The Problem with Christians

[AAA]

This is the closest I could find.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-41553-po...pid1209598

That would be it.

That is not the same as saying that my university doesn't respect peer review. Also I can easily find peer reviewed papers that completely contradict each other. Does that make them both true? We have to look at the actual facts, not the interpretations done by others.

[abaris]

That is not the same as saying that my university doesn't respect peer review. Also I can easily find peer reviewed papers that completely contradict each other. Does that make them both true? We have to look at the actual facts, not the interpretations done by others.

Please show them. And I'd wager they're not accepted by the scientific community at large.

[AAA]

Memory serves you wrong. Anybody go try to find it, cause he's just lying.

Look at the link IATA posted. Not having that discussion means not being into it. At my university it was at the forefront in every seminary and discussion we had.

I may quote:

I have plenty of professors, and strangely enough I've never had a conversation with any of them on peer review.

Where did you go to school? And why was peer review the main topic of every discussion you had?

[Paraselene]

Where did you go to school? And why was peer review the main topic of every discussion you had?

Any time in college a teacher asked us to write a paper, we were informed to rely on peer review.

[abaris]

Where did you go to school? And why was peer review the main topic of every discussion you had?

Because it makes all the fucking difference between having a fucking idea or compulsion and that idea being tested by other researchers. To determine if it holds water, so to speak.

University of Vienna, by the way.

[AAA]

Where did you go to school? And why was peer review the main topic of every discussion you had?

Any time in college a teacher asked us to write a paper, we were informed to rely on peer review.

Yeah, but the point is that peer review is meant to ensure that research was conducted properly and that the researchers did not misrepresent the facts. When you get to the discussion, anyone who has thoroughly read the procedure, results, and has an understanding of the topic can form their own interpretation of the facts. You do not have to take everything mentioned in peer reviewed articles to be fact. Especially when the article is on extremely speculative topics.

[abaris]

Yeah, but the point is that peer review is meant to ensure that research was conducted properly and that the researchers did not misrepresent the facts.

And without that it's only speculation. May be right, may be wrong. There are people with much more experience in the field, and if they don't agree, a worldwide debate will ensue, presenting what everyone has collected on any given topic and coming to a conclusion.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Ugh... ignoring the genetic evidence for common ancestry, AGAIN.

It's not just that creatures "look similar". They hand down genetic "markers" in sections that are not subject to natural selection pressure; comparing those copied sections between two organisms is how we tell if they're evolutionarily related (and it happens to back up the visual comparisons, by the way), in the exact same manner we use to tell if you ARE or are NOT the father on the Maury Povich show (or in court).

[Cyberman]

And do you know how we can tell you're lying? It's because you don't actually present some of these "arrogant statements" for us to  assess, you just declare them.

Point out one lie

Just did. You declared that Prof Dawkins made arrogant statements in TGD, then used that declaration to assess the man as arrogant, angry and hate-filled (which you dismiss as "sad"). However, you don't actually present any of these arrogant statements to support your strawman assessment. We are thus free to speculate that you know that you cannot. Thus your declaration is the opposite of honest. The opposite of an honest statement is a dishonest one, or more generally a lie. Unless you prefer the competing interpretation, that you were being unknowingly dishonest, also termed 'gullible'?

[AAA]

Yeah, but the point is that peer review is meant to ensure that research was conducted properly and that the researchers did not misrepresent the facts.

And without that it's only speculation. May be right, may be wrong. There are people with much more experience in the field, and if they don't agree, a worldwide debate will ensue, presenting what everyone has collected on any given topic and coming to a conclusion.

Ok, let's clear this up. Yes peer review is a valuable tool used to ensure that work is done correctly. Without it science would be nowhere. However, it is not the only indicator that science is being done. Newton did not have his writings peer reviewed, but he was definitely practicing science.