09 Apr 14
Originally posted by RJHindsNot good enough, I want to know what fraction of papers, published in peer reviewed journals, suffer the faults you describe. Since "too many" could be just "some" you can make a small problem sound like a big one.
"Too many" means too numerous to number.
This is a place to state opinions on science, so you are welcome to disagree with my quoted expert source of information.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtwhats the point of being peer reviewed if everyone as Huxley so eloquently puts it, 'is reading from the same cookbook?'
Not good enough, I want to know what fraction of papers, published in peer reviewed journals, suffer the faults you describe. Since "too many" could be just "some" you can make a small problem sound like a big one.
09 Apr 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtRead the referenced article. I don't recall any mention of fractions.
Not good enough, I want to know what fraction of papers, published in peer reviewed journals, suffer the faults you describe. Since "too many" could be just "some" you can make a small problem sound like a big one.
09 Apr 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieTrue. The Journals published by those promoting the evolution and billions of years ideas do not allow peer review from the scientists that disagree with those ideas.
whats the point of being peer reviewed if everyone as Huxley so eloquently puts it, 'is reading from the same cookbook?'
09 Apr 14
Originally posted by RJHindsI dont know about that but if a bunch of young earth creationists decide to get together and interpret a piece of scientific data and publish it so that other YEC can read it and they all reach a consensus as to its veracity is it not also peer reviewed?
True. The Journals published by those promoting the evolution and billions of years ideas do not allow peer review from the scientists that disagree with those ideas.
09 Apr 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo, the relevant peer group is the scientific community working in that field, so if you only include YECs then it's not the entire peer group. With regard to a paper about some point of biblical interpretation then YECs possibly could constitute a reasonable peer group, and scientists wouldn't.
I dont know about that but if a bunch of young earth creationists decide to get together and interpret a piece of scientific data and publish it so that other YEC can read it and they all reach a consensus as to its veracity is it not also peer reviewed?
Originally posted by DeepThoughtNo because then YECs would only make up a class or type of Biblical scholars and do not represent the entire Biblical scholarship community. One cannot have one rule for scientists and another for Bible scholars 😀
No, the relevant peer group is the scientific community working in that field, so if you only include YECs then it's not the entire peer group. With regard to a paper about some point of biblical interpretation then YECs possibly could constitute a reasonable peer group, and scientists wouldn't.
09 Apr 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYou seem not to understand that there are scientists that are YECs. You seem brainwashed into believing that scientists must be evolutionists.
No, the relevant peer group is the scientific community working in that field, so if you only include YECs then it's not the entire peer group. With regard to a paper about some point of biblical interpretation then YECs possibly could constitute a reasonable peer group, and scientists wouldn't.
09 Apr 14
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsIf they pursue YEC in science, they are not scientists, they are politicians. In other words, they start out with an agenda that they feel must be proven regardless of the validity of their claims.
You seem not to understand that there are scientists that are YECs. You seem brainwashed into believing that scientists must be evolutionists.
They are in the exact same boat as flat Earthers.
So, they will start off with the POV that carbon dating, rock dating, all dating techniques are AUTOMATICALLY bad and that is their starting point.
They won't then go, well since we have found dating techniques bad, we need to study dating techniques that give the correct dates. They don't do that, they simply put down the entire science of age dating.
They would be the last people in the world to actually invent a new technique to date rocks or fossils, since they don't want ANY data that says the Earth is more than a few thousand years old.
In other words, they are blinded by their own religious propaganda.
09 Apr 14
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseAs I said before, you are brainwashed into believing a lie and are too stubborn to listen to the truth. Your statements are wrong. Some of those scientists that became YEC were in the evolution camp until the real science led them to the truth. Unlike you, they were open-minded enough to follow the evidence to where it led.
If they pursue YEC in science, they are not scientists, they are politicians. In other words, they start out with an agenda that they feel must be proven regardless of the validity of their claims.
They are in the exact same boat as flat Earthers.
So, they will start off with the POV that carbon dating, rock dating, all dating techniques are AUTOMATI ...[text shortened]... a few thousand years old.
In other words, they are blinded by their own religious propaganda.
Dating techniques are available that show a young earth, but evolutionists are resisting the use of them. I have made reference to them before, but you continue to ignore what you do not want to believe.
09 Apr 14
quOriginally posted by RJHindsEVERY one of those so-called techniques have been refuted several times over but in your own self mutilated propagandized mind you cling to fantasy. Show me the so-called techniques and I will show you the refutation.
As I said before, you are brainwashed into believing a lie and are too stubborn to listen to the truth. Your statements are wrong. Some of those scientists that became YEC were in the evolution camp until the real science led them to the truth. Unlike you, they were open-minded enough to follow the evidence to where it led.
Dating techniques are avai ...[text shortened]... have made reference to them before, but you continue to ignore what you do not want to believe.