Prove it or remove it challenge

[Subduction Zone]

An a posteriori political hatchet job.

You guys can't stand to be so wrong can you ha ha?

What are you talking about? Meyer is an idiot that cannot support his claims through peer review.

Peer review is a relatively low hurdle that only removes articles with gross errors in them. If someone can't get an article past peer review it shows that he has no clue about what he is talking about.

And did you figure out your error yet? I quoted the article that you supplied. That article of his was not peer reviewed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To the word that you gave. You said that there aren't "any" peer reviewed articles on ID. I asked if you would admit you are wrong when I prove you are wrong. I have proven you were wrong.

Time to admit it.

But you didn't. Perhaps he should have added the codicil "in a well respected professional journal" That is still a very low hurdle. The Discovery Toot knew that their nonsense could not make it through peer review so they made their own fake "peer review". Sure I could publish "peer reviewed" articles on why gravity does not work if I could find a sucker will to create a publishing hose for me. Calling what the Discovery Institute created "peer review" is a joke.

 

[Paterfamilia]

No way. It was not peer reviewed. It was published in a peer review journal. The article that you linked even says that:

"Meyer's article was a literature review article, "

Literature review is still peer review.

The review process for this paper:

"Three reviewers responded and were willing to review the paper; all are experts in relevant aspects of evolutionary and molecular biology and hold full-time faculty positions in major research institutions, one at an Ivy League university, another at a major North American public university, a third on a well-known overseas research faculty. There was substantial feedback from reviewers to the author, resulting in significant changes to the paper. The reviewers did not necessarily agree with Dr. Meyer's arguments or his conclusion but all found the paper meritorious and concluded that it warranted publication...four well-qualified biologists with five PhDs in relevant disciplines were of the professional opinion that the paper was worthy of publication."

 

[Paterfamilia]

But you didn't. Perhaps he should have added the codicil "in a well respected professional journal" That is still a very low hurdle. The Discovery Toot knew that their nonsense could not make it through peer review so they made their own fake "peer review". Sure I could publish "peer reviewed" articles on why gravity does not work if I could find a sucker will to create a publishing hose for me. Calling what the Discovery Institute created "peer review" is a joke.

Wow. Integrity has a pretty low hurdle too. Just tell the truth, admit when you are wrong. It's not the end of the world or end of the discussion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Literature review is still peer review.

The review process for this paper:

"Three reviewers responded and were willing to review the paper; all are experts in relevant aspects of evolutionary and molecular biology and hold full-time faculty positions in major research institutions, one at an Ivy League university, another at a major North American public university, a third on a well-known overseas research faculty. There was substantial feedback from reviewers to the author, resulting in significant changes to the paper. The reviewers did not necessarily agree with Dr. Meyer's arguments or his conclusion but all found the paper meritorious and concluded that it warranted publication...four well-qualified biologists with five PhDs in relevant disciplines were of the professional opinion that the paper was worthy of publication."

Fine, it was temporarily peer reviewed. The article explained why the peer review was removed too. It was not a "political hatchet job". It cause an outrage because Sternberg did not follow protocol. The other "reviewers" seem to be somewhat in doubt too if I remember this kerfuffle correctly. At any rate it no longer is "peer reviewed".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wow. Integrity has a pretty low hurdle too. Just tell the truth, admit when you are wrong. It's not the end of the world or end of the discussion.

Yes, I do admit that creationists cannot jump over any hurdles involving integrity. That is why they continually lose court case after court case. When we actually look at the evidence they have none. I did tell the truth about the Discovery Toots "journals". Why can't you tell the truth when it is shown that Behe was wrong about all of his claims of "irreducible complexity"?

 

[Paterfamilia]

Thank you sir. Respect. (fist bump)

And really, the dust-up and retraction was political. Watch "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed".

Anyway that's not the only one on the list and they did not lie about anything.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Yes, I do admit that creationists cannot jump over any hurdles involving integrity. That is why they continually lose court case after court case. When we actually look at the evidence they have none. I did tell the truth about the Discovery Toots "journals". Why can't you tell the truth when it is shown that Behe was wrong about all of his claims of "irreducible complexity"?

Blah blah blah. Behe is not wrong about all of his claims of irreducible complexity. Why do you make all these ridiculous extreme claims that are false on their face?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you sir. Respect. (fist bump)

And really, the dust-up and retraction was political. Watch "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed".

Anyway that's not the only one on the list and they did not lie about anything.

Are you kidding? Expelled was the "political" movie. It has been refuted on all levels. They were far from accurate in their description of the "persecution" of those people.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Ha ha straight off of rationalwiki - did you notice that he heads up the Biologic Institute? That's the research arm of the Discovery Institute.

That's not a credential to brag about.

To the word that you gave. You said that there aren't "any" peer reviewed articles on ID. I asked if you would admit you are wrong when I prove you are wrong. I have proven you were wrong.

Time to admit it.

Ummm, all you have shown was the dishonesty of the Discovery Institute. SZ pointed out a glaring error for you. You hand waved it away. I'm almost convinced you're a poe.

Watch "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed".

A movie that has been torn to shreds in every way imaginable? A film that intentionally deceived respected scientists by telling them they were interviewing for something entirely different and then proceeded to take their interviews out of context.

This is why nobody takes creationist institutions seriously. Because they are intellectually bankrupt.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Blah blah blah. Behe is not wrong about all of his claims of irreducible complexity. Why do you make all these ridiculous extreme claims that are false on their face?

Of course he is. He was shown to be wrong by Miller with his mousetrap. In fact he changed his explanation of "IR" after that encounter. The video that I linked went over step by step how the bacterial flagellum could have evolved. I said "could have" because that is not the only example of how it could have happened. It is thought to be the likely method since not all bacteria evolve. Many could keep surviving in their environments without evolving. We can find "partially evolved " bacteria for just about all steps.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Are you kidding? Expelled was the "political" movie. It has been refuted on all levels. They were far from accurate in their description of the "persecution" of those people.

BahLoney. Did you watch it? Ben Stein is hilarious and you get to see the Discovery Institute in all its sprawling glory. (4 offices) Good soundtrack too. High production values.

And an important message against the systematic stifling of scientific research and progress.

 

[Paterfamilia]

That's not a credential to brag about.



Ummm, all you have shown was the dishonesty of the Discovery Institute. SZ pointed out a glaring error for you. You hand waved it away. I'm almost convinced you're a poe.



A movie that has been torn to shreds in every way imaginable? A film that intentionally deceived respected scientists by telling them they were interviewing for something entirely different and then proceeded to take their interviews out of context.

This is why nobody takes creationist institutions seriously. Because they are intellectually bankrupt.

Whatever. Have a good life.

 

[Subduction Zone]

BahLoney. Did you watch it? Ben Stein is hilarious and you get to see the Discovery Institute in all its sprawling glory. (4 offices) Good soundtrack too. High production values.

And an important message against the systematic stifling of scientific research and progress.

Sorry they openly lied and even kicked out someone they interviewed and lied to when that movie premiered. In other words they are huge huge hypocrites. You should watch some of the videos that refute that pile of horse ..... At any rate you were sold a lie and you swallowed it hook line and sinker:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/20/expelled/

 

[Paterfamilia]

Interesting Ken Miller quote:

"What does that mean about evolution? Evolution is a natural process. The whole message of evolution is that we can explain our origins and other species in terms of natural processes that operate today in living organisms that are all around us. If God is real, as I believe he is, that means that those natural processes are part of his providence."

Im not saying he is pro-ID. Far from it. But he's no atheist by any stretch either.

 

[The Cadet]

My beef with Ken Miller, and the strawman that was ID at Dover:

"At the Dover trial, Ken Miller asserted under oath that intelligent design is merely “a negative argument against evolution” which requires an appeal to the supernatural: “It is what a philosopher might call the argument from ignorance, which is to say that, because we don't understand something, we assume we never will, and therefore we can invoke a cause outside of nature, a supernatural creator or supernatural designer.”6 Dr. Miller even stated this holds true in all cases: “The evidence is always negative, and it basically says, if evolution is incorrect, the answer must be design.”"

It's hard to describe his testimony as anything other than perjury. He is certainly an intelligent guy, and would know that his rendition does not match contemporary ID theory.

Really? As others pointed out, the #1 criticism of Bio-Complexity from creationists was that it spent all its time arguing against evolution, rather than presenting positive evidence for intelligent design. Because of course it did! Intelligent design is unfalsifiable. There is no possible state of the universe that an omnipotent supernatural creator couldn't bring about. All it has to work with is "win by default", and this is, first and foremost, what we see in its articles: "Evolution couldn't happen because of X", "The cambrian explosion makes no sense in the evolutionary model", "Evolution cannot produce the information in DNA", et cetera et cetera et cetera.

Creation science is not the same thing as ID.

Another thing the Dover trial showed very clearly: ID is just creationism in a lab coat.

And really, the dust-up and retraction was political. Watch "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed".

No, I'm sorry, the dust-up surrounding Meyers's paper was not political.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sternberg_peer_review_controversy
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/08/meyers-hopeless-1.html

Meyer's paper was filled with trivial errors that any decent peer-reviewer should have picked up on. The fact that Sternberg pushed this through in a journal ill-suited for it with poor peer review makes it a very weak paper to cite. You might as well be citing Soon & Baliunas.

As for Expelled, virtually every aspect of the movie has been thoroughly debunked.

Ben Stein is hilarious

Oh look, something else you're just objectively wrong about. The term "monotonous" is not just applicable, it wouldn't surprise me if it was invented to describe Stein's drawling tones. This is less "finding Pixels hilarious" (which is still horribly wrong, just for a very different reason) and more "finding a reading of the Encyclopedia Brittanica by a robot hilarious".

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Im not saying he is pro-ID.

Considering he testified against ID, it's safe to say that he isn't pro-ID

But he's no atheist by any stretch either.

Nobody here claimed that he was. I'm well aware that he's a Christian. So what? Atheism has nothing to do with science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Interesting Ken Miller quote:

"What does that mean about evolution? Evolution is a natural process. The whole message of evolution is that we can explain our origins and other species in terms of natural processes that operate today in living organisms that are all around us. If God is real, as I believe he is, that means that those natural processes are part of his providence."

Im not saying he is pro-ID. Far from it. But he's no atheist by any stretch either.

We all know that Ken Miller is a Christian. He is a Catholic to be precise. He does not accept ID or IR and definitely not creationism. In fact there is a whole group of Christians that do science and accept reality:

http://biologos.org/

Accepting the reality of evolution, the Big Bang theory, etc. does not mean that one cannot be a Christian.

 

[The Cadet]

Interesting Ken Miller quote:

"What does that mean about evolution? Evolution is a natural process. The whole message of evolution is that we can explain our origins and other species in terms of natural processes that operate today in living organisms that are all around us. If God is real, as I believe he is, that means that those natural processes are part of his providence."

Im not saying he is pro-ID. Far from it. But he's no atheist by any stretch either.

Ken Miller is a practicing catholic.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Sorry they openly lied and even kicked out someone they interviewed and lied to when that movie premiered. In other words they are huge huge hypocrites. You should watch some of the videos that refute that pile of horse ..... At any rate you were sold a lie and you swallowed it hook line and sinker:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/20/expelled/

Nice citation! Seriously that was funny! They kicked out Myers and let Dawkins walk in.

Oh my goodness!!