A fascinating video on the vacuity of Macro Evolution for

[createdtoworship]

Nope, there are not any. You have dozens of fake creationist peer review articles. Try to find one in a real scientific journal. A real scientific journal is based upon the scientific method. Sites such as Answers in Genesis actually require their workers to sign a pledge saying that they will not use the scientific method.

You lose again.

You don't use the scientific method either . And I can prove it.

 

[pitabread]

You don't use the scientific method either . And I can prove it.

 

[pitabread]

a peer review article details it for us:
Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration

Funny, I just ranted about this article in another thread.

This article (and I hesitate to call it a 'paper' because really, it's largely just a literature review) does not demonstrate design in the slightest. Rather, it's a discussion of existing features in modern birds and a review of literature of evolution for those features (although not a complete review, mind you). Which the author then holistically rejects, declaring that since stuff couldn't have evolved, therefore DesignerDidIt. It's little more than a giant argument from incredulity with no actual demonstration of design in birds. No proposed mechanisms, no time frames for when this design supposedly took place, nada.

It's so incredibly bad, I'm surprised it was ever even published. If this is the type of thing which passes for ID scholarship and scientific inquiry, then it makes me incredibly sad for all those that think ID has a fighting chance in the scientific arena.

 

[Cearbhall]

I have dozens of creationsitic peer review, every year, more are published.

Er, what exactly is your definition of peer review?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't use the scientific method either . And I can prove it.

Wrong, but then you don't know what the scientific method is.

Seriously gradyll, have you had any science education at all? When and what was your last science class?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Funny, I just ranted about this article in another thread.

This article (and I hesitate to call it a 'paper' because really, it's largely just a literature review) does not demonstrate design in the slightest. Rather, it's a discussion of existing features in modern birds and a review of literature of evolution for those features (although not a complete review, mind you). Which the author then holistically rejects, declaring that since stuff couldn't have evolved, therefore DesignerDidIt. It's little more than a giant argument from incredulity with no actual demonstration of design in birds. No proposed mechanisms, no time frames for when this design supposedly took place, nada.

It's so incredibly bad, I'm surprised it was ever even published. If this is the type of thing which passes for ID scholarship and scientific inquiry, then it makes me incredibly sad for all those that think ID has a fighting chance in the scientific arena.

I looked through their "Editors (with special responsibility for Design & Nature)"



All engineers except for one retired biologist. Why so many engineers on what should be a chiefly biology "journal".

Plus it is open access and the promise rapid publication once a fee is paid. In other words, they will probably rubber stamp anything that seems to support "design". Not a well respected journal a complete fail on his part.

 

[pitabread]

I looked through their "Editors (with special responsibility for Design & Nature)"



All engineers except for one retired biologist. Why so many engineers on what should be a chiefly biology "journal".

Plus it is open access and the promise rapid publication once a fee is paid. In other words, they will probably rubber stamp anything that seems to support "design". Not a well respected journal a complete fail on his part.

Not only that, but the author of that article is also on the editorial board of the journal.

 

[createdtoworship]

Funny, I just ranted about this article in another thread.

This article (and I hesitate to call it a 'paper' because really, it's largely just a literature review) does not demonstrate design in the slightest. Rather, it's a discussion of existing features in modern birds and a review of literature of evolution for those features (although not a complete review, mind you). Which the author then holistically rejects, declaring that since stuff couldn't have evolved, therefore DesignerDidIt. It's little more than a giant argument from incredulity with no actual demonstration of design in birds. No proposed mechanisms, no time frames for when this design supposedly took place, nada.

It's so incredibly bad, I'm surprised it was ever even published. If this is the type of thing which passes for ID scholarship and scientific inquiry, then it makes me incredibly sad for all those that think ID has a fighting chance in the scientific arena.

are you a scientist? phd? published in peer reviews? Didn't think so. I think I will trust the peer review, and not you. Sorry, that rhymed. peer review, and you. lol

 

[createdtoworship]

Wrong, but then you don't know what the scientific method is.

Seriously gradyll, have you had any science education at all? When and what was your last science class?

are you a scientist? Have you published in peer review? PhD? I didn't think so. I will trust the peer review thank you very much. and yes I can prove you dont' use the scientific method. If you want I can post a new thread doing that very thing.

 

[pitabread]

are you a scientist? phd? published in peer reviews? Didn't think so. I think I will trust the peer review, and not you. Sorry, that rhymed. peer review, and you. lol

One does not need to be a published scientist to read an article and recognize how utterly crap it is.

Evidently, though, you didn't read the article in question.

 

[createdtoworship]

Er, what exactly is your definition of peer review?

peer review as found in most dictionaries other than wikipedia. Which is error prone.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not only that, but the author of that article is also on the editorial board of the journal.

Oh my!! I missed that. Talk about conflict of interest.

 

[createdtoworship]

So clearly you didn't even read the article in question. Got it.

read it a number of times. Great work. you are not an authority in my life, or in this thread. So your words mean little. please, post only works published in peer review.

 

[createdtoworship]

Oh my!! I missed that. Talk about conflict of interest.

oh, don't get me started on peer reviews that went awry. I have a host of them too. I don't think you wish to open this can of worms. not here.

 

[pitabread]

read it a number of times. Great work.

Really.

Then point to me exactly where the author of that article provides evidence of design in birds. I'll wait.

 

[Subduction Zone]

are you a scientist? Have you published in peer review? PhD? I didn't think so. I will trust the peer review thank you very much. and yes I can prove you dont' use the scientific method. If you want I can post a new thread doing that very thing.

Nope, I haven't. Yet I can tell that I am years ahead of you in education in the sciences.

And you are not "trusting peer review". You are trusting a bogus source. Have you checked out that journals Impact Factor?

And there is no point in opening another thread unless you want more people laughing at you. And some of those will have published in peer reviewed journals. Respectable peer review journals, a claim you cannot make without telling a whopper about the one that you linked.

 

[Subduction Zone]

oh, don't get me started on peer reviews that went awry. I have a host of them too. I don't think you wish to open this can of worms. not here.

I seriously doubt that. You probably only have more garbage like that last "peer reviewed article" of yours.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

are you a scientist? Have you published in peer review? PhD? I didn't think so. I will trust the peer review thank you very much. and yes I can prove you dont' use the scientific method. If you want I can post a new thread doing that very thing.

I have been on the publishing side and the reviewing side. Peer-review is only as good as that journal's peer-review process.

Also, I did your homework and found an article - you haven't commented.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh my!! An article that gives the impact factor of the "journal" that gradyll linked:

International Journal of Design and Nature and Ecodynamics

I looked through the first 100 journals that they had rated and there was one that was lower than his:

SJR : Scientific Journal Rankings

That is the first 50, once there you are only a click away from the next 50.

 

[createdtoworship]

Really.

Then point to me exactly where the author of that article provides evidence of design in birds. I'll wait.

he makes are argument for design. I can post a video for you, it's an hour long where several athiests convert to theism, but I have having fun with you right now. Maybe later. But seriously you should read it, I believe it has characteristics of specified complexity (not the irreducible complexity of behe) but specified complexity of dembski.