% that accept evolution per state

[createdtoworship]

I could repost my list of discrimination against minority view by peer review boards in the past against those who would later be famous for their views, or win nobel prizes for the rejected material. ID is the same thing. It's being rejected for nonconformity issues not real legitimate concerns with science.

 

[CabVet]

I could repost my list of discrimination against minority view by peer review boards in the past against those who would later be famous for their views, or win nobel prizes for the rejected material. ID is the same thing. It's being rejected for nonconformity issues not real legitimate concerns with science.

You could also accept the fact that if anybody found convincing evidence to reject evolution, they would get the Nobel prize. But feel free to ignore facts.

ID is rejected for the same reason that astrology is rejected. They are not science.

 

[bhsmte]

You could also accept the fact that if anybody found convincing evidence to reject evolution, they would get the Nobel prize. But feel free to ignore facts.

ID is rejected for the same reason that astrology is rejected. They are not science.

He comes along with this same conspiracy theory every so often and it gets demolished every single time.

 

[Split Rock]

I don't, huh?

What's this?

I have no idea in what context I might have posted that. Whatever is your point?

 

[pgp_protector]

I have no idea in what context I might have posted that. Whatever is your point?

It's from when you told them they were wrong, and that they assumed incorrectly (Though I noticed that they left that part off)

What I'm getting from you "scientists" here, is that when you were little, you had "tough questions about the Bible" that you asked your church leaders (always them, not your parents), and they told you to "stop asking stupid questions."

So you said to yourselves, "Forget this --- I'll get my answers (to the Bible?) from science when I grow up."

Now, as grown-ups, you're doing basically the same thing you said your church leaders did --- telling your kids to "stop asking stupid questions."

If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.

OK, You Are Wrong. I never had my priest or nun tell me such a thing when I was learning Christianity. Once again you assume incorrectly.

 

[createdtoworship]

You could also accept the fact that if anybody found convincing evidence to reject evolution, they would get the Nobel prize. But feel free to ignore facts.

ID is rejected for the same reason that astrology is rejected. They are not science.

you have said that three times, yet they would need to be accepted by peer review boards first wouldn't they?

Robert Gentry formerly of oakridge labratories specializing in nuclear waste was excommunicated from the peer review network after being found a creationist. I believe this was one of his last works containing peer review (http://www.amazon.com/Creations-Tiny-Mystery-Robert-Gentry/dp/0961675330) but I am not sure. My source had lunch with him regarding the prejudices of the peer review networks.

here again robert gentry (creationist) censored for posting these documents (Orion Foundation: Ten Censored Papers) which are legitimate science to a cornell university database, later suing for the removal (free speech of scientific theory- IF it is in fact science based).... In 2001 sued the los alamos @ cornell labratories for censorship of true scientific views. I mean this is rediculous, just because one isn't a uniformitarian, humanist, or evolutionist should they be silenced?

sad indeed, science is science regardless of race, ethnicity or religion.

more info here:
http://creationists.org/robert-gentry.html#web

 

[keith99]

I could repost my list of discrimination against minority view by peer review boards in the past against those who would later be famous for their views, or win nobel prizes for the rejected material. ID is the same thing. It's being rejected for nonconformity issues not real legitimate concerns with science.

How can ID be tested?

If it cannot it is not science by definition.

I decline to use the word discrimination as it means to see the differences between things, something you refuse to do. Discrimination is not a bad thing if it is based on a correct view of the differences.

Also skepticism s different from prejudice. A hypothesis not getting support until there is experimental data backing it up is not prejudice, it is proper science.

New hypotheses came along all the time and if correct the weight of the data soon gains support.

ID has no such data, it cannot. There is no possible observation that cannot be explained by simply saying 'because that is how the creator did it'. That which cannot be falsified cannot be proven.

 

[MikeCarra]

you have said that three times, yet they would need to be accepted by peer review boards first wouldn't they?

You act as if peer review is done by a group of judges who sit en banc and pass down decrees.

It isn't done like that.

Most peer review (at least the stuff I've done) has been the editors of journals writing to individual researchers across the globe looking for someone specializing in this particular area to review the science presented in the paper.

That means that if the science is SOLID the peer reviewer will have to assess it based on that.

If someone writes in about dinosaurs walking with people it will require amazing evidence. Remember, when a reviewer reads the article if that article seeks to overturn nearly 2 centuries of solid research, it will have to carry a heavy load.

That being said, if the science is solid it is not likely that people will "hide" it.

Because all of us who do science for a living know that good, solid science will ultimately come out.

Robert Gentry formerly of oakridge labratories specializing in nuclear waste was excommunicated from the peer review network after being found a creationist.

Why would a nuclear waste specialist be called in to peer review evolutionary biology articles? It simply doesn't work that way.

 

[MikeCarra]

If we must look at Dr. Gentry's stuff, let us look at his "seminal" Po-halos research from 1986.

Why wouldn't this pass peer review?

Well from what I understand Dr. Gentry made a few errors:

1. DIdn't descsribe the precise geologic setting for his samples (big red flag there)

2. Some of his samples are known to be later emplacements than associated sedimentary rocks (making the claim of "primordial rocks" flawed)

3. There are a number of difficulties with assessing the placement of Po-halos. (Remember, if you are going to overturn ALL of science you need to overturn ALL of science.)

More can be see HERE and HERE

But the point is: just because someone puts something down on paper does not mean it is GUARANTEED publication in a journal.

Everyone who's been through peer review knows this. Everyone is under the same strict skepticism of their publication.

 

[keith99]

you have said that three times, yet they would need to be accepted by peer review boards first wouldn't they?

Robert Gentry formerly of oakridge labratories specializing in nuclear waste was excommunicated from the peer review network after being found a creationist. I believe this was one of his last works containing peer review (Creation's Tiny Mystery: Robert V. Gentry: 9780961675332: Amazon.com: Books) but I am not sure. My source had lunch with him regarding the prejudices of the peer review networks.

here again robert gentry (creationist) censored for posting these documents (Orion Foundation: Ten Censored Papers) which are legitimate science to a cornell university database, later suing for the removal (free speech of scientific theory- IF it is in fact science based).... In 2001 sued the los alamos @ cornell labratories for censorship of true scientific views. I mean this is rediculous, just because one isn't a uniformitarian, humanist, or evolutionist should they be silenced?

sad indeed, science is science regardless of race, ethnicity or religion.

more info here:
Dr. Robert V. Gentry, Nuclear Physicist Earth Science Associates (his web site)

I was going to ask where he received his doctorate. But I found it. It is an honorary degree from a fundamentalist college that keeps changing its name.

It also his argument seems to be "you cannot duplicate polonium halos, therefore God'.

Not something most real scientists would find interesting. Not even something many radical atheists would find interesting because as soon as they do find a way it will be forgotten and a new mystery will be trumpeted.

EDIT: It also seems that many other creationists think his poor reception in the scientific community stems more from his abrasive manner than anythgin else. Of put differently they think he is a jerk so no one will do him any favors.

 

[CabVet]

Dr. Robert V. Gentry, Nuclear Physicist Earth Science Associates (his web site)

Isn't it interesting how a doctorate means nothing until you find someone with one that happens to support your idea?

But that's the beauty of the peer-review system. If your science is crap, it will not get published, regardless of which titles you have.

 

[MikeCarra]

Isn't it interesting how a doctorate means nothing until you find someone with one that happens to support your idea?

Gotta love it! And an "honorary" doctorate at that! Wow! Those must require a LOT of work!

 

[createdtoworship]

Isn't it interesting how a doctorate means nothing until you find someone with one that happens to support your idea?

But that's the beauty of the peer-review system. If your science is crap, it will not get published, regardless of which titles you have.

yes, but like I said the system is flawed. They have discriminated against legitimate science, and I have documented cases of it. In fact some of which they discriminated, had gone on to receive the nobel prize for the same exact information.

 

[createdtoworship]

If we must look at Dr. Gentry's stuff, let us look at his "seminal" Po-halos research from 1986.

Why wouldn't this pass peer review?

Well from what I understand Dr. Gentry made a few errors:

1. DIdn't descsribe the precise geologic setting for his samples (big red flag there)

2. Some of his samples are known to be later emplacements than associated sedimentary rocks (making the claim of "primordial rocks" flawed)

3. There are a number of difficulties with assessing the placement of Po-halos. (Remember, if you are going to overturn ALL of science you need to overturn ALL of science.)

More can be see HERE and HERE

But the point is: just because someone puts something down on paper does not mean it is GUARANTEED publication in a journal.

Everyone who's been through peer review knows this. Everyone is under the same strict skepticism of their publication.

first of all you didn't cite your post as being c&p'd from http://paleo.cc/ce/halos.htm but rather simply said "more can be found at" . This is plagiarism and is against forum rules

secondly,
not every thing about science is perfect. and
not everything, every author writes is peer review. What happened is because of his unconformity to uniformitarian views, they rejected his works to save face. He was also discriminated against regarding these works:


Orion Foundation: Ten Censored Papers

 

[bhsmte]

Gotta love it! And an "honorary" doctorate at that! Wow! Those must require a LOT of work!

It only took the right ideology and he was in.

 

[Aureus]

Gotta love it! And an "honorary" doctorate at that! Wow! Those must require a LOT of work!

He's a smart guy with a myopic dedication to his belief in a young or sudden earth creation and once he found something he thought fit into it he's gone full bore after it.

yes, but like I said the system is flawed. They have discriminated against legitimate science, and I have documented cases of it. In fact some of which they discriminated, had gone on to receive the nobel prize for the same exact information.

Being treated with skepticism is not the same thing as being discriminated against.

Reading the letters that they kindly provide on their website makes it pretty clear the only discrimination that existed was the "um dude, you didn't supply it in the format we require and you don't have any institutional backing, which we've always required."

Gentry is a smart guy, with a legitimate Masters degree in physics. Unfortunately he's not very educated in geology and has managed to look at rock samples that weren't even granite and think that they were.

 

[createdtoworship]

peer review errors found here:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic...le/Opinion--Scientific-Peer-Review-in-Crisis/

and also found rejecting legitimate science was failed to conform to majority of current scientists found here:



"Rosalyn Yalow, Günter Blobel, Mitchell J. Feigenbaum, Theodore Maiman, . John Bardeen, and Tuzo Wilsona" all were rejected from peer review boards for their submittals which later became famous in the field or received nobel prizes. All of this because of the unconformity of their scope.

"Stephen W. Hawking is the world’s most famous physicist. According to his first wife Jane, when Hawking submitted to Nature what is generally regarded as his most important paper, the paper on black hole evaporation, the paper was initially rejected.7 I have heard from colleagues who must remain nameless that when Hawking submitted to Physical Review what I personally regard as his most important paper, his paper showing that a most fundamental law of physics called “unitarity” would be violated in black hole evaporation, it, too, was initially rejected. (The word on the street is that the initial referee was the Institute for Advanced Study physicist Freeman Dyson.)"

above from:

Frank J. Tipler- Chapter 7 of Uncommon Dissent. Ch7= REFEREED JOURNALS -DO THEY INSURE QUALITY OR ENFORCE ORTHODOXY?
From Book : UNCOMMON DISSENT Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing Edited by William A. Dembski, 2004

“1999 Nature magazine published a letter from Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University, who said, “even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”22- Scott Todd, letter to the editor, Nature 401/6752 (September 30, 1999): 423.”- Norman Geisler in His book Creation and the courts.

let me repost this tidbit from my original post for clarity:

“Darwinists would risk losing financial security and professional admiration. How so? Because there’s tremendous pressure in the academic community to publish something that supports evolution. Find something important, and you may find yourself on the cover of National Geographic or the subject of a PBS special. Find nothing, and you may find yourself out of a job, out of grant money, or at least out of favor with your materialist colleagues. So there’s a money, job security, and prestige motive to advance the Darwinian worldview.”


above from Norman Geisler, Frank Turek- I Don't have faith enough to be an athiest
evolution is where the grant monies lie. There is risk in any new venture in science, nonconformity is simply not profitable (most of the time).

 

[MikeCarra]

He's a smart guy with a myopic dedication to his belief in a young or sudden earth creation and once he found something he thought fit into it he's gone full bore after it.

I have no doubt he is smart. BUt if you hang around on this board long enough someone WILL tell PhD's that their degrees are nothing but a few letters. IF the PhD happens to disagree with the Creationist or climate skeptic.

So it is always fun to see an HONORARY PhD lauded!

Dr. Gentry doesn't know geology so he made a bunch of boner errors. His stuff deserved to be treated like a high school science project. I am sure that if he were reviewing an article on nuclear waste disposal by ME he'd reject it too!

 

[MikeCarra]

first of all you didn't cite your post as being c&p'd from Unfounded Creationist Claims about Radio Halos but rather simply said "more can be found at" . This is plagiarism and is against forum rules

I did NOT plagiarize. I take that as a most serious insult.

I provided the citation and also included in my description information from a secondary source. So I cited BOTH.

 

[createdtoworship]

I did NOT plagiarize. I take that as a most serious insult.

I provided the citation and also included in my description information from a secondary source. So I cited BOTH.

citing a source involves using quotation marks as well as a link to sourced material. But then again, I could be mistaken, if I am I am sorry. I have had to correct a few people here that do this error. It looks like you rephrased some of it. Which is acceptable. I apologize.