. No censorship or favoritism.

I don't know if you realized this either, but censorship is not meant to keep people out of some secret club of those who are in-the-know, but rather to protect the individual(s) making the submission. Take National Security in the U.S. as an example: we classify things as Confidential, Secret, and Top-Secret not to keep people from knowing the information, but to protect the source of the information. If someone's work is compromised, then progress in the scientific community would not happen as fast as it currently is.

What on earth are you talking about? When an article is published it is published with everyone’s name on it. The only censorship that occurs is the censorship of ideas and results, if your work shakes the paradigm it is not getting published.
“‘The editorial process has tended to be run as an informal, old-boy network which has excluded minorities, women, younger researchers, and those from lower-prestige institutions. Authors can feel that they’re dealing with hostile gatekeepers whose goal is to keep out manuscripts on picky grounds rather than let in the best work.”- Rick Crandall, Editorial responsibilities in manuscript review

And THAT is what makes them idiotic.

Everyone who disagrees with Min is an idiot, even if they have a PhD in Biology, he still knows more than all of them combined! You’re funny.

Let's have all the evidence you can muster for all life beginning 6,000 years ago in the middle east when your silly-assed god poofed everything into existence. Take your time. We'll wait.

We’d be here for years, and I do not want to waste your golden years there old-timer The day you actually sincerely want to debate the topic rather than this sort of meaningless rhetoric I’d me more than happy to do so, but everyone knows you lack the intellectual fortitude and honesty to sincerely debate anything.

Never met one. Unlikely to ever meet one. However, see below:

You’ve never met a creationist who holds a position as a scientist? I have.

I don't care about creationists, they don't feature on mine or anyone else's daily life that I know of. In the UK you're more likely to come across an albino than a YEC. But you're actually inferring a position I don't hold. I laugh at creation science, not creationists doing science. Big difference.

That’s a poor reflection upon the UK more than anything else. I am just relieved that the US, South Korea, and Australia both emphasize the merits of one’s ideas and the importance of free debate rather than censorship that does nothing but stifle scientific progress.

The reason why creation science is tosh is becuase creationism, specifically YEC, is demonstrably a fairy tale.

Assertion received, demonstration needed.

Other forms are assertion without evidence. You want evidence of fallacious reasoning? That's it.

This itself is an assertion without evidence, which is rather ironic.

Otherwise it's all mental gymnastics, why I see you displaying rather well on this forum this far.

I see nothing wrong with possessing such mental rigor.

No researcher worth her grant will research into creationism becuase it's like pissing money into the wind.

Another assertion without evidence coupled with a faulty analogy.

So, to reiterate, That creationists do 'science' is neither here nor there. If the research is sound it would be fallicious of me to reject it based on their personal beliefs.

Yes it would be, but thus far you’ve hardly demonstrated any restraint from engaging in that which is logically fallacious.

If they do 'creation' science, however, then I can point and laugh, as can everyone else.

Which would be nothing more than a logically fallacious appeal to ridicule; which conveniently proves my point above.

Any my reply; so? Why are you ignoring the countless tomes of research that has been published in PR articles that have lead to countless breakthroughs in the scientific literature?

Because the biggest breakthroughs were never peer-reviewed, did you not read my list? The cornerstones of modern Physics, Astronomy, and biology (i.e. Newtonian Physics, Relativity, DNA, and Darwinism) were never peer-reviewed. I know you’re not going to be able to top that.

You seem to judge a 'breakthrough' as something that equals relativity, or gravity and so on.

You do not consider those to be landmark theories? I do.

This is simply ignorance to the scientific method and the advances that are made on a daily basis about things you've probably never even heard of or considered. 'Change science forever' - that happens on a daily basis, mate. You just don't know anything about it.

I am becoming rather suspicious that you’re merely blowing smoke. Provide some peer-reviewed articles that actually contradicted the accepted paradigm to the degree that the works I mentioned did.

'Conducting research on a generally accepted view' - If what you say were the case, then there wouldn't be won't breakthrough or advances in knowledge at all, would there?

Sure there would be, it’d be more along the lines of baby steps though rather than the leaps and bounds we saw prior to the emphasis on the peer-review system that was adopted in the mid to late 20th Century.

Ones work needs to be reviewed by others that are necessarily competitors to you. Otherwise, familiarity will breed contempt, and poor research.

Agreed, but it is insane to give your competitors the ability to reject your work for publishing with complete legal anonymity, which is what you are defending. Publish your work and allow for it to be praised or criticized in the realm of scientific ideas; that’s what Darwin did and that’s what we need to get back to.

The process of peer-review, whether it be through the board of a journal or through the peer review system of a publisher (who, by the way, do give texts submitted to people who are both in and out of the field that the text is aimed at, which is actually in many cases a much more rigorous peer review system than what is employed in some low to medium impact journals) is integral to the entirety of the scientific schools. There are few exceptions to the rule. I don't know why but you seem you be convinced that 'peer-review' is the system exclusively utilised by journals.

I do not see why you think I am against having peers review your work; I am merely against giving your peers the ability to remain anonymous and reject work for publishing. There are numerous creation peer-reviewed journals, and I support their use.

If you publish something that isn't reviewed by your peers, competitors or otherwise, then what's to say that your methodology or even your findings aren't totally bogus and not worthy of the paper they're written on.

Nothing; and the peer-review system does nothing to ensure that the methodology and data recorded were the actual methodology and data in the research. You’re getting into the realm of scientific ethics and out of the realm of the merits of peer-review.

And besides, the peer review system has little to do with content, more to do with the structure of the methodology and format of the article. At least, it should be, which is where I actually agree with you (as you state above in another post).

Yes, that is the way it should be, but that’s not the way it is today.

I put it to you that your understanding of 'best science' is very narrow and poorly defined.

Narrow? Even though you apparently believe that the only good science is that which is peer-reviewed? That is what seems to be a narrow definition and one which I have proven is ill-founded.

The peer review system is not simply to accept what is already known. If this were true, there would be no advances in scientific enquiry outside of the realms of what you define as 'currently accepted' theories or methodological enterprises. I know a lot of stuff for example that goes on with regards to anti-biotic resistance and research into gram-negative/positive bacterial evolution that you would never have heard of, which is changing the face of science and our understand forever.

You’re not following what I am saying, perhaps I have been unclear, for which I apologize. I am not saying they only publish what we already know; I am saying they only publish research that builds off of the accepted paradigm. If you want to publish a paper concerning further research on bacterial resistance and how it supports common descent, you’ll probably get published. If you want to publish a paper pertaining to the fact that bacterial resistance does not account for the increase in genetic information necessary to sustain the current accepted view on common descent and you’ll get rejected because you’re questioning the accepted paradigm (in this case common descent). Shake the boat and you’re ok, rock the boat and you’re done for.

Just because its not as famous as relativity doesn't mean it isn't excellent ground breaking science. All of it can be found in peer reviwed literatures online.

I never claimed that good science doesn’t get published in peer-reviewed journals, I merely stated the largest groundbreaking theories usually never were, which was an accurate statement.

Your attempt to patronise me as a 'lay person' might hold some ground if it wasnt coming out of your rear end. When was the last time you submitted any original research? To anyone?

This morning I generated data this morning on prescribed burning that will be used in a peer-reviewed and published Environmental Analysis that will be coming out in 2015 for a 60,000 acre project we’ve been proposing ecologic restoration on. Once it finally makes it through the National Environmental Protection Act process the project would have taken six years. What about you?

And in fact, statler, regarding your point above about some recommendations of amendments to the peer review methodology, I actually agree that some of the points you raise are worth considering and worth further examination.

I appreciate the support, and I appreciate the discussion. You’re a stand-up guy.

[Bad Writer]

Not sure what you mean here, I already pointed out that they do scientific work for the major creation institutions.

Ah, I see what you did here. You equivocated their scientific work with a made up branch of science called "Creation Science".

I'm curious though. How does the developer of the scientific method being a creationist make any difference in your argument?

It makes a huge difference. It points out the fact that your claim that creationists cannot be scientists is utterly absurd because all of modern science is based upon a method of inquiry that was first formulated by a creationist.

I never made such a claim...so...yeah. You're arguing for the sake of arguing at this point. Again, how does the person who formulated scientific method being a Creationist in any supports your idea that there is such a thing called Creation Science?

If you could somehow prove that an atheist couldn't have come up with the method, then that would be impressive.

Nice fallacious argument from ignorance, “You cannot prove an atheist couldn’t have first formulated the scientific method, therefore an atheist could have first formulated the scientific method!”

Who are you quoting there in your statement? Not me, I hope, because I never actually said that. Do you do this with every Atheist you argue with, that is, put words in their mouth? My actual words (the ones above this rebuttal statement of yours) was a direct follow on to my asking you why it's important that the person who formulated the scientific method was a creationist. My statement deals with a hypothetical; we know that an atheist didn't come up with the method, but it all still comes back to asking why it's important that this man was a creationist. We're waiting on your answer.

Let's have all the evidence you can muster for all life beginning 6,000 years ago in the middle east when your silly-assed god poofed everything into existence. Take your time. We'll wait.

We’d be here for years, and I do not want to waste your golden years there old-timer The day you actually sincerely want to debate the topic rather than this sort of meaningless rhetoric I’d me more than happy to do so, but everyone knows you lack the intellectual fortitude and honesty to sincerely debate anything.

No, no. This is a public forum, so spill the beans on your magic evidence that makes god so apparently true.

Never met one. Unlikely to ever meet one. However, see below:

You’ve never met a creationist who holds a position as a scientist? I have.

You're making the same mistake with FC that you made with me. Creation Scientist =/= Scientists that are Creationists. Stop mincing the words we speak because we're going to make you eat them.

The reason why creation science is tosh is becuase creationism, specifically YEC, is demonstrably a fairy tale.

Assertion received, demonstration needed.

He's rejecting your fairy tale that you hold claim to. The burden of proof remains yours, SW. You don't see the distinction here? Your evidence simply hasn't held up. You need to prove that creationism is true by proving that god is true. Do that, and you'll get a lot less naysayers. Shifting the burden of proof is simply going to halt your progress here.

[Napoléon]

You know, I really wasn't expecting that the prank call video I posted would cause this much commotion, but I can't say I'm disappointed.

[KichigaiNeko]

You know, I really wasn't expecting that the prank call video I posted would cause this much commotion, but I can't say I'm disappointed.

Hello darlin' How ya doin'? things are disappointing here...

I am very disappoint.

[Doubting Thomas]

Doesn't take much to get Statler Waldorf off on a tangent attacking evolution, does it?

[Napoléon]

Hello darlin' How ya doin'?

Fine thanks, yourself?

things are disappointing here...

I am very disappoint.

This thread or in general?