createdtoworship
In the grip of grace
- Mar 13, 2004
- 18,941
- 1,758
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
You don't use the scientific method either . And I can prove it.
Upvote
0
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.
You don't use the scientific method either . And I can prove it.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.
a peer review article details it for us:
Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration
Wrong, but then you don't know what the scientific method is.You don't use the scientific method either . And I can prove it.
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.
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. lolFunny, 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.
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? 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
peer review as found in most dictionaries other than wikipedia. Which is error prone.Er, what exactly is your definition of peer review?
Not only that, but the author of that article is also on the editorial board of the journal.
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.So clearly you didn't even read the article in question. Got it.
Oh my!! I missed that. Talk about conflict of interest.
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.
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.
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.
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.Really.
Then point to me exactly where the author of that article provides evidence of design in birds. I'll wait.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?