Why Evolution is True

[Loudmouth]

all the more to refute what they actually said and correct the misinformation, not dodge it.

It is up to you to demonstrate that what you claim is supported by evidence.

Secondly, if you read the post you would know that there was an independent study done.

Show us the peer reviewed paper for that study.

 

[dad]

You first.

Exactly, you can't show light or spectra anywhere else but in our time. Our space. Our spacetime. Do not try to impose this onto all the universe.

There is no evidence in the Bible.

Get out more.

 

[createdtoworship]

It is up to you to demonstrate that what you claim is supported by evidence.

not all scientific discoveries are peer reviewed. Their are biases in peer review when one doesn't conform to current science. A new discovery has a hard time of peer review because it's new. So it's best to look at the facts not necessarily if it is accepted in peer review.

Show us the peer reviewed paper for that study.

why would a peer review society accept a paper that defies their uniformitarianism? (not very smart)

any one who is not under the consensus of current scientific trends at the time is rejected from peer review,

here is the evidence:

"Rosalyn Yalow, Günter Blobel, Mitchell J. Feigenbaum, Theodore Maiman, . John Bardeen, and Tuzo Wilsona" all were rejected from peer review for their submittals which later became famous in the field or received nobel prizes. All of this because of the nonconformity of their scope.

"Stephen W. Hawking is the world’s most famous physicist. According to his first wife Jane, when Hawking submitted to Nature what is generally regarded as his most important paper, the paper on black hole evaporation, the paper was initially rejected.7 I have heard from colleagues who must remain nameless that when Hawking submitted to Physical Review what I personally regard as his most important paper, his paper showing that a most fundamental law of physics called “unitarity” would be violated in black hole evaporation, it, too, was initially rejected."

above from:

Frank J. Tipler- Chapter 7 of Uncommon Dissent. Ch7= REFEREED JOURNALS -DO THEY INSURE QUALITY OR ENFORCE ORTHODOXY?
From Book : UNCOMMON DISSENT Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing Edited by William A. Dembski, 2004


Thirdly, if it is not accepted by mainstream peer review, all the more to dispel the notion that it is true, to address the facts of the studies, not dodge it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Exactly, you can't show light or spectra anywhere else but in our time. Our space. Our spacetime. Do not try to impose this onto all the universe.
Get out more.

That's right, the entire universe is in our time because none of the spectra are different anywhere in the universe. All of the universe is in the same state we are.

Thanks for finally agreeing.

 

[Loudmouth]

not all scientific discoveries are peer reviewed.

Name one that hasn't been.

Their are biases in peer review when one doesn't conform to current science.

Baseless allegation, and a lame excuse for not publishing scientific findings.

A new discovery has a hard time of peer review because it's new. So it's best to look at the facts not necessarily if it is accepted in peer review.

It isn't a fact until it is has been peer reviewed. That's how science works. The ageless saying in science is, "If it isn't published it doesn't exist."

Peer review is there to make sure the methodology is capable of producing the observations that were made. Peer review is there to make sure that the right contols and right equipment were used. Without peer review, all you have are meaningless numbers.

Why would a peer review society accept a paper that defies their uniformitarianism?

You would first have to show that the data supports such a conclusion.

any one who is not under the consensus of current scientific trends at the time is rejected from peer review,

You can't claim that a paper was rejected until you actually submit one.

here is the evidence:

"Rosalyn Yalow, Günter Blobel, Mitchell J. Feigenbaum, Theodore Maiman, . John Bardeen, and Tuzo Wilsona" all were rejected from peer review for their submittals which later became famous in the field or received nobel prizes. All of this because of the nonconformity of their scope.

"Stephen W. Hawking is the world’s most famous physicist. According to his first wife Jane, when Hawking submitted to Nature what is generally regarded as his most important paper, the paper on black hole evaporation, the paper was initially rejected.7 I have heard from colleagues who must remain nameless that when Hawking submitted to Physical Review what I personally regard as his most important paper, his paper showing that a most fundamental law of physics called “unitarity” would be violated in black hole evaporation, it, too, was initially rejected."

above from:

Frank J. Tipler- Chapter 7 of Uncommon Dissent. Ch7= REFEREED JOURNALS -DO THEY INSURE QUALITY OR ENFORCE ORTHODOXY?
From Book : UNCOMMON DISSENT Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing Edited by William A. Dembski, 2004


Thirdly, if it is not accepted by mainstream peer review, all the more to dispel the notion that it is true, to address the facts of the studies, not dodge it.

Papers get rejected all of the time, even those that agree with consensus. You act as if all you need to do is agree with everyone else and your paper gets accepted. That isn't how it works. There are tons of journals that accept papers, not just one. Also, if you follow the reviewers suggestions you have much better success with a resubmission. I have never seen a single research project that could not get published anywhere. What you claim is completely hogwash.

You are talking about a process that you know nothing about. You are saying nonsense.

 

[createdtoworship]

Name one that hasn't been.

I already listed several discoveries that were rejected by peer review. Like I said not all scientific discoveries are accepted by peer review because of the radical nature of new discovery:


"Rosalyn Yalow, who described how her Nobel-prize-winning paper was received by the journals as follows: “In 1955 we submitted the paper to Science.… The paper was held there for eight months before it was reviewed. It was finally rejected. We submitted it to the Journal of Clinical Investigations, which also rejected it.”2 Another example is Günter Blobel, who in a news conference given just after he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine, said that the main problem one encounters in one’s research is “when your grants and papers are rejected because some stupid reviewer rejected them for dogmatic adherence to old ideas.” According to the New York Times, these comments “drew thunderous applause from the hundreds of sympathetic colleagues and younger scientists in the auditorium.”3
In an article for Twentieth-Century Physics, a book commissioned by the American Physical Society (the professional organization for U.S. physicists) to describe the great achievements of twentieth-century physics, the inventor of chaos theory, Mitchell J. Feigenbaum, described the reception that his revolutionary papers on chaos theory received:
Both papers were rejected, the first after a half-year delay. By then, in 1977, over a thousand copies of the first preprint had been shipped...
Today it is known that the Hawaiian Islands were formed sequentially as the Pacific plate moved over a hot spot deep inside the Earth. The theory was first developed in the paper by an eminent Princeton geophysicist, Tuzo Wilson:
I … sent [my paper] to the Journal of Geophysical Research. They turned it down.… They said my paper had no mathematics in it, no new data, and that it didn’t agree with the current views. Therefore, it must be no good. Apparently, whether one gets turned down or not depends largely on the reviewer. The editors, too, if they don’t see it your way, or if they think it’s something unusual, may turn it down. Well, this annoyed me, and instead of keeping the rejection letter, I threw it into the wastepaper basket. I sent the manuscript to the newly founded Canadian Journal of Physics. That was not a very obvious place to send it, but I was a Canadian physicist. I thought they would publish almost anything I wrote, so I sent it there and they published it!8
"

above quote from:
Frank J. Tipler Chapter 7 of Uncommon Dissent. Ch7= REFEREED JOURNALS
;DO THEY INSURE QUALITY OR ENFORCE ORTHODOXY?;From Book : UNCOMMON DISSENT;Intellectuals Who Find
Darwinism Unconvincing;Edited by William A. Dembski, 2004

Papers get rejected all of the time,.

but not always for the right reasons, as shown above.

 

[PsychoSarah]

In some cases, they OUGHT to be! In the case of pathetic failed so called science beliefs, that is nothing to be proud of.

No, pride is a sin, wouldn't it be the absolute worst insult within your belief system for people to fuel sin with their belief?

 

[dad]

That's right, the entire universe is in our time because none of the spectra are different anywhere in the universe. All of the universe is in the same state we are.

Thanks for finally agreeing.

Spectra is basically the way light is parted in this sector of the universe.

Job 38:24 -By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth? In Hebrew east of course means this

"forward, front, east, antiquity, East

1. in front of, over against, front"

Old Testament Hebrew - StudyLight.org



So one might interpret the parting of light (spectra) here, as the light in front of our earth area spacetime nose.

 

[dad]

No, pride is a sin, wouldn't it be the absolute worst insult within your belief system for people to fuel sin with their belief?

I am not sure we define pride the same way. If something is against God that would be something we could consider possibly as pride. A pride parade, we might say. If someone was not ashamed of God that woulld be more worship than pride I would think. David was 'proud' of God, and danced before the ark in a show of that worship/pride. That was a parade that was OK, even though the guy did lead the procession nude!

 

[stevevw]

You know that post was mostly you. You are the king of text walls

Gee thanks so Ive been told. Oh well at least I'm OK at something.

 

[Loudmouth]

I already listed several discoveries that were rejected by peer review. Like I said not all scientific discoveries are accepted by peer review because of the radical nature of new discovery:


"Rosalyn Yalow, who described how her Nobel-prize-winning paper was received by the journals as follows: “In 1955 we submitted the paper to Science.… The paper was held there for eight months before it was reviewed. It was finally rejected. We submitted it to the Journal of Clinical Investigations, which also rejected it.”2 Another example is Günter Blobel, who in a news conference given just after he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine, said that the main problem one encounters in one’s research is “when your grants and papers are rejected because some stupid reviewer rejected them for dogmatic adherence to old ideas.” According to the New York Times, these comments “drew thunderous applause from the hundreds of sympathetic colleagues and younger scientists in the auditorium.”3

Where is your evidence that they were NEVER published in a peer review journal?

Yalow received the Nobel Prize for creating the immunosorbent assay. Luckily, we have replaced the R in RIA with EL, by that is a story for another day.

So according to you, this discovery was never peer reviewed. Is that true? NO!! Here is the peer reviewed paper.

Immunoassay of endogenous plasma insulin in man. [J Clin Invest. 1960] - PubMed - NCBI

Her discovery was peer reviewed in 1960, 17 years before she and her co-discoverer were given the Nobel Prize for that discovery.

This is exaclty what I am talking about when I say that creationists lie about the facts. This isn't a matter of different interpretations of publication records. This is a case of creationists flat out lying. Yalow was published. Her discovery was a part of the peer review process. These are facts. Creationists lie about these facts.

What do you have to say for yourself?

above quote from:
Frank J. Tipler Chapter 7 of Uncommon Dissent. Ch7= REFEREED JOURNALS
;DO THEY INSURE QUALITY OR ENFORCE ORTHODOXY?;From Book : UNCOMMON DISSENT;Intellectuals Who Find
Darwinism Unconvincing;Edited by William A. Dembski, 2004

Yet more matieral from known liars. When will you learn?

How does it feel to spread lies for them?

 

[Loudmouth]

Spectra is basically the way light is parted in this sector of the universe.

Light in our whole universe is parted this way, so that means the entire universe is in the same sector we are.

So one might interpret the parting of light (spectra) here, as the light in front of our earth area spacetime nose.

It isn't the parting of light that constitutes a spectra. It is the wavelengths of the light that constitute the spectra, and those wavelengths are determined at the source, where they are sent from. Therefore, since distant stars produce the same spectra as we would expect from a same state, this means that they are also in the same state we are.

 

[Dizredux]

I already listed several discoveries that were rejected by peer review. Like I said not all scientific discoveries are accepted by peer review because of the radical nature of new discovery:


"Rosalyn Yalow, who described how her Nobel-prize-winning paper was received by the journals as follows: “In 1955 we submitted the paper to Science.… The paper was held there for eight months before it was reviewed. It was finally rejected. We submitted it to the Journal of Clinical Investigations, which also rejected it.”2 Another example is Günter Blobel, who in a news conference given just after he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine, said that the main problem one encounters in one’s research is “when your grants and papers are rejected because some stupid reviewer rejected them for dogmatic adherence to old ideas.” According to the New York Times, these comments “drew thunderous applause from the hundreds of sympathetic colleagues and younger scientists in the auditorium.”3
In an article for Twentieth-Century Physics, a book commissioned by the American Physical Society (the professional organization for U.S. physicists) to describe the great achievements of twentieth-century physics, the inventor of chaos theory, Mitchell J. Feigenbaum, described the reception that his revolutionary papers on chaos theory received:
Both papers were rejected, the first after a half-year delay. By then, in 1977, over a thousand copies of the first preprint had been shipped...
Today it is known that the Hawaiian Islands were formed sequentially as the Pacific plate moved over a hot spot deep inside the Earth. The theory was first developed in the paper by an eminent Princeton geophysicist, Tuzo Wilson:
I … sent [my paper] to the Journal of Geophysical Research. They turned it down.… They said my paper had no mathematics in it, no new data, and that it didn’t agree with the current views. Therefore, it must be no good. Apparently, whether one gets turned down or not depends largely on the reviewer. The editors, too, if they don’t see it your way, or if they think it’s something unusual, may turn it down. Well, this annoyed me, and instead of keeping the rejection letter, I threw it into the wastepaper basket. I sent the manuscript to the newly founded Canadian Journal of Physics. That was not a very obvious place to send it, but I was a Canadian physicist. I thought they would publish almost anything I wrote, so I sent it there and they published it!8
"

above quote from:
Frank J. Tipler Chapter 7 of Uncommon Dissent. Ch7= REFEREED JOURNALS
;DO THEY INSURE QUALITY OR ENFORCE ORTHODOXY?;From Book : UNCOMMON DISSENT;Intellectuals Who Find
Darwinism Unconvincing;Edited by William A. Dembski, 2004





but not always for the right reasons, as shown above.

Yes this is sometimes true. The peer review system is not perfect and no one says it is. The thing is that these scientists did get published. It may take some time but good work usually can and as well sometimes some bad work. Human beings are involved.

The thing about peer review is that while flawed in places, it is the best that we can come up with. The thing is to suggest a better way rather than to reject the whole system over some flaws and errors. The thing is that science is supposed to be open. With peer reviewed journals, the work is open to inspection and can be critiqued and replicated if need be by anyone with the knowledge to do it. Also, obviously bad work can be culled out which is perhaps more important.

With all if its flaws, it still works pretty well and better than anything else.

For that reason, it is usually the ground requirement to be taken seriously by other scientists.

Dizredux

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes this is sometimes true. The peer review system is not perfect and no one says it is. The thing is that these scientists did get published. It may take some time but good work usually can and as well sometimes some bad work. Human beings are involved.

The thing about peer review is that while flawed in places, it is the best that we can come up with. The thing is to suggest a better way rather than to reject the whole system over some flaws and errors. The thing is that science is supposed to be open. With peer reviewed journals, the work is open to inspection and can be critiqued and replicated if need be by anyone with the knowledge to do it. Also, obviously bad work can be culled out which is perhaps more important.

With all if its flaws, it still works pretty well and better than anything else.

For that reason, it is usually the ground requirement to be taken seriously by other scientists.

Dizredux

peer review failed, that was my point. I have repeatedly shown how it discriminates against especially newer discoveries.



secondly, since ID is newish, Who is to say they are not failing as it relates to origins, namely with biological evolution?
"You could write the entire history of science in the last 50 years in terms of papers rejected by Science or Nature." Paul C. Lauterbur, winner of the Nobel Prize for medicine, whose seminal paper on magnetic resonance imaging was originally rejected by Nature." above quote from:https://cosmoquest.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-28556.html

Some papers however, make it through the cracks and here are several peer review papers indicating ID:


Michael Denton peer review 2/25/13 in bio complexity
Denton
Denton
D. Halsmer, J. Asper, N. Roman & T. Todd peer review in the International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics at the Wessex Institute (2009)
The coherence of an engineered world
a summary review of this particular journal is found at evolutionnews.org:
Pro-Intelligent Design Peer Reviewed Scientific Paper Argues for an "Engineered World" - Evolution News & Views
A.C. McIntosh peer review in the International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics at the Wessex Institute [Vol.4, No.2 (2009) 154-169]
Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration
a summary review of this particular journal is found at evolutionnews.org:
Peer-Reviewed Pro-Intelligent Design Article Endorses Irreducible Complexity - Evolution News & Views
McIntosh has published other pro-ID peer-reviewed scientific literature, evolutionnews.org has reviewed here: Peer-Reviewed Paper Investigating Origin of Information Endorses Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design - Evolution News & Views

 

[createdtoworship]

Where is your evidence that they were NEVER published in a peer review journal?

Yalow received the Nobel Prize for creating the immunosorbent assay. Luckily, we have replaced the R in RIA with EL, by that is a story for another day.

So according to you, this discovery was never peer reviewed. Is that true? NO!! Here is the peer reviewed paper.

Immunoassay of endogenous plasma insulin in man. [J Clin Invest. 1960] - PubMed - NCBI

Her discovery was peer reviewed in 1960, 17 years before she and her co-discoverer were given the Nobel Prize for that discovery.

I said they were rejected from peer review, after winning a nobel I am sure they eventually got published to save face in the peer review system as it does all the time (ex post facto).

This is exaclty what I am talking about when I say that creationists lie about the facts. This isn't a matter of different interpretations of publication records. This is a case of creationists flat out lying. Yalow was published. Her discovery was a part of the peer review process. These are facts. Creationists lie about these facts.

What do you have to say for yourself?




Yet more matieral from known liars. When will you learn?

How does it feel to spread lies for them?

spreading rumors where your logic fails you huh?

Did I ever state or quote something that states she NEVER EVER EVER got published?

Please give post number and quotations,

if not, please don't spread rumors.

 

[createdtoworship]

More papers rejected because they were too new of a discovery, and not orthodox....

"Earlier in the same volume, in a history of the development of optical physics, the invention of the laser by Theodore Maiman was described. The result was so important that it was announced in the New York Times on July 7, 1960. But the leading American physics journal, Physical Review Letters, rejected Maiman’s paper on how to make a laser.5
Scientific eminence is no protection from a peer review system gone wild. John Bardeen, the only man to ever have won two Nobel Prizes in physics, had difficulty publishing a theory in low-temperature solid state physics (the area of one of his Prizes) that went against the established view. But rank hath its privileges. Bardeen appealed to his friend David Lazarus, who was editor in chief for the American Physical Society. Lazarus investigated and found that “the referee was totally out of line. I couldn’t believe it. John really did have a hard time with [his] last few papers and it was not his fault at all. They were important papers, they did get published, but they gave him a harder time than he should have had.”6
Stephen W. Hawking is the world’s most famous physicist. According to his first wife Jane, when Hawking submitted to Nature what is generally regarded as his most important paper, the paper on black hole evaporation, the paper was initially rejected.7 I have heard from colleagues who must remain nameless that when Hawking submitted to Physical Review what I personally regard as his most important paper, his paper showing that a most fundamental law of physics called “unitarity” would be violated in black hole evaporation, it, too, was initially rejected. (The word on the street is that the initial referee was the Institute for Advanced Study physicist Freeman Dyson.)
Today it is known that the Hawaiian Islands were formed sequentially as the Pacific plate moved over a hot spot deep inside the Earth. The theory was first developed in the paper by an eminent Princeton geophysicist, Tuzo Wilson:
I … sent [my paper] to the Journal of Geophysical Research. They turned it down.… They said my paper had no mathematics in it, no new data, and that it didn’t agree with the current views. Therefore, it must be no good. Apparently, whether one gets turned down or not depends largely on the reviewer. The editors, too, if they don’t see it your way, or if they think it’s something unusual, may turn it down. Well, this annoyed me, and instead of keeping the rejection letter, I threw it into the wastepaper basket. I sent the manuscript to the newly founded Canadian Journal of Physics. That was not a very obvious place to send it, but I was a Canadian physicist. I thought they would publish almost anything I wrote, so I sent it there and they published it!8
The most important development in cloning after the original breakthrough of Dolly the Sheep was the cloning of mice. The result was once again described on the front page of the New York Times, where it was also mentioned that the paper was rejected for publication by the leading American science journal, Science.
Everyone knows today that the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago when a giant asteroid hit the Earth. Science did publish the article presenting this theory, but only after a fierce fight with the referees, as one of these referees later confessed. On the Nobel Prize web page one can read the autobiographies of recent laureates. Quite a few complain that they had great difficulty publishing the ideas that won them the Prize. One does not find similar statements by Nobel Prize winners earlier in the century. Why is there more resistance to new ideas today?
"

above quote from:

Frank J. Tipler

Chapter 7 of Uncommon Dissent. Ch7= REFEREED JOURNALS

DO THEY INSURE QUALITY OR ENFORCE ORTHODOXY?


From Book : UNCOMMON DISSENT

Intellectuals Who Find
Darwinism Unconvincing

Edited by William A. Dembski, 2004

Most of the above later got published (ex post facto), after the fact.

 

[Dizredux]

LM

So according to you, this discovery was never peer reviewed. Is that true? NO!! Here is the peer reviewed paper.

Immunoassay of endogenous plasma insulin in man. [J Clin Invest. 1960] - PubMed - NCBI

Her discovery was peer reviewed in 1960, 17 years before she and her co-discoverer were given the Nobel Prize for that discovery.

Grady, the main reason that I gave up trying to discuss with you is that you don't read. You don't read the articles and sites given to you. You seem to just glance at them then respond. You don't even read the cites you give again appearing to just give them a quick look and if they appear to be supporting you in any way, use them whether or not they actually do.

This is a good example. Loudmouth clearly said that her discovery was peer reviewed 17 years *before* she won the Nobel.

How did you respond, with this:

I said they were rejected from peer review, after winning a nobel I am sure they eventually got published to save face in the peer review system as it does all the time (ex post facto).

You did not even bother to pay attention to what was said, you simply blundered on with your response. As a result you just made yourself look very foolish. But more importantly, this bad habit of yours makes it almost impossible to discuss anything with you.


Dizredux

 

[Dizredux]

peer review failed, that was my point. I have repeatedly shown how it discriminates against especially newer discoveries.

No you haven't. What you have clearly shown is your lack of knowledge and understanding of how peer review works. Not the same thing.

Dizredux

 

[PsychoSarah]

I am not sure we define pride the same way. If something is against God that would be something we could consider possibly as pride. A pride parade, we might say. If someone was not ashamed of God that woulld be more worship than pride I would think. David was 'proud' of God, and danced before the ark in a show of that worship/pride. That was a parade that was OK, even though the guy did lead the procession nude!

The sins such as pride are considered as such when they prevent or hinder worship and service to god. When people get all uppity about their faith rather than using that time to practice it, that is a sin.

 

[createdtoworship]

No you haven't. What you have clearly shown is your lack of knowledge and understanding of how peer review works. Not the same thing.

Dizredux

prove it, You have not uttered any knowledge of peer review nor rebuttals to my material. Secondly, we were not even talking about how peer review works, not once. Are you even in the same conversation? We were not talking about the process of peer review, but about how peer review is weak in that it doesn't accept new material readily. I then provided half a dozen or more examples of how peer review rejected legitimate science, only to have other peer reviewers accept it as it became more palatable. What was your reply? "You don't know what your talking about." Well you need a little more facts with your debate, or no one is going to believe you.