Taking questions on Embedded Age Creation

[Elendur]

Of course you were. You will find it difficult to control what I do or don't do. Just lettin' ya know.

Just try to limit your own spread of false information would you?

 

[RickG]

You either have data or you don't. If you have no idea what you are talking about then that's fine.
I accept your claim that you have no idea what you are stating.

Hold on bub, I think you misunderstand what I am saying. I am not talking about the numbers posted by Elendur.

THERE IS NO REAL DATA ON HOW MANY PAPERS ARE "ACTUALLY" FRAUDULENT.

Define fraudulent. Realistically, most papers you may consider fraudulent are actually nothing more than poor scholarship. Very few such papers get by the peer review process as I previously stated. That is what the peer review process is specifically designed to do; weed out poor science whether intentional or unintentional. A truly fraudulent paper would be one where data is made up. That is extremely hard to get through the peer review process, though I have seen data sets manipulated in some cases which become quite obvious when published and open to the greater scientific community for scrutiny. Also understand that I am speaking specifically those fields of physical science.

Again:

• Bad science rarely shows up in journals where only papers are accepted and published within the confines of a journals expertise.
• Almost all bad science that has been peer reviewed and published occurs in journals that publish research outside their area(s) of expertise. In other words, the reviewers are not experts in the area(s) in which they review.
• The "gray literature", that is published science that is not peer reviewed, is where most poor scholarship shows up. And again, not so much fraudulent as poor scholarship.

 

[Loudmouth]

A truly fraudulent paper would be one where data is made up. That is extremely hard to get through the peer review process, though I have seen data sets manipulated in some cases which become quite obvious when published and open to the greater scientific community for scrutiny.

In some cases it is impossible for the reviewer to know if the data is faked or not. The only thing that the reviewer can do is make sure the correct methodology and controls are described in the paper. The real test comes when other scientists try to build on this data. If the data is faked then it will become quite obvious right away. For example, I often quote a paper on ERV's in ape genomes. If that data was faked anyone with a little know how can test it. All you need is the right primers and a PCR machine which are ubiquitous in research labs. Someone would have to be extremely dense to think that they would get away with faking this data. The same applies for the isotope content in rocks in a given geologic formation. If creationists want to claim that the data is faked, then why don't they make those measurements themselves and show that it is faked? Why don't they run a PCR for data they disagree with? It is rather simple to do.

Also, the penalty for faking data is quite severe within the scientific community. You will lose funding, and you will be blackballed. Not only is it immoral, it also wastes other people's precious time and resources.

 

[mzungu]

What are we debating about? The bible clearly gives Pi the value of 3; This alone makes the Bible an unfit source for anything but as a spiritual guide. I challenge any creationist who uses the Bible as an accurate scientific textbook to fashion a sphere by using the value of Pi as 3.

 

[SkyWriting]

That is what the peer review process is specifically designed to do; weed out poor science whether intentional or unintentional.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.



...senior officials of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory had lied to Energy Secretary Bill Richardson



How Peer Review Failed at Redding Medical Center,
Why It Is Failing Across the Country
and What Can Be Done About It



Why the BEST papers failed to pass peer review | Watts Up With That?



Errors of fact, design, and interpretation abound in the medical literature on guns and violence.
The peer review process has failed to prevent publication of the errors of politicized, results-oriented research.



"But the truth is that peer review as practiced in the 21st century biomedical research poisons science. It is conservative, cumbersome, capricious and intrusive. It slows down the communication of new ideas and discoveries, while failing to accomplish most of what it purports to do. And, worst of all, the mythical veneer of peer review has created the perception that a handful of journals stand as gatekeepers of success in science, ceding undue power to them, and thereby stifling innovation in scientific communication." - Michael Eisen - I'm an evolutionary biologist at UC Berkeley and an Investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. My research focuses on the evolution and population genomics of gene regulation in flies, and on the ways that microbes control animal behavior. I am a strong proponent of open science, and a co-founder of the Public Library of Science. And most importantly, I am a Red Sox fan.

 

[SkyWriting]

What are we debating about? The bible clearly gives Pi the value of 3; This alone makes the Bible an unfit source for anything but as a spiritual guide. I challenge any creationist who uses the Bible as an accurate scientific textbook to fashion a sphere by using the value of Pi as 3.

Didn't you learn about significant figures? The writers knew about them even if you forgot.
Pi was known about 2000 B.C.

 

[SkyWriting]

Just try to limit your own spread of false information would you?

Sorry. You have no control over what I say. You'll learn the hard way I guess.

 

[RickG]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

...senior officials of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory had lied to Energy Secretary Bill Richardson

That's peer reviewed?

How Peer Review Failed at Redding Medical Center,
Why It Is Failing Across the Country
and What Can Be Done About It

They're not really talking about "physical science" there, are they? They are in a subjective area where they are dependent upon what people (patients) tell them, usually in a very small unrepresentative sample pool that is not very well corroborated by other medical studies.

Why the BEST papers failed to pass peer review | Watts Up With That?

Anthony Watts? Come on, try citing someone with some credibility. He is one of the best known climate change deniers. The BEST papers have not failed peer review, they are still in peer review with the Journal of Geophysical Research as of Aug 3, 2012.

Anthony Watts and his Watts Up With That, are very well known for misinformation. Because the BEST research was funded by the Koch Foundation and researched by a team of climate change skeptics, Mr. Watts is on record stating that he will accept their results. However, the results came out the opposite Watts beliefs, so he has back-peddled. Now he is trashing them because the lead author, once climate change skeptic, Richard Muller, has publicly accepted anthropogenic climate change, mostly due to the BEST research teams findings.

Errors of fact, design, and interpretation abound in the medical literature on guns and violence.
The peer review process has failed to prevent publication of the errors of politicized, results-oriented research.

Again, where is the actual "physical science" there? Remember, in my previous post I specified, "physical science". Why? because it is objective while the others are subjective in nature. And Anthony Watts, get real. There is as much fraudulent information on his site as any creationist site.

 

[Loudmouth]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.



...senior officials of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory had lied to Energy Secretary Bill Richardson

From that article:

"The persistent unwillingness of the ICF and broader plasma and laser physics communities to acknowledge and systematically explore these issues, through careful and rigorous peer review, is perhaps the foremost contributor to the current project's difficulties. Indeed, had a sufficiently probing and objective peer review been conducted at any time before 1997, the present NIF project would have been deferred, on the grounds that it lacks a firm scientific and engineering basis on which to confidently project both laser system and fusion target performance."

That would seem to be a failure to implement peer review, not a failure of peer review itself. It's a bit like saying that fire extinguishers are useless, and then point to a story about how a house burned down because no one had a fire extinguisher handy.

If you want to claim that peer review is not of any use, then I would like to know what you want to replace it with. Any suggestions?

 

[Elendur]

Sorry. You have no control over what I say. You'll learn the hard way I guess.

Oh no, I learned that many years ago. Feel free to spread falsehood all you like, I won't hold you in high regard for it though.

 

[J0hnSm1th]

Also, I have completely failed to find anything in Genesis (not just Genesis 1) that in the least bit touches upon embedded age.

Embedded age is a harmonising doctrine. There is a mountain of evidence that indicates that the Earth and universe are millions of years old. Yet the Bible says it was created in 6 days. Old Earth Creationism must get into the muddy waters of accepting evolution. ie that God would chose a mechanism requiring millions of generations of death, suffering, and violence to arrive at man. Embedded age allows for a created Adam and Eve whilst still explaining why the Earth has the appearance of age.

Some would say 'last Thursdayism' makes God a deceiver. Of course it does. But the bible is full of instances where God doesnt tell people the full story.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Embedded age is a harmonising doctrine. There is a mountain of evidence that indicates that the Earth and universe are millions of years old. Yet the Bible says it was created in 6 days. Old Earth Creationism must get into the muddy waters of accepting evolution. ie that God would chose a mechanism requiring millions of generations of death, suffering, and violence to arrive at man. Embedded age allows for a created Adam and Eve whilst still explaining why the Earth has the appearance of age.

So, it's something people made up so that they could have their myth and eat it too.

 

[SkyWriting]

That's peer reviewed?

http://www.allianceforpatientsafety.org/redding-failure.pdfThey're not really talking about "physical science" there, are they? They are in a subjective area where they are dependent upon what people (patients) tell them, usually in a very small unrepresentative sample pool that is not very well corroborated by other medical studies.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/why-the-best-papers-failed-to-pass-peer-review/Anthony Watts? Come on, try citing someone with some credibility. He is one of the best known climate change deniers. The BEST papers have not failed peer review, they are still in peer review with the Journal of Geophysical Research as of Aug 3, 2012.

Anthony Watts and his Watts Up With That, are very well known for misinformation. Because the BEST research was funded by the Koch Foundation and researched by a team of climate change skeptics, Mr. Watts is on record stating that he will accept their results. However, the results came out the opposite Watts beliefs, so he has back-peddled. Now he is trashing them because the lead author, once climate change skeptic, Richard Muller, has publicly accepted anthropogenic climate change, mostly due to the BEST research teams findings.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8201280Again, where is the actual "physical science" there? Remember, in my previous post I specified, "physical science". Why? because it is objective while the others are subjective in nature. And Anthony Watts, get real. There is as much fraudulent information on his site as any creationist site.

Interesting claims and accusations.

 

[SkyWriting]

Oh no, I learned that many years ago. Feel free to spread falsehood all you like, I won't hold you in high regard for it though.

Now your getting reality. Finally.

 

[Elendur]

Now your getting reality. Finally.

I'll leave you to your falsehoods as requested then.

 

[Jamin4422]

So, it's something people made up so that they could have their myth and eat it too.

Are you saying that evolution is something that people make up so they can have their myth and eat it to? Because I thought Science was based on a hypotheses and then you follow though with that to try to prove or disprove your hypotheses. So this is all new for me, can you explain to me just how this "myth" process works? Because I can explain shadows and types in the Bible. So it does not really matter if the story is "true" or not, because the biggest part of the lesson is found in the symbolism and what things represent. Although I still believe in the literal truth of the Bible. That just means God is all that much more awesome that He uses real people and we learn from their exerience and from the way they lived their life.

 

[Jamin4422]

That's peer reviewed?

They're not really talking about "physical science" there, are they?

Your talking about something "designed to identify physician errors". That means lawsuits, attorneys, malpractice insurance. This is a big sore spot for doctors. Even a lawsuit can force a doctor to have to retire. The code is that doctors and nurses do not rat on each other, but they do what they can to back each other and cover for each other. Doctors error on the side of doing nothing. Because if they do something then they are going to be held accountable for it. You do not always know what the results are going to be. Even if the chance of disaster is slim to none things can still go very wrong. Sometimes the hospital will settle up because it is cheaper then to fight it and that could leave the doctor holding the short end of the stick. He could end up with higher insurance premiums. If he can not afford them to bad so sad.

Anyways, this has NOTHING to do with peer reviewed research.

 

[Tiberius]

Well, here we go with the zombie thread, but I have a question for AV....

When God created Adam, you say he embedded age into him. Did that include memories?

Assume that when God created Adam he was physically a 20 year old. Any test would show that Adam was twenty, even though he had existed for only a few seconds. At that point, did Adam have memories of being five? Please support your answer with scripture.

 

[AV1611VET]

When God created Adam, you say he embedded age into him. Did that include memories?

No, that is called Last Thursdayism. I don't even think Adam had a navel.

Please support your answer with scripture.

I can't support Last Thursdayism with the Bible.

 

[Tiberius]

No, that is called Last Thursdayism. I don't even think Adam had a navel.

I can't support Last Thursdayism with the Bible.

So what's the difference between memories that indicate a past which never occurred and a physical body which indicates a past which never occurred?