• 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.

How the Smallest Cells Give Big Evidence for a Creator

Status
Not open for further replies.

dmmesdale

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Mar 6, 2017
755
189
Fargo
✟74,412.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Peer review, as you are using it, is an unscientific standard in the first place.
Garbage. Google problems with peer review. problems in peer review - Google Search
There are those words again.

It was peer reviewed. It does not conflict anything. How can it not pass if it was not reviewed? He got negative reviews by dogmatists. Who cares.


peer review signature in the cell - Google Search
Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories | Center for Science and Culture
They don't need it and if they are published authors their status is elevated in academia. Look at Bart Ehrmann. Obviously a heretic yet employed at a Christian university last i heard. Writing books is a valid way to circumvent the bias peer review process. Besides Meyer did have an article which underwent mainstream peer review, prior to Dover. Above.
Peer-Reviewed Articles Supporting Intelligent Design | Center for Science and Culture
These and other labs and researchers have published their work in a variety of appropriate technical venues, including peer-reviewed scientific journals, peer-reviewed scientific books (some published by mainstream university presses), trade-press books, peer-edited scientific anthologies, peer-edited scientific conference proceedings and peer-reviewed philosophy of science journals and books. These papers have appeared in scientific journals such as Protein Science, Journal of Molecular Biology, Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Quarterly Review of Biology, Cell Biology International, Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum, Physics of Life Reviews, Quarterly Review of Biology, Annual Review of Genetics, and many others. At the same time, pro-ID scientists have presented their research at conferences worldwide in fields such as genetics, biochemistry, engineering, and computer science.
 
Upvote 0

dmmesdale

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Mar 6, 2017
755
189
Fargo
✟74,412.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
CA-Conservatives
dmmesdale, it appears that you did not realize how the article that I linked refuted your Behe claim.

His work was not "peer reviewed". Not to the standards of a professional journal. You are making a equivocation error. The article that I linked made that fact more than abundantly clear.
It was reviewed by his peers. That defines peer review. Just like A Universe From Nothing by Krauss was reviewed by his peers.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
It was reviewed by his peers. That defines peer review. Just like A Universe From Nothing by Krauss was reviewed by his peers.

Wrong again. "Peer review" has a set definition when referring to works in the field of science. The "review" done by those scientists does not meet that standard:

The article that I linked and quoted from shows that it did not meet the rigors of a peer reviewed article as outlined here:

Explainer: what is peer review?

The quotes from the "reviewers" themselves demonstrated that fact. In an actual peer reviewed work they would have stopped at part two of the article I just linked. Errors were found so this would have happened at the very least:

"Reviewers will decide whether to reject the paper, to accept it as it is (which rarely happens) or to ask for the paper to be revised. This means the author needs to change the paper in line with the reviewers’ concerns."

The book was never revised, even though it had errors in it. A mere perfunctory scan does not make an item "peer reviewed".

You are guilty of making an equivocation error.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

dmmesdale

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Mar 6, 2017
755
189
Fargo
✟74,412.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Wrong again. "Peer review" has a set definition when referring to works in the field of science. The "review" done by those scientists does not meet that standard:
peer re·view
noun
noun: peer review; plural noun: peer reviews
  1. 1.
    evaluation of scientific, academic, or professional work by others working in the same field.
verb

The article that I linked and quoted from shows that it did not meet the rigors of a peer reviewed article as outlined here:

Explainer: what is peer review?

The quotes from the "reviewers" themselves demonstrated that fact. In an actual peer reviewed work they would have stopped at part two of the article I just linked. Errors were found so this would have happened at the very least:
For submitted journals, not books. Books are reviewed by peers after the are published. Sometimes professionals are consulted for accuracy prior to their publishing. As with the case with Meyer. He consulted professionals in their fields to make sure the info was accurate for sections of his books. All that is ignored by critics.
The book was never revised, even though it had errors in it. A mere perfunctory scan does not make an item "peer reviewed".
If there were errors then they would be documented in the review. Most of which is public info.
You are guilty of making an equivocation error.
No need for vacuous accusations. You made claims that did not stand the up to the facts. Like Meyer never having peer review. Now you ar applying submitted journal standards to published books. Meyer had documented peer reviewed prior to Dover. The article was cited and ignored because of viewpoint bias. (Its ID.) The truth does not have to comform to your bias.
 
Upvote 0

dmmesdale

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Mar 6, 2017
755
189
Fargo
✟74,412.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
CA-Conservatives
On my, major fail.

One does not rely on a dictionary for a complex concept. It only skims the surface of usage.

And you just confirmed my claim. Once again the "reviewers" of Behe's work found errors. They were not corrected. That means by your own argument that Behe's work was not peer reviewed.

Your logic skills are either lacking or your bias won't let you see your error.
How could they cite alleged errors if it was not reviewed in the first place?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.