Check for Evolutionists.

[pantsman52]

so mIRC is a good source of info, I haven't been on that since I was like..... 17, lol.

Nice reading skills champ.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Kerr Metric ,what do you think about darwins black box by Behe , or Ludenows "bones of contention" and would you call either of these peer reviewed distinguished scientists 'liars or morons" ? If yes , please show evidence .

 

[KerrMetric]

Kerr Metric ,what do you think about darwins black box by Behe , or Ludenows "bones of contention" and would you call either of these peer reviewed distinguished scientists 'liars or morons" ? If yes , please show evidence .

Behe has been handed his hat so often he has pretty much abandoned his "black Box" contentions. You might want to keep up on the topic.

Also "Black Box" was NOT peer reviewed and in fact Behe has no peer reviewed material in this area.

Lubenow is a Theologian from Dallas Theological Seminary - he's not a scientist in any way.

Notice how none of these people actually produces any science for the science community in these areas. Typical!

 

[Uphill Battle]

Behe has been handed his hat so often he has pretty much abandoned his "black Box" contentions. You might want to keep up on the topic.

Also "Black Box" was NOT peer reviewed and in fact Behe has no peer reviewed material in this area.

Lubenow is a Theologian from Dallas Theological Seminary - he's not a scientist in any way.

Notice how none of these people actually produces any science for the science community in these areas. Typical!

Typical elitism. If they aren't in the inner circle, they aren't worth anything.

 

[KerrMetric]

Typical elitism. If they aren't in the inner circle, they aren't worth anything.

Correct. If they cannot think and present their work to their peers then they aren't worth a darn.

By the way the so called inner circle is a worldwide community of several hundred thousand scientists of all faiths and ethnicities versus a few cranks and liars.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Correct. If they cannot think and present their work to their peers then they aren't worth a darn.

By the way the so called inner circle is a worldwide community of several hundred thousand scientists of all faiths and ethnicities versus a few cranks and liars.

Oh look, Argumentum Ad Numerum.

 

[KerrMetric]

Oh look, Argumentum Ad Numerum.

No it is argument by capability versus argument from crankdom. When the numbers are approx. 500,000 versus 50 and the 50 actually don't produce any work in the area then they aren't likely to be right. Add in the blatant lies and deceit inherent in that community and it's a no brainer.

Plus, its not like these people actually have any credibility in the real world - just the fools who shell out money for their nonsense, non-peer-reviewed writings.

 

[Uphill Battle]

No it is argument by capability versus argument from crankdom. When the numbers are approx. 500,000 versus 50 and the 50 actually don't produce any work in the area then they aren't likely to be right. Add in the blatant lies and deceit inherent in that community and it's a no brainer.

Plus, its not like these people actually have any credibility in the real world - just the fools who shell out money for their nonsense, non-peer-reviewed writings.

another logical fallacy.

They don't have any credebility among Evo's, nor would I expect them to.

So basically put, you can't get a passing grade at a reputable university in the areas of palentology, biology, etc... unless you ascribe to Evolution.

You can't get a peer review, unless you have the degree from the above mentioned institutions.

You can't get credebility without peer review.

Classic deck stacking.

 

[KerrMetric]

another logical fallacy.

They don't have any credebility among Evo's, nor would I expect them to.

So basically put, you can't get a passing grade at a reputable university in the areas of palentology, biology, etc... unless you ascribe to Evolution.

You can't get a peer review, unless you have the degree from the above mentioned institutions.

You can't get credebility without peer review.

Classic deck stacking.

All assertions you cannot possibly back up. Typical whining from Creationists.

Of course the fact they seem incapable of doing the science cannot possible be the reason can it? The fact that when they have submitted material it is laughable rubbish isn't a factor is it?

The only deck being used is the short one they are dealing from.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Kerr metric , try slowing down and reading . I said they were peer reviewed , not that a particular book was . They have writings that are indeed peer reviewed even if you dont like that .

 

[KerrMetric]

Kerr metric , try slowing down and reading . I said they were peer reviewed , not that a particular book was . They have writings that are indeed peer reviewed even if you dont like that .

But if I am a peer reviewed physicist it isn't important if I write a psychology book is it? Behe has never dared open his Black Box material to peer review has he? Plus he has even himself abandoned most of that book anyway since his scholarship was so shoddy it was an embarrassment.

And I don't think Lubenow has ever been peer reviewed in any science since he isn't a scientist.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

"A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, ‘Well, I still believe in the big bang, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don’t believe in God.’ I answered him, ‘Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions.’"

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp

MUUUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That's one spectacular failure of an argument if ever there was one! It fails on so many different levels that I needn't even point out once more that the source of this nonsense is "ANSWERSINGENESIS", a site that openly admits that they filter information for scraps that they might find useful to support the conclusion they've arrived at BEFORE they even set out to investigate it.

 

[Uphill Battle]

All assertions you cannot possibly back up. Typical whining from Creationists.

Of course the fact they seem incapable of doing the science cannot possible be the reason can it? The fact that when they have submitted material it is laughable rubbish isn't a factor is it?

The only deck being used is the short one they are dealing from.

ok, be honest. I go to a "credible" institution. Am I going to pass if I do not ascribe to Evolution?

remember, we're supposed to be the liars here.

 

[KerrMetric]

It's ANSWERSINGOOFINESS these days under fair trading/product description laws.

 

[Danhalen]

Kerr metric , try slowing down and reading . I said they were peer reviewed , not that a particular book was . They have writings that are indeed peer reviewed even if you dont like that .

Kerr Metric never denied that Behe et al. were peer reviewed. The issue of peer review deals with the books concerning their views on evolution. I am positive Behe has never written a piece on ID that has ever made it through scientific peer review. I am also quite positive, as I'm sure Kerr Metric is too (judging by the post), Behe has had several works peer reviewed dealing with biochemistry.

 

[KerrMetric]

ok, be honest. I go to a "credible" institution. Am I going to pass if I do not ascribe to Evolution?

remember, we're supposed to be the liars here.

Yes if you answer the exam questions correctly.

Remember, if you say the integral of x^2 is something other than (1/3) x^3 + constant then you'll be failed. Do you think an alternative math should be passed?

 

[Danhalen]

ok, be honest. I go to a "credible" institution. Am I going to pass if I do not ascribe to Evolution?

remember, we're supposed to be the liars here.

You will not pass biology classes if you do not learn biological science. I don't understand what you're trying to get at.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Yes if you answer the exam questions correctly.

Remember, if you say the integral of x^2 is something other than (1/3) x^3 + constant then you'll be failed. Do you think an alternative math should be passed?

I'm not speaking of math, am I? For instance, if the exam was on paleontology, and you simply do not believe that such and such was millions of years old, you WILL NOT PASS. therefore, you are graded on a system that basically states that something is proven fact, when it is not.

 

[KerrMetric]

Kerr Metric never denied that Behe et al. were peer reviewed. The issue of peer review deals with the books concerning their views on evolution. I am positive Behe has never written a piece on ID that has never made it through scientific peer review. I am also quite positive, as I'm sure Kerr Metric is too (judging by the post), Behe has had several works peer reviewed dealing with biochemistry.

Exactly. I'm a physicist but if I write a book on botany then I can't use my physics peer review status as a reason to circumvent the botany peer review process. That is what Behe did - he played off his biochem backgroud to write a book to cash in off the masses.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Notice how none of these people actually produces any science for the science community in these areas. Typical!

Behe is not peer reveiwed?: Behe, M. J. and D. W. Snoke. 2004. Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues. Protein Science 13: 2651-2664.

who is what you called "frauds and liars" ?