Subduction Zone
Regular Member
The sad thing is that it is true. We can show you where they were caught and how.
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.
The sad thing is that it is true. We can show you where they were caught and how.↑hitchslap said:
"Minus the cheap tuxedo, ID is nothing more than creationism."
Ha ha ha ha! Oh BOY!! You got us on that one! Ha ha can't stop laughing, but of course laughing at myself... I shoulda seen that ha ha cheap tuxedo. You nailed us on that one.
I'll tell the rest of the ID guys, we've been hitchslapped. No recovery from that...
Correct, I meant sad for him, not for us.For some; reality bites!!!
Op, are you even going to let your son learn about this for himself? Are you going to let him take legit science classes? Cause what's the point in all this if you're just gonna tell him he's not allowed to "believe" in evolution? A kid here said that's what creationists are instructed. Sounds like nothing is going to change your mind so what's the point in all this?
I skipped ahead a bit. I noticed that they tried to blow off peer review, and they are right in a sense. Peer review is not absolutely necessary for a new idea. But if you don't go the peer review route you better be sure that there is no doubt at all about your work and that is clearly not the case here. Their dishonesty showed on page 12 where they listed a "ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS" implying that the below were pee reviewed articles. The problem is that not every article in a professional journal is peer reviewed and the first one by Stephen C. Meyer was clearly not peer reviewed.
Yes. However, I doubt you're going to cite any scientific research that has been peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal that has anything to do with intelligent design in the context of biology.
You take that back!!! Ha ha!
From wiki: In 2004 the Biological Society of Washington made headlines for the Sternberg peer review controversy when the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington published a peer-reviewed paper in support of intelligent design.
Time to fess up dude.
Time to fess up dude.
The rest of the "ID guys" are familiar with the reference already.↑hitchslap said:
"Minus the cheap tuxedo, ID is nothing more than creationism."
Ha ha ha ha! Oh BOY!! You got us on that one! Ha ha can't stop laughing, but of course laughing at myself... I shoulda seen that ha ha cheap tuxedo. You nailed us on that one.
I'll tell the rest of the ID guys, we've been hitchslapped. No recovery from that...
About what? I pointed out the dishonesty in the link to "peer reviewed research" and I wasn't even a quarter of the way through it. Perhaps you'd like to try again? Perhaps in the form of citing the best paper in that entire list, a quotation from it, a demonstration that you understood the paper and a link to the entire paper. Otherwise, you're just playing a game of pigeon chess.
I see a Douglas Axe citation in there. He actually has credentials. None of the very few papers he has written attempt to refute evolution. The Discovery Institute seems to think his research supports their views. Not even Axe himself agrees with that. He is also on record stating that some data that cannot be explained is evidence for intelligent design. What's the fallacy he's committing here......that would be a false dichotomy. Do I even need to go through the rest of this nonsense?
And that article was not even peer reviewed as the link that Pater supplied showed so nicely. It was " Meyer's article was a literature review article, and contained no new primary scholarship itself on the topic of intelligent design. "
How would one do peer review on a literature review article? Yes the journal was embarrassed for their stupidity and axed the article after the fact. But it was never a peer reviewed article. Neither are letters to the editor, or even editorials in a peer reviewed journal. Just because an article appears in a peer reviewed journal does not gurantee that it is peer reviewed.
About what? I pointed out the dishonesty in the link to "peer reviewed research" and I wasn't even a quarter of the way through it. Perhaps you'd like to try again? Perhaps in the form of citing the best paper in that entire list, a quotation from it, a demonstration that you understood the paper and a link to the entire paper. Otherwise, you're just playing a game of pigeon chess.
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?