Any evidence for objective peer review?

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by randman
What you are stating is that evolutionists do not consider data independently of a theory or model of how that data should be interpreted, and that if there is no model to interpret that data, they don't consider it. I fully agree with you on that, and that is why evolution is not real science.

Common creationist tactic #357:

"Assert that all evolutionists are stupid, or liars, or both."

Randman, I consider your diatribes to be a direct insult to myself and all other rationally-minded individuals. Your continued reliance on character assassination appears to be your last resort since any evidence for your claims apparently eludes you.

Do you have anything positive to contribute to the case for creation theory? Or does your repertoire merely consist of deriding science and those who practice it?

 

[randman]

I guess when proven wrong, make baseless charges against your opponent, eh?

Care to explain why the data Punctuated Equilibrium proponents initially referred to in the fossil record was ignored for decades. It appears to me that the reason is that critics of evolution were the ones pointing out this data, and that once the data could theoritically fit into an evolutinary model, only then was it accepted. My beef is not with science here, but the lack of science.
Do you have an alternate explanation?

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by randman
I guess when proven wrong, make baseless charges against your opponent, eh?

That seems to be your technique, yes. My charges, on the other hand, are very well founded.

Care to explain why the data Punctuated Equilibrium proponents initially referred to in the fossil record was ignored for decades.

Because the data didn't exist for decades. It hadn't been found yet!

It appears to me that the reason is that critics of evolution were the ones pointing out this data, and that once the data could theoritically fit into an evolutinary model, only then was it accepted.

Please provide some references to show that in fact the critics of evolution did point out this data. I don't believe they did, because criticism of evolution has never been due to evidentiary motiviations, but solely due to political and religious ones.

Do you have an alternate explanation?

My explanation: you are deluded.

 

[randman]

"Because the data didn't exist for decades. It hadn't been found yet!"

Um, so you are stating that no fossils were ever found prior to PE coming along. Geesh! There was no new data, but simply an acknowledgement that incompleteness alone did not suffice as an expplantion for the data in the fossil record. As far as proof critics were stating the fossil record did not document gradualism, are you really that ignorant to actually argue that prior to the 70s noone was criticizing the lack of evidence for evolution?
No, I am not going to bother wasting my time proving that to you. Maybe you should prove the sky is blue.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by randman
As far as proof critics were stating the fossil record did not document gradualism, are you really that ignorant to actually argue that prior to the 70s noone was criticizing the lack of evidence for evolution?

I'm so ignorant I'll double down on that bet. I will boldly assert that no one in the last 100 years has developed a sound critique of evolution based upon a lack of evidence.

 

[randman]

So in typical fashion, I guess we are back to denying there was any inconsistencies in the fossil record with the way evolution was thought to have occurred.
LOL

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
So in typical fashion, I guess we are back to denying there was any inconsistencies in the fossil record with the way evolution was thought to have occurred.
LOL

LOL about it doesn't change it. There are no (and have been no) substantive problems with from evolution in the fossil record. Only unrealistic expectations from creationists, and room for a challenge to the model of strict gradualism in favor of punctuated equilibrium.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by randman
So Rufus, you are finally getting around to acknmowledging PE did come about due to the nature of the fossil record, and that PE advocates claimed it wasn't incompleteness primarily, but rather the mode of evolution was different.

So you haven't read the original source material on PE. If you had, you would understand that Gould and Eldridge are not claiming a "different mode of evolution." They relied heavily on the strides that population biology had made in identifying the mechanisms of evolution. In fact, they basically showed how the nature of fossil record followed directly from Ernst Mayr's explaination of speciation. Gould and Eldridge did not overturn the thinking of evolutionary biologists but rather paleontologists.

Earlier this year, Eldrige was invited to speak to my department. One of the things that came up in the discussion was that he and Gould proposed PE for paleontologists not biologists. In other words, they were teaching evolution to the fossil hunters, not fossils to the evolution hunters, as you are claiming here.

 

[Oliver]

Originally posted by randman
What you are stating is that evolutionists do not consider data independently of a theory or model of how that data should be interpreted, and that if there is no model to interpret that data, they don't consider it.

This is not only how evolutionists work, Randman. It is how scientists work.

Imagine this scenario: imagine you're living in the late 19th century, prior to Einstein's theory of relativity, and Newton's laws of gravitation are accepted as the more precise model. Then someone notices that a planet doesn't behave exactly like it should according ti the theory. This guy then says: "see, Newton's model can't explain this phenomenon. It is all wrong so let's come back to Tycho Brahe."
Chances are that, although the phenomenon will be considered by scientists, they will not hear his "request" to come back to a worse model. However, when someone else (let's call him Einstein) comes with a better explanation of the phenomenon, they'll probably adopt his new explanation (maybe not straight awaay, but ultimately they will).
This is IMHO what happens here: if you say "see, the fossil record doesn't agree with gradualism, let's come back to the creationist model", they'll not listen to his claim to simply abandon evolutionary theories because the ToE still seems better than his own proposal. Yet they will not forget the data itself and if someone comes with a better model (let's call him Gould), they'll probably slowly accept it (unless of course new data show that this model is not as good).

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Okay how about we turn the tables...

If you believe that objective peer review by those who are not even willing to concider your point of view revilant (ie. Faith based creationists reviewing scientific based evolution.) is the only way to the truth then...

Do you let a budist, satanist, atheist, etc. etc... review the bible and do you change it because of their sugestions even though they do not believe in the book or are even hostile toward it?

 

[randman]

Isn't funny how the typical evolutionist response/defense is to ask if religions should be subjected to the scientific method.
is that because evolution is basically a religion in the way evolutionists treat it, and therefor they instinctively demand other religions act as they do?
I think it is.
Obviously, it is quite absurd to ask questions like should the Bible be examined and judged by the non-believer? Of course, this is because that is the way evolutionists feel. Their religion has no business being researched and evaluated by the non-believer so they, of course, refuse to publish the non-believer's material.
What is sad is that evolutionists can't seem to recognize that about themselves.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Hook line and sinker Randman...

You ask that science prove or disprove God and your faith in the inerrancy of the Bible. For science to even try to do that it would have to step into the same field as religion. What is the matter when I ask you to have God and your faith in the inerrancy of the Bible step into a scientific realm? If evolution and science is a religion then you should have no problem with it, it would be just like any other religion on relogion debate.

Of course science puts out it's theories in journals and anyone is free to try the experiments again or find a better interpretation of the data. If you can disprove evolution so easily why not publish a paper on it and put it up for review. If you win you not only would win the nobel prize but you may even convert thousands and thousands of atheists and ofcourse those poor lost christian evolutionists.

Pony up Randman and prove science wrong with science. You claim it's easy because only stupid people could believe in this stuff.

 

[randman]

"You ask that science prove or disprove God and your faith in the inerrancy of the Bible."

Um, when have I ever asked that?

 

[randman]

"If you can disprove evolution so easily why not publish a paper on it and put it up for review."

Evolution is such an elastic theory I am not sure any data using today's technology could disprove it.

Can you name any piece of data that I could not offer an alternative explanation to support evoution?
Suppose something was found in an earlier time period, such as human remains. I could claim the research was sloppy, and that the strata has been disturbed, and any numer of things, including just revising the evolutionary models for an earlier date of that species.
Evolutionists can imagine a scenario and just pass it off as the gospel truth as they do now.

 

[DonaldW112]

Originally posted by randman
"If you can disprove evolution so easily why not publish a paper on it and put it up for review."

Evolution is such an elastic theory I am not sure any data using today's technology could disprove it.

Can you name any piece of data that I could not offer an alternative explanation to support evoution?
Suppose something was found in an earlier time period, such as human remains. I could claim the research was sloppy, and that the strata has been disturbed, and any numer of things, including just revising the evolutionary models for an earlier date of that species.
Evolutionists can imagine a scenario and just pass it off as the gospel truth as they do now.

If humans and dinosaurs (for example) lived at the same time, or any modern mammal for that matter, there should be multiple world-wide examples of this. This would definitely be a major problem for evolution and multiple independent finds along the same line could not be denied. I think creationists should go out and dig for this evidence because if the flood happened (and there was a single creation event) then the evidence should be out there -- the current group of professionals have not found it yet (perhaps there is a world wide conspiracy?). This is one of the single biggest problems for creationism. No matter how incomplete the fossil record maybe and no matter how old you think the fossils are -- they are in the wrong order for creationism -- big problem!!!

 

[Starscream]

I could claim the research was sloppy, and that the strata has been disturbed, and any numer of things, including just revising the evolutionary models for an earlier date of that species.

You claim a great number of things on this forum. But where is the evidence? If the science is sloppy, where is your proof?

Your like a kid in a playground who accuses his victor of cheating when he loses at a game of hide-and-seek.