-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
My Creation Science Challenge
- Thread starter RickG
- Start date
The only claim I have seen for that is specific to medical journals, not the physical sciences. And granted, there have been a number of new journals recently coming into existence that are not the peer review status that they claim, but most of them have been rooted out for their bogus claims and no respectable scientist would even submit a paper to them. When it comes to the mainstream physical science journals, they are rock solid with their peer review.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,254
- 52,666
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I like to think he's in Heaven.
Which is giving him more credit than evolutionists give their prophet credit à la the Lady Hope story.
Upvote
0
Oafman
Try telling that to these bog brained murphys
- Dec 19, 2012
- 7,107
- 4,063
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- UK-Labour
If there's a heaven, I have no doubt he's there. Probably hassling God to tell him more details about creation!
Even if there were such a thing as 'evolutionists', they would not have a prophet.
Upvote
0
Thank you for your contribution to the topic of the thread AV. I think probably the important thing to understand with peer review is that the submitted article/research is reviewed by experts in the field to which the article applies. For example, a person submitting an article about a new dating radiometric dating technique, or an improvement of a specific method would be reviewed by geochronologists, who specialize in that area, not just a geologist or any scientist.
And with respect to creation science peer review, it is completely lacking of any such review process. Is their work reviewed by scientists, yes? Are those reviewers reviewing the article experts in the area(s) they are reviewing, NO. In fact, most papers submitted in that process are not submitted by people who have the slightest training in the area they are writing about, and I have yet to find one where the author is considered an expert in the field in which he/she is writing about. However, some of the work submitted are legitimate scientists who have peer review research published in the mainstream scientific literature. The sad thing is that what they submit to mainstream science and creation science are conflicting.
Upvote
0
Amen! Can I get a witness?
Indeed, the term 'evolutionists', is an unfounded derogatory term. I do not consider myself an evolutionist, yet I am familiar with may aspects of the theory of evolution (ToE), understand them, and accept them based on falsifiable evidence that I, myself, can validate, thus do accept ToE. In a somewhat related example, I understand the principles flight and how airplanes are able fly and maneuver, but I am not a pilot.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,254
- 52,666
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
No matter, I find that science is out to prove itself rather than look for the real truth. This all started when mankind wrote in stone their idea of truth. Now, anything that contradicts it is ridiculed and anything at all that can be bent to prove the hoax of evolution is held at the top of the list and shouted from the rooftops as solid truth.
Peer review has lost it's punch, lost it's validity, lost it's integrity.
Upvote
0
Thank you for your non-professional, uninformed opinion of "Peer Review" of the physical sciences, which I know to be, personally and from my colleagues, incorrect and pure rubbish. Might I suggest criticizing something from which you have a background and experience with rather than that from which you have neither.
Upvote
0
Really? Rubbish? I am not alone in this opinion. I know you rely on the support of the hive mind and the "boys club" attitude of "nonsense" to any science that goes against the "gold standard" of the hoax of the TOE.
But, many are taking notice to the lack of integrity and "majority rules, truth drool's" in the coveted peer review.
Peer review has become no more than the preverbial slap on the back as you all stand around drinking old scotch bragging about your accomplishments all the while hoping the wife doesn't call to tell you to come back home to reality.
Check these links.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/
Also: This guy goes into detail on the points below the link.
http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/
Three myths about scientific peer review
Myth number 1: Scientists have always used peer review
Myth number 2: peer review is reliable
Myth: Peer review is the way we determine what’s right and wrong in science
Then this link:
https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/bigwideworld/2012/06/time-to-review-peer-review.html
Here is a clip....
Standard lore has it that scientific results are supposed to be published in academic journals before they are even worth discussing. These publications use a "peer-review" system to determine the validity of a paper. If it's not valid in the eyes of the relevant expert community, it won't be published. It's supposed to be a way we can tell good science from bad: with the community as our judge.
That makes some sense but the ideal isn't quite a reality (at least not in my field, theoretical physics and astronomy).
And finally, this from: http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/does-peer-review-do-more-harm-than-good/
“We have no convincing evidence of [peer review’s] benefits, but a lot of evidence of its flaws,” Richard Smith, a journal editor and champion of radical publishing reform, wrote in a 2010 paper. He argues that peer review is inherently opposed to originality, ineffective at catching errors and open to abuse (reviewers can steal others’ ideas) and should be done away with entirely. The audience, he believes, can sort the good science from the bad. But Smith’s “publish-then-filter” solution, which may overestimate the layperson’s scientific literacy, isn’t widely supported.
Upvote
0
But there is so much nonsense out there that would utterly clog the journals if it were simply printed whenever submitted. Somebody, somewhere, has to weed out the clear nonsense, there's no choice, there is so much of it.
Upvote
0
Your, right.
I guess it just gets tough to say nothing when I see the sad state of human reasoning that is evident time and time again here. I mean look at this for instance......
.......this person actually thinks assuming something expanded somewhere as a beginning to it all rates as a scientific theory. I stick with my guns on my definition of theory and it's usage here.
And now the OP is making an extremely petty argument about the term "evolutionist". It's as if thy know how ludicrous the whole thing is and they are trying to find a way to detach themselves from their own nonsense.
So you see, AV1611VET, with all the bizarreness, it's hard not to let off a little steam with the occasional WT*?
Upvote
0
What hoax, JacksBratt?
Or is it because the Bible is written in stone and is considered the unbendable truth, and anything that goes against it just has to be wrong?
Show us the papers that lack integrity.
Again, you are projecting. Have you been to creationist websites?
Yes, those are the myths that creationists create around peer review.
In reality, peer review is just the first step in science. The hurdle is kept low to ensure that scientists are reporting their findings. Whether their findings are accurate or not is determined after peer review.
When we ask for peer reviewed papers, what we are looking for is a report on what the data is, how it was collected, what the hypothesis is, and how that hypothesis was tested using those methods. That's it. We have never claimed that the conclusions in peer reviewed papers are absolutley, 100% true. All we are asking for is the actual data as reported by the scientists who produced the data.
The problem for creationists is that they don't do any science. They have no data to report. It isn't a matter of some evil bias against creationists to keep them out of the journals. The truth of the matter is that they have no science to report on. I will take faulty peer reviewed papers over a complete lack of any science.
Upvote
0
And it is just that, an uninformed opinion from one with no experience on the outside looking in. Might I suggest reviewing the OP of this thread and getting back on topic.
I did, did you notice that every single reference provided by the author of that paper was from a Medical Journal and nothing from the physical sciences. We are discussing physical science here, not medical research, which I agree has a serious problem with reliable results. And I don't mean by unreliable people, but just the nature of that type of research which has enormous variables that must be dealt with.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
