RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

drj11 -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 4:51:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11
I suppose once plausible evolutionary pathways are discovered for those systems as well you will be forced to say "well those were formed by irreducibly complex atoms!".


Show me evolution producing such systems independent design and I'll admit that evolution is capable of doing so. Until then, so far you just have speculation to base your faith on.


Already provided a link. Scroll up.



Method -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 5:16:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Excellent logic. ID advocates and creationists aren't scientific because they don't get their work published.


That is the logic. That is the criteria that all scientists judge other scientists by. "Publish or Perish" is the battlecry across science.

quote:

the secular community refuses to publish their work because it's not scientific.


That's right.

quote:

The fact is, it's evolution that's unscientific


That's a lie. A search for "evolution" at www.pubmed.com returns over 220,000 peer reviewed papers. While the pubmed database is extensive it is by no means a complete database of all the peer reviewed scientific papers ever written. So you are going to tell us, with a straight face nonetheless, that evolution is unscientific even though there are at least 220,000 peer reviewed papers on the subject?

quote:

and that's why committed naturalists steal tax dollars to fund their nonsense.


Are you saying I am a theif?

quote:

Gentry has papers on his site.


Which ones were submitted and rejected?

quote:

Not at all. When the secular community stops unfairly discriminating against those that may question naturalism (ie: by only funding, with tax dollars, those that don't and by only publishing them) then we'll talk.


You haven't shown that it is unfair. Show us papers containing original research that hold merit but were rejected. Where are they?



Method -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 5:17:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Show me evolution producing such systems independent design and I'll admit that evolution is capable of doing so. Until then, so far you just have speculation to base your faith on.



Show me your supposed designer producing these systems. Where is your evidence? Or am I not allowed to criticize ID?



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 5:25:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11
Already provided a link. Scroll up.


You have not shown examples of evolution producing structures like the flagellum. Nice try.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 5:26:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Method
Show me your supposed designer producing these systems. Where is your evidence? Or am I not allowed to criticize ID?


Again, we do not need to observe the designer producing something to infer design. For example, in the case of ancient archeology, we do not need to know who designed what and how to know that some designer designed something. We know the kinds of characteristics design produces and life contains those characteristics.



drj11 -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 5:29:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11
Already provided a link. Scroll up.


You have not shown examples of evolution producing structures like the flagellum. Nice try.


You already admitted that this has been explained. You then reduced the argument further, basically saying "Well, even if the flagellum isnt IC, the pieces that formed the flagellum are IC". How many times do you have to reduce the 'irreducible' system before its irreducibly complex?



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 5:31:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Method
That is the logic. That is the criteria that all scientists judge other scientists by. "Publish or Perish" is the battlecry across science.


When the secular community stops unfairly discriminating against those who question naturalistic philosophies (like UCD) then we'll talk.

quote:


That's a lie. A search for "evolution" at www.pubmed.com returns over 220,000 peer reviewed papers.


None of which is evidence for UCD. Even if a search for the non existence of the moon returned the same amount of peer reviewed papers, it does not mean that the moon does not exist.

quote:


So you are going to tell us, with a straight face nonetheless, that evolution is unscientific even though there are at least 220,000 peer reviewed papers on the subject?


Evolution is so unscientific that it can't withstand criticisms and opposing views and hence it chooses to maintain itself with tax dollars and by disavowing criticisms and opposing views from being funded by tax dollars. When it chooses to maintain itself scientifically, by allowing for criticisms and opposing views in public schools, then we'll talk.

quote:


Which ones were submitted and rejected?


Read his websites. He published papers in peer review journals but as soon as they discovered his research may support YEC the NSF decided to stop funding him.

quote:


You haven't shown that it is unfair. Show us papers containing original research that hold merit but were rejected. Where are they?


I have shown that they are unfair. Gentry was doing research and the NSF stopped funding him as soon as they discovered that his research may contradict naturalism. Science even admits that they don't publish creationist research. They unfairly discriminate against anyone who questions naturalism and until this nonsense stops, I see no reason to take evolution and other unsupported naturalistic philosophies seriously. Science does not endorse a viewpoint maintaining itself by stealing tax dollars and then censoring criticisms and opposing views from public funding.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 5:34:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11
You already admitted that this has been explained. You then reduced the argument further, basically saying "Well, even if the flagellum isnt IC, the pieces that formed the flagellum are IC". How many times do you have to reduce the 'irreducible' system before its irreducibly complex?


Don't put words in my mouth.

This is why I don't take people like you seriously. You seem delusional, for instance, you put words in my mouth that I never said. However, you seem to actually believe what you say. Method, on the other hand, seems to be smart enough to know that his arguments are nonsensual.



drj11 -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 5:43:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Evolution is so unscientific that it can't withstand criticisms and opposing views and hence it chooses to maintain itself with tax dollars and by disavowing criticisms and opposing views from being funded by tax dollars. When it chooses to maintain itself scientifically, by allowing for criticisms and opposing views in public schools, then we'll talk.


Again with this tax dollars nonsense. I believe most scientific research is in fact funded by the tax payers... this isnt something unique to evolution research. You blatantly misrepresent this time and time again by trying to falsely present evolution research as uniquely having to depend on taxpayer funds in order to sustain itself. Duh, practically all science relies on the same and it doesnt really have to do with the viability of the theory or how sound they are.

The research that is funded primarily by private firms is generally only research that is likely to produce a relatively short term return on investment (ie, profit motive)... doesn't matter what the field.

Thats why embryonic stem cell research is practically dead in the US now.



Method -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 5:56:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
When the secular community stops unfairly discriminating against those who question naturalistic philosophies (like UCD) then we'll talk.


Once again, show us the papers or grants that were unfairly judged. You can't claim discrimination if there is nothing to discriminate against.

quote:

None of which is evidence for UCD.


It is evidence that SCIENTISTS ARE USING THE THEORY, WHICH MAKES IT SCIENTIFIC. You can disagree with it, but to claim that it is unscientific is simple false.

quote:

Even if a search for the non existence of the moon returned the same amount of peer reviewed papers, it does not mean that the moon does not exist.


Are there 220,000 peer reviewed papers arguing for the non-existence of the moon? No.

quote:

Evolution is so unscientific that it can't withstand criticisms and opposing views


Then prove it. Go to a scientific conference and challenge it. Do research and publish that research. DO THE SCIENCE!!!

quote:

When it chooses to maintain itself scientifically, by allowing for criticisms and opposing views in public schools, then we'll talk.


Public schools are not the place where scientific theories are challenged. Scientific theories are challenged between scientists in the proper areans, those arenas being journals and scientific meetings. The theories that make it into public schools are those that pass this hard road of research, publication, challenge, criticism, and eventually consensus. Once a theory is being used by scientists it finds it's way into the textbooks in public schools.

Do you really think that 9th graders have the education to criticize the work of PhD's? Are 9th graders the arbiters of what is and is not a solid scientific theory? Why are IDers so afraid of facing scientists in legitimate scientific arenas?

quote:

Read his websites. He published papers in peer review journals but as soon as they discovered his research may support YEC the NSF decided to stop funding him.


I read it, www.halos.com . Where is the link discussing his loss of funding?

quote:

I have shown that they are unfair.


WHERE??!!

quote:

Gentry was doing research and the NSF stopped funding him as soon as they discovered that his research may contradict naturalism.


Evidence please.

quote:

Science even admits that they don't publish creationist research.


For the same reason that they don't publish geocentrist research. I have had a paper rejected by Science. At least 80% of submitted papers are rejected by Science. Please show me that these rejections are unfair.

quote:

They unfairly discriminate against anyone who questions naturalism


How so?

quote:

and until this nonsense stops, I see no reason to take evolution and other unsupported naturalistic philosophies seriously.


At least be honest and admit that you will never take it serious, not matter what happens.

quote:

Science does not endorse a viewpoint maintaining itself by stealing tax dollars and then censoring criticisms and opposing views from public funding.


Prove that this occurs, or withdraw the claim.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 5:57:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11
Again with this tax dollars nonsense. I believe most scientific research is in fact funded by the tax payers... this isnt something unique to evolution research. You blatantly misrepresent this time and time again by trying to falsely present evolution research as uniquely having to depend on taxpayer funds in order to sustain itself. Duh, practically all science relies on the same and it doesnt really have to do with the viability of the theory or how sound they are.

The research that is funded primarily by private firms is generally only research that is likely to produce a relatively short term return on investment (ie, profit motive)... doesn't matter what the field.

Thats why embryonic stem cell research is practically dead in the US now.


In the case of science that doesn't contradict naturalistic presuppositions, the secular community is willing to fund various sides of an issue. For instance, they are willing to fund people who take opposing views with respect to string theory or many other controversies. A teacher who mentions criticisms of variants of string theory and who mentions different variations of string theory would not lose his job. In the case of origins, the secular community only funds that which is consistent with naturalism (ie: naturalistic philosophies). They censor criticisms and opposing views. Naturalistic philosophies (like UCD) stand entirely on tax dollars. You remove the tax dollars funding them or you allow criticisms and opposing views equal tax funding, UCD and other naturalistic philosophies die. They simply can't sustain themselves on a level playing field so they must resort to dishonest tactics to sustain themselves.



drj11 -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 6:02:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11
You already admitted that this has been explained. You then reduced the argument further, basically saying "Well, even if the flagellum isnt IC, the pieces that formed the flagellum are IC". How many times do you have to reduce the 'irreducible' system before its irreducibly complex?


Don't put words in my mouth.

This is why I don't take people like you seriously. You seem delusional, for instance, you put words in my mouth that I never said. However, you seem to actually believe what you say. Method, on the other hand, seems to be smart enough to know that his arguments are nonsensual.


No, you said:


Speculation does not constitute an explanation. Show me the emergence of structures like the flagellum independently of already existing IC and SC structures (and already existing DNA that codes for such structures).

This statement basically amounts to a tacit admission that a plausible explanation was posited for the evolution of flagellum even after it was claimed to be IC. The flagellum has been shown to be comprised of pieces, that when broken apart, that could serve other functions with in the cell. That makes it reducibly complex. You dodge this explanation by changing the criteria. You now say that those independent pieces of the flagellum are IC themselves. That just begs the question, why is the flagellum itself the continual focus of the IDers? Why not focus on one of these precursor flagellum systems that is IC (allegedly)? And now that the flagellum has been shown not to be so IC, why should we give anyone one iota of credibility when they simply say it doesnt count (because they say so).

I believe that is referred to as "Moving the goal posts".

Sorry Beta, but when someone believes in a talking snake, birds appearing before mammals, a 6k year old earth, women being created from ribs, and man being molded from topsoil, because of an ambiguously written man-made text presented in the same manner as other creation stories from the same genre and time period, you don't get to accuse others of being delusional. Especially when the majority of Christians out there would call what you believe delusional.



Method -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 6:15:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
In the case of science that doesn't contradict naturalistic presuppositions, the secular community is willing to fund various sides of an issue.


Secular funding agencies like the NIH, NSF, and WHO are willing to fund science. ID is not science, nor is anyone using ID to do science. You have yet to show that these agencies have even turned down ID grant proposals. Again, how can you claim discrimination when there is nothing to discriminate against? Can I sue somebody because I think they will, sometime in the future, discriminate against me?

quote:

A teacher who mentions criticisms of variants of string theory and who mentions different variations of string theory would not lose his job.


Because there is much to criticize string theory on.

quote:

In the case of origins, the secular community only funds that which is consistent with naturalism (ie: naturalistic philosophies).


Scientific funding agencies only fund science.

quote:

They censor criticisms and opposing views.


How do they censor? I see ID works all of the time in public libraries.

quote:

Naturalistic philosophies (like UCD) stand entirely on tax dollars.


No, they stand on the evidence.

quote:

You remove the tax dollars funding them or you allow criticisms and opposing views equal tax funding, UCD and other naturalistic philosophies die.


There are no scientific criticisms worth discussing. Wells' "Icons of Evolution" is tripe, as one example. It is not fit for teaching in any science class.

quote:

They simply can't sustain themselves on a level playing field so they must resort to dishonest tactics to sustain themselves.


The strength of science is that it is based on a level playing field, the evidence. Once you can evidence a supernatural deity producing mutations in organisms in the lab come back and we will discuss.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 6:17:33 PM)

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11
No, you said:

quote:



Speculation does not constitute an explanation. Show me the emergence of structures like the flagellum independently of already existing IC and SC structures (and already existing DNA that codes for such structures).


This statement basically amounts to a tacit admission that a plausible explanation was posited for the evolution of flagellum even after it was claimed to be IC.


No, I have not admit any such thing. You have not provided a plausible explanation, you have only provided speculation. Your alleged explanation is not even plausible enough to repeat in a lab.

quote:


The flagellum has been shown to be comprised of pieces, that when broken apart, that could serve other functions with in the cell. That makes it reducibly complex. You dodge this explanation by changing the criteria.


I have not changed the criteria. Show me evolution producing things like the flagellum or new organs, body plans, appendages, limbs, organ systems, etc... or the DNA that codes for them or admit that there is no reason for me to believe that it plausibly can.

quote:


You now say that those independent pieces of the flagellum are IC themselves.


Stop putting words in my mouth. I have not changed the criteria, the fact is you have not met the criteria and if you could you would.

quote:


And now that the flagellum has been shown not to be so IC, why should we give anyone one iota of credibility when they simply say it doesnt count (because they say so).


The Flagellum has not been shown not to be IC and no one has been able to demonstrate evolution producing any such thing. Stop making things up.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 6:18:37 PM)

Behe responds to many of those who claim that he is unwilling to defend his arguments in secular peer review forums.

http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_correspondencewithsciencejournals.htm

Basically, the notion that he is unwilling to do so is a lie. Feel free to not read this site and feel free to ignore the facts.



Method -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 6:25:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

Behe responds to many of those who claim that he is unwilling to defend his arguments in secular peer review forums.

http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_correspondencewithsciencejournals.htm

Basically, the notion that he is unwilling to do so is a lie. Feel free to not read this site and feel free to ignore the facts.


It appears that he is capable of writing a letter containing zero original research. It also appears that he has failed to find a valid criticism of evolution. Why should a science journal print bad science? The whole purpose of a science journal is to print good science, not bad science.

That is the whole point of peer review, weeding out bad science. That is why I keep asking for ID papers OF MERIT. Behe's letter is without merit.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 6:28:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Method
It appears that he is capable of writing a letter containing zero original research. It also appears that he has failed to find a valid criticism of evolution. Why should a science journal print bad science? The whole purpose of a science journal is to print good science, not bad science.

That is the whole point of peer review, weeding out bad science. That is why I keep asking for ID papers OF MERIT. Behe's letter is without merit.


Again, you are not the ultimate authority over what has merit and what does not. The purpose of peer review is to determine what has merit but how can peer review determine whether or not Behe's work has merit when peer review journals refuse to allow his work to be peer reviewed. Again, when the secular community stops dishonestly discriminating against those that question naturalism, then we'll talk.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 6:31:22 PM)

Your first argument was

quote:

ORIGINAL: Method
Because they do not submit abstracts.


but now that this has been shown false (and you have been around here long enough to know this, so you should know this), you are now changing your argument. Again, you seem smart enough to know that your arguments are nonsensual and you are simply trying to find any excuse to justify the misbehavior of the secular community no matter how poor of an excuse it is. There is no justification.



Method -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 6:41:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

Your first argument was

quote:

ORIGINAL: Method
Because they do not submit abstracts.


but now that this has been shown false (and you have been around here long enough to know this, so you should know this), you are now changing your argument. Again, you seem smart enough to know that your arguments are nonsensual and you are simply trying to find any excuse to justify the misbehavior of the secular community no matter how poor of an excuse it is. There is no justification.


Where has Behe ever submitted an abstract to a scientific meeting like the ASM General Meeting? When has ever attended a meeting like this one and challenged the presentors?

A letter, containing zero original research, discussing criticisms of his work does not constitute a research paper or an abstract of it. Research papers contain a ORIGINAL RESEARCH. You know, that stuff they do in the lab and in the field.

Behe's argument boils down to a claim that our ignorance is permanent. That is poor science. As the referee of Behe's letter stated, "Metaphysicians who want science to speak out in favor of their beliefs, if not demonstrate them, are already put in a tight spot by the science of yesterday and have nothing to fear more than the science of tomorrow."



Method -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 6:43:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Again, you are not the ultimate authority over what has merit and what does not.


Peer scientists do have this authority.

What are you afraid of anyway? Where are these papers? Where is this original research using ID? Does it even exist?

quote:

The purpose of peer review is to determine what has merit but how can peer review determine whether or not Behe's work has merit when peer review journals refuse to allow his work to be peer reviewed.


It was peer reviewed. You linked to it. Please show us how the criticisms of Behe's letter was unfair.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 7:32:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Method
Peer scientists do have this authority.


They do not have ultimate authority over what should be published and what shouldn't. Yet, the secular community dishonestly discriminates against anyone who may question naturalism.

quote:


What are you afraid of anyway? Where are these papers? Where is this original research using ID? Does it even exist?


As has been shown several times on these forums, ID does do research (keep ignoring). The difference is that ID research gets privately funded whereas evolution must rely on tax dollars to maintain itself. The problem is that the secular community doesn't fund any research that may question naturalism while they only fund research that does not (with tax dollars). When the secular community stops dishonestly discriminating against criticisms of naturalistic philosophies and opposing views, then we'll talk. The fact is that without tax dollars, UCD and other naturalistic philosophies just couldn't survive.

http://biologicinstitute.org/research/
http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Empirical_ID_research

quote:


It was peer reviewed. You linked to it. Please show us how the criticisms of Behe's letter was unfair.


It was not peer reviewed, it was rejected for peer review by the dishonest secular community. I already showed you that many peer review journals dishonestly discriminated against him by not allowing his work to be peer reviewed. They reject his work and his defenses a - priori which didn't allow them to enter publication for peer review to begin with.



Method -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 7:44:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
They do not have ultimate authority over what should be published and what shouldn't.


Yes, they do.

quote:

Yet, the secular community dishonestly discriminates against anyone who may question naturalism.


Evidence or retract.

quote:

As has been shown several times on these forums, ID does do research.


THEN SHOW US THE RESEARCH!!

[QUOTE]The problem is that the secular community doesn't fund any research that may question naturalism while they only fund research that does not (with tax dollars).[/QUOTE]

The secular community doesn't fund a lot of research. Right now, only 10% of grant applications in my field are being funded. What you need to show is that denial of funding is unfair. You need to show that the science in these grant applications is solid science.

quote:

When the secular community stops dishonestly discriminating against criticisms of naturalistic philosophies and opposing views, then we'll talk.


You haven't shown that they have even started.

quote:

http://biologicinstitute.org/research/
http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Empirical_ID_research


"One of Biologic Institute’s research projects goes public this week, with a paper in PLoS ONE describing a new model for studying protein evolution [1] and a project at SourceForge.net providing the software to implement it [2] (both free of charge)."

That is their only paper that I am aware of, and it deals with . . . drumroll please . . . EVOLUTION.

Does that soun like ID research to you? It doesn't to me.

Then we have the Behe and Snoke paper. That is a real, peer reviewed paper. However, it doesn't mention ID anywhere. It tries to model the occurrence of multiple residue mutations, and does so poorly according to the peer reviewed criticisms of the paper.

Behe, M.J. and Snoke, D.W. (2004), “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13: 2651-2664.

Still no papers dealing with ID.

quote:

It was not peer reviewed, it was rejected for peer review by the dishonest secular community.


"As you will see, the accompanying review identifies many apparent flaws in your arguments, and also questions the basic premise of your arguments, that complex systems cannot be dissected to reveal individual components' roles. I concur with this reviewer's sentiment: complex systems are being unraveled!"

That is from the link that you gave me. It failed peer review.

quote:

They reject his work and his defenses a - priori which didn't allow them to enter publication for peer review to begin with.


The reviewer stated quite emphatically why Behe's letter is bad science. Perhaps you should actually read it.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 8:00:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Method
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
They do not have ultimate authority over what should be published and what shouldn't.

Yes, they do.


What I should have said is that they are not the ultimate authority over what should be published and what should not.

quote:


Evidence or retract.


I have already given you evidence and you know this, but feel free to keep ignoring.

quote:


That is from the link that you gave me. It failed peer review.


They wouldn't allow it to be published.

quote:


The reviewer stated quite emphatically why Behe's letter is bad science. Perhaps you should actually read it.


UCD is unscientific. ID is falsifiable, UCD is not.

quote:


The secular community doesn't fund a lot of research. Right now, only 10% of grant applications in my field are being funded. What you need to show is that denial of funding is unfair.


Already done. For example, Gentry was receiving grants and as soon as the NSF found out his research may support YEC, they stopped funding him.

quote:


You need to show that the science in these grant applications is solid science.


ID is falsifiable and UCD is not. Darwin was wrong about a lot and it did not falsify UCD. ID, on the other hand, is falsifiable. Show me examples of nature producing IC structures as complex as the flagellum independent of design or already existing IC and SC structures (which includes the DNA that codes for them) and you would falsify ID. The fact is that UCD could not afford not to be tax funded. If it weren't tax funded, such nonsense just couldn't survive.



Method -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 8:14:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
What I should have said is that they are not the ultimate authority over what should be published and what should not.


They are the ultimate authority of what is printed in their journal. The reputation of any journal is based first and foremost on the quality of it's peer review.

quote:

I have already given you evidence and you know this, but feel free to keep ignoring.


Where?

quote:

They wouldn't allow it to be published.


BECAUSE IT FAILED PEER REVIEW!!! This happens all of the time for papers dealing with evolution as well. Do you really think that scientific journals should print every single paper that crosses their desk.

quote:

quote:


The reviewer stated quite emphatically why Behe's letter is bad science. Perhaps you should actually read it.


UCD is unscientific. ID is falsifiable, UCD is not.


That's all you got? More empty plattitudes? If you can't deal with the reviewers comments then you can not claim that journals are dishonestly rejecting ID papers.

quote:

Already done. For example, Gentry was receiving grants and as soon as the NSF found out his research may support YEC, they stopped funding him.


Link?

quote:

quote:


You need to show that the science in these grant applications is solid science.


ID is falsifiable and UCD is not. Darwin was wrong about a lot and it did not falsify UCD. ID, on the other hand, is falsifiable. Show me examples of nature producing IC structures as complex as the flagellum independent of design or already existing IC and SC structures (which includes the DNA that codes for them) and you would falsify ID. The fact is that UCD could not afford not to be tax funded. If it weren't tax funded, such nonsense just couldn't survive.


Again, right back to the worn out diatribes. Give me a sample of an ID research grant. Show me that the science in this research grant is solid science. You need to show me that there is actually something out there for "secular science" to discriminate against.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/19/2008 8:19:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Method
They are the ultimate authority of what is printed in their journal. The reputation of any journal is based first and foremost on the quality of it's peer review.


and they dishonestly discriminate against those that disagree with naturalism.

quote:


Where?


In this thread.

quote:


BECAUSE IT FAILED PEER REVIEW!!!


They wouldn't allow it to be published for peer review.

quote:


Do you really think that scientific journals should print every single paper that crosses their desk.


That's not what I said. I said that they shouldn't discriminate against those that may question naturalism and that's just what they do.

quote:


That's all you got? More empty plattitudes? If you can't deal with the reviewers comments then you can not claim that journals are dishonestly rejecting ID papers.


I have substantiated my claims.

quote:


Link?


www.halos.com

quote:


Again, right back to the worn out diatribes. Give me a sample of an ID research grant. Show me that the science in this research grant is solid science. You need to show me that there is actually something out there for "secular science" to discriminate against.


I have already given you an example of a creationist grant denied only after it was known that the research may support YEC. Keep ignoring. When the secular community stops dishonestly discriminating against those that may question naturalism, then maybe such naturalistic philosophies maybe considered more scientific (at least in the sense that scientific theories don't maintain themselves by dishonestly discriminating against criticisms and opposing views).



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI