• 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.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

A Simple Request

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Define "scientist".

All those ignorant lay people ARE scientists (Ph.D.s), include ME, who is much more scientific than you.

Are you a scientist, Juvenissun? Why do we have to literally beg you to post supporting evidence for your claims in almost every instance you enter into a debate on this board?

I can't count the number of times I've had to cajole and beg you to post a citation or even a detailed explanation for your points.

I don't know many scientists who are so loathe to support their arguments with actual facts.

You know, your fruits bear far better witness to your actual skills, abilities and interests than your proclamations.
 
Upvote 0

LewisWildermuth

Senior Veteran
May 17, 2002
2,526
128
53
Bloomington, Illinois
✟26,875.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
No matter how good the article is, it won't pass the review with what you said above. It has nothing to do with the quality of the work.

So you have seen the rejection letters? Could you point us to them, after looking quite hard a while ago I never found even one rejection letter for a creationist's trying to publish in a journal.

It is like they never even tried to publish and just lied about it. I would love to see a rejection letter so I would not have to assume that the people at ICR and AIG are lying about this.
 
Upvote 0

TeddyKGB

A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude
Jul 18, 2005
6,495
455
48
Deep underground
✟9,013.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Actually you can do armchair/amateur astronomy these days and be doing real science.
The modifier "armchair" refers less to whether one makes money doing science and more to the practice of criticizing without doing science at all, amateur or otherwise.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟139,126.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Well you need to doing for science for one... How many experiments and discoveries do creationist organizations produce? Having Ph.D does not make one a scientist.

I guess you want me to complete the sentence. How about Ph.D. in science?
 
Upvote 0

Washington

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2003
5,092
358
Washington state
✟7,305.00
Faith
Agnostic
You are a scientist if you are contributing to the body of scientific knowledge through experimentation and/or data collection.
Exactly, which is why many with degrees in science fail to qualify even though may work in their field. Often they're referred to as engineers. Engineers are not scientists.
 
Upvote 0

TemperateSeaIsland

Mae hen wlad fy nhadau yn annwyl i mi
Aug 7, 2005
3,195
171
Wales, UK
✟29,685.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I guess you want me to complete the sentence. How about Ph.D. in science?

Nope, one of my best friends has a Ph.D in physical chemistry but he's not a scientist he's a teacher.

I have a Pd.D in Organic chemistry and at the moment I'm a scientist as I'm working as a R&D chemist but if I decide to go into teaching I'll stop being one.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟139,126.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Nope, one of my best friends has a Ph.D in physical chemistry but he's not a scientist he's a teacher.

I have a Pd.D in Organic chemistry and at the moment I'm a scientist as I'm working as a R&D chemist but if I decide to go into teaching I'll stop being one.

Funny concept. So, all Ph.D.s in schools are not scientists. You need to know that teaching job only take 1/10 of their time.

AiG is not a school. How about their "science" Ph.D.s? Are they scientist?
 
Upvote 0

TemperateSeaIsland

Mae hen wlad fy nhadau yn annwyl i mi
Aug 7, 2005
3,195
171
Wales, UK
✟29,685.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Funny concept. So, all Ph.D.s in schools are not scientists. You need to know that teaching job only take 1/10 of their time.

AiG is not a school. How about their "science" Ph.D.s? Are they scientist?

Why is it a funny concept? Being a scientist is a job not some kind of title you get for life. People who have science Ph.D's who are not doing scientific research are not scientists, they were scientists when they were doing their Ph.D's but once they stop doing scientific research they stop being scientists.

I would class the people at AiG as tabloid journalists, they write articles with a tonne of spin without actually doing any scientific research.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟139,126.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Why is it a funny concept? Being a scientist is a job not some kind of title you get for life. People who have science Ph.D's who are not doing scientific research are not scientists, they were scientists when they were doing their Ph.D's but once they stop doing scientific research they stop being scientists.

I would class the people at AiG as tabloid journalists, they write articles with a tonne of spin without actually doing any scientific research.

So, how should R&D be done?

Could I do R&D at home on my desk, which only has a computer?
What if I only work in lab 1 hour per day? Would that make me an "1-hr scientist" or "1/24 scientist"? If I have many assistants and I only go to labs to overview their works and not getting my hands dirty, would I still be a scientist? Oh, by the way, does a lab in school count as a place for R&D? How about those "science labs" in ICR? Is their AA only a decorative toy? Is the person operating the AA a scientist or is the person read/interpret the AA data a scientist?

That is why your concept is very funny.
 
Upvote 0

Maxwell511

Contributor
Jun 12, 2005
6,073
260
42
Utah County
✟31,130.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
But it's really one of the better systems out there.

Did I disagree with this statement somehow?

But just for curiosity's sake, how many peer reviewed journals have you written?

Spoken from actual experience in publication? How many peer-reviewed science articles do you have?

You sound like my Professor. He likes his group to maximize the number of papers. Journal papers btw, not conferences or letters and stuff like that.

I have a general policy that I do not what to have my name above crap. I believe in quality.

If you thinking peer-reviewed conferences and [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] like that I got my first one of them as an undergrad.

What is your prime critique of the peer-reviewed process? Data and even your own experience would be interesting to see.

Data?

I believe you misunderstund my post. Have you ever done a doctorate and had to read, analysis and critic alot of peer-reviewed papers? Rhetorical self serving questions are fun. :p

The point of my post was to suggest that people read peer-reviewed papers in the same skepticism that they read anything. Think about the content don't fall for any kind of appeal to authority.
 
Upvote 0

Maxwell511

Contributor
Jun 12, 2005
6,073
260
42
Utah County
✟31,130.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Never said it did. *sigh*

That is true.

A "lot of crap," huh! Glad you're not prone to exaggeration.

Given the thousands upon thousands upon thousands (I might be under exaggerating the number but people act out of character) of peer-reviewed papers that exist, in all the scholarly pursuits, you do not believe that there is space within them for "alot of crap".
You set up your criteria and Ill set up mine. Okey dokey?

If you what to believe everything that you read that is fine with me.
 
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Judged by the way I talk, I think I am a scientist.

ORLY?

You think that fighting against supporting your own points is being a scientist?

Here's a recent "gem" from Juvenissun, I'll let the other scientists determine if this sounds like someone who "talks" like a scientist:

I told you I am not sure how much CO3 was lowered in seawater. The OP suggested it is serious enough to stop the growth of coral. I doubt it. I give a number based on my hunch. I have no support for it.

-Discuss-

That is all you need to know about me in this forum.

Oh, you're right there. We all know quite a bit about your real bona fides by the way you "talk" on here. You are the most resistant to posting support for your claims, you are the one who requires constant cajoling to get to bother to present a well-developed statement of the mechanisms of your points, or even support your ideas with a citation.

You spend so much time saying that things are "complicate" but you never bother to write out the complication.

Scientists...and by that I mean real scientists, occasionally deal in details and don't just throw their hands up and say "it's complicate" and expect their "hunches" for which they "have no support" be accepted. When we do throw our hands up, it is to access to our own failure to grasp the problem, not as a justification for our "ability" to handle the problem. We've all done it. But it isn't a badge of "honor".

THAT'S what lets us know exactly what your bona fides are.

(Like I said, we don't need to know specifically what you do for a living, but general information that preserves anonymity would tell us mountains of information. But as you know, your reticence to be nailed down as to what kind of science you really do tells us a lot. And I don't know about anyone else on here, but I personally have already formed an opinion of what you are.)

Again, if you need an example I'll give you an example of my background:

BS Geology (chem minor)
MS Geology
MS Thesis: chemical tracking of thermal maturity markers of kerogen in shales surrounding a major sedimentary basin
PhD: Geology
Dissertation: Coal chemistry, maceral alteration during industrial processing

Postdoc #1: carbon materials science (Chemistry postdoc)
Postdoc #2: carbon nanomaterials science (Chemistry)

Experience: oceanographic chemist technician with an east coast oceanographic research institute. Coal correlation studies for major coal company. 8 years as an Industrial chemistry/inorganic materials and mineral R&D

So if I make a comment on any of these areas you can reasonably expect me to have some familiarity with concepts. It also helps you know if I make a slip up where I'm coming from.

That's why I can talk about global warming, some amount of stuff around ocean chemistry, fossil fuels and minerals with some amount of experience with these things.

Now I don't expect you to be able to post anything about your background that looks like science because I suspect you realize what we will be able to tell from your posting. But now you know all you need to know about me on this forum.
 
Upvote 0

Washington

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2003
5,092
358
Washington state
✟7,305.00
Faith
Agnostic
juvenissun said:
All those ignorant lay people ARE scientists (Ph.D.s), include ME, who is much more scientific than you. [post #50]

"My identity
Biography
Geologist."
[from your public profile]
And
juvenissun said:
thaumaturgy said:
Are you a scientist, Juvenissun? Why do we have to literally beg you to post supporting evidence for your claims in almost every instance you enter into a debate on this board?
Judged by the way I talk, I think I am a scientist.
Actually, juvenissun, from the way you talk and what you have said, I find it very difficult to believe you have degree in any kind of science, much less a PhD in anything (I assume that was your assertion in post #50). Then you come out with statements like

Funny concept. So, all Ph.D.s in schools are not scientists. AiG is not a school. How about their "science" Ph.D.s? Are they scientist?

So, how should R&D be done?

Could I do R&D at home on my desk, which only has a computer?
What if I only work in lab 1 hour per day? Would that make me an "1-hr scientist" or "1/24 scientist"? If I have many assistants and I only go to labs to overview their works and not getting my hands dirty, would I still be a scientist? Oh, by the way, does a lab in school count as a place for R&D? How about those "science labs" in ICR? Is their AA only a decorative toy? Is the person operating the AA a scientist or is the person read/interpret the AA data a scientist?
which pretty much cinches my suspicion. I think you may have revealed much more then you intended in this thread. At least I understand you better.



Maxwell511 said:
]Given the thousands upon thousands upon thousands (I might be under exaggerating the number but people act out of character) of peer-reviewed papers that exist, in all the scholarly pursuits, you do not believe that there is space within them for "a lot of crap".
Not as I understand the word.
If you what to believe everything that you read that is fine with me.
What is it with this need to exaggerate? Just because I don't think "there's been a lot of crap published in a legitimate professional science journals" doesn't mean I believe everything I read. While you may not have meant your remark to be taken literally, sloppy prose like that tends to reflect sloppy thinking.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟139,126.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Again, if you need an example I'll give you an example of my background:

BS Geology (chem minor)
MS Geology
MS Thesis: chemical tracking of thermal maturity markers of kerogen in shales surrounding a major sedimentary basin
PhD: Geology
Dissertation: Coal chemistry, maceral alteration during industrial processing

Postdoc #1: carbon materials science (Chemistry postdoc)
Postdoc #2: carbon nanomaterials science (Chemistry)

Experience: oceanographic chemist technician with an east coast oceanographic research institute. Coal correlation studies for major coal company. 8 years as an Industrial chemistry/inorganic materials and mineral R&D

I can make up a similar one about me. But would you believe it? I don't think so. Why bother?
 
Upvote 0

CACTUSJACKmankin

Scientist
Jan 25, 2007
3,484
128
✟26,817.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
I can make up a similar one about me. But would you believe it? I don't think so. Why bother?
as long as it's not made up, we will consider it. I find your dodging indicative of deception on this topic. i welcome you to show me otherwise.
 
Upvote 0