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.
Split Rock said:If you could find the remnants of an ancient civilization in mesozoic rock in an area near Mexico City, this would indeed turn the current paradigm on its head. I am not talking about a single sparkplug that went down a fissure and got covered by lime. A true archeological find in sediment layed down during the Mesozoic would be what you are looking for. Find any lately?
How about out of place fossils? Find the fossilized remains of a recent ecosystem in Mesozoic sedimentary rock, and yes, you would have evidence that would seriously question stratigraphy. Or, find the equivalent of the Burgess Shale in Paleozoic sediment. Find any lately?
Scientists.Uphill Battle said:so who exactly decided those principles?
Sound science does not equate to bias. Unsound papers are not rejected because of bias, but because they are unsound. This is true with any discipline. If someone wants to submit an article on baseball to Sports Illustrated, he must adhere to the principle of three strikes and youre out. Science, though not a sport, is just as well defined. Your claim that a paper will be rejected, even if scientifically sound, is fallacious. Scientists are not a college fraternity. They are highly competitive, and if a scientist finds evidence that refutes anothers findings, he will take great joy in proving him wrong.Therein lies my point. Go with Geology. If somebody wrote something on Geology, but did not ascribe to the Geological column, it couldn't possibly pass peer review, could it? The Geological community has already accepted the Geological column in total. So, going back to the point, if it doesn't ascribe to already held opinions and assumptions (The bias to which I refer) then it isn't going to pass muster, no matter what it is written on, how it is written, or even if sound scientific principles are used. That doesn't even have to go as far as the creation/evolution debate, somebody could agree with the billion year age, but not with the Geological column, and still not pass the peer review. It is not an unbiased review, as much as you'd like to believe it.
Uphill Battle said:there have been some finds. Nothing that the scientific community accepts, but enough to raise questions. Don't have my resources with me to post anything. (At work.)
GoSeminoles! said:Sure, there are always a few small anomalies, but so what? Science can never explain everything. That's what the error term is all about. NASA can put a spacecraft within a meter or two of a target on the other side of Jupiter, but seldom hit the target exactly. A darn impressive skill but there's almost always a tiny amount of variation which can't be explained. It doesn't mean the physics which gave them 99.99999999% accuracy is junk.
Uphill Battle said:1) I didn't say anything about a creationist, in fact, I specifically said someone who believes in the old earth theory, just someone who disagrees with the Geological column.
2) What does any of what you wrote have to do with the Geological column?
caravelair said:it has to do with your claim that no one will challenge the geological column because it is the dominant view. my example proves you wrong.
Uphill Battle said:I didn't claim that nobody would challange it. I claimed that such a person could not get by a peer review BECAUSE it's the dominant view.
As someone who has published in peer reviewed literature, referred peer reviewed journals and served as the editor of a peer reviewed journal I say your claim is false. This is a common creationist complaint but never substantiated. If you published data that challenge an accepted interpretation you must of course provide solid substantiation for your challenge. If what you claim were true science would never progress.Uphill Battle said:I didn't claim that nobody would challange it. I claimed that such a person could not get by a peer review BECAUSE it's the dominant view.
Uphill Battle said:Given that this has derailed the thread, I'm willing to drop the issue about peer reviews. I don't think I will ever convince you of my point, and likewise, I will never beleive it is what it is claimed to be.
Loudmouth said:Start a new thread outlining the papers that have been rejected by peer review. I have had papers rejected, so I know the process (as does Dr. GH I would guess). When a paper is rejected you are given the reasons why, and possible ways of fixing the paper.
.
What finds? Any that cannot be explained by known geological processes? If it raises questions as you say, the scientific community would look into it. If it is an anomaly explainable by upthrusting or folding, then there is no question raised.Uphill Battle said:there have been some finds. Nothing that the scientific community accepts, but enough to raise questions. Don't have my resources with me to post anything. (At work.)
Just start now. Find some old piece of wood and sell it. Someone will buy it if you pretend its real enough.Beastt said:Pieces would be available on eBay within 23.4 minutes.
Edx said:Just start now. Find some old piece of wood and sell it. Someone will buy it if you pretend its real enough.
Ed
And you've been demonstrated to be wrong, by several posters. I suggest you give up this line of argument, because you don't have a leg to stand on.Uphill Battle said:I didn't claim that nobody would challange it. I claimed that such a person could not get by a peer review BECAUSE it's the dominant view.
Beastt said:I bet I can guess who they thought the woman was supposed to be.
Split Rock said:This is just more conspiracy propaganda, where the evolutionist coalition of atheism hides or ignores vital evidence that would prove Genesis is literally true.
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?