Jump to content


Photo

Peer Review = Valididty


  • Please log in to reply
128 replies to this topic

#121 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 23 December 2009 - 02:57 PM

The "you can't know it" approach has nothing to do with me disputing data presented claiming to give an accurate account of the climate 750,000 ya.

Of course we don't expect you to necessarily employ the technique on yourself.

I also note that you're claiming to dispute data, whereas it is a general rule that conclusions are the topic of dispute. I should, of course, be happy to review any information you have which shows the data to be questionable.

The difference between my disputing and your creationist/ID or whatever you want to call it disputing is that I the background science behind my dispute and I don't claim things like "evolution can't explain this, therefore it's wrong" or "there aren't any transitional fossils" (I'm not saying you claim these things, just examples of failed arguments)

I have investigated the background assumptions which inspire most of the ad hoc special pleading and circular reasoning which makes up the argument-from-spam that is evolutionism. I don't view this thread as the best place to discuss them.

Secondly, why would you want me to bring forth evidence that data about climate 750,000 ya is inaccurate? what does that have to do with this discussion?

You tell me. I have not contended it is accurate. I have been maintaining that you-can't-knowism is bogus, if you care to review.

Thirdly, if you really insist on me coming up with evidence, please show me you have a working understand of sedimentary rocks, mechanisms of deposition, the rock cycle and plate tectonics. Because right now, you have not seemed to demonstrate an understanding of clouds, water vapour, cloud formation or the Chinese language.

If you do not wish to learn, that is fine. Just stop replying but if you continue, I will educate/correct when necessary.

View Post

I don't insist on you coming up with anything. When you present bogus reasoning, attempting to sway people's opinions, I intend to expose it. If you have a problem presenting legitimate reasoning, it may turn out we won't get along very well. This shouldn't be surprising.

#122 Guest_Thanos_*

Guest_Thanos_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 December 2009 - 04:57 PM

Of course we don't expect you to necessarily employ the technique on yourself.

I also note that you're claiming to dispute data, whereas it is a general rule that conclusions are the topic of dispute. I should, of course, be happy to review any information you have which shows the data to be questionable.


what technique are you talking about? I have not employed any techniques.

I will present information once you demonstrate a working understanding of our current knowledge of earth and the systems of the earth. Otherwise, I might was well be talking to a brick wall.

I have investigated the background assumptions which inspire most of the ad hoc special pleading and circular reasoning which makes up the argument-from-spam that is evolutionism. I don't view this thread as the best place to discuss them.

You tell me. I have not contended it is accurate. I have been maintaining that you-can't-knowism is bogus, if you care to review.
I don't insist on you coming up with anything. When you present bogus reasoning, attempting to sway people's opinions, I intend to expose it. If you have a problem presenting legitimate reasoning, it may turn out we won't get along very well. This shouldn't be surprising.

View Post


My reasoning is perfectly fine as long as you don't live in a black and white world. Our world isn't one or the other, there is middle ground and if you can't see any middle ground, then you live in a black and white world.

I never tried to sway anyone's opinion, I just presented my own opinion.

So far, you exposed that you don't compromise, have little understand of the earth and its systems and insisting on arguing against things that go your way.

I see you have dropped the Chinese translating, the water vapour and CO2 discussion.

#123 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 27 December 2009 - 10:21 AM

what technique are you talking about? I have not employed any techniques.

I suggest you review the context if you wonder what I'm talking about.

I will present information once you demonstrate a working understanding of our current knowledge of earth and the systems of the earth. Otherwise, I might was well be talking to a brick wall.

Um, let's see... There are gases which have been designated "greenhouse gases". Since they are in the atmosphere the world must always continue to get hotter and hotter and hotter no matter what. Well, unless we all agree to pay triple taxes and give up having jobs. In that case, it would magically all work out. Yes, I understand the hype quite well.

Just as with evolutionism, the problem you face is people who do understand the silly game(s).

My reasoning is perfectly fine as long as you don't live in a black and white world. Our world isn't one or the other, there is middle ground and if you can't see any middle ground, then you live in a black and white world.

That piece of propaganda is totally unrelated to your previous propaganda. You're just spewing randomly.

I never tried to sway anyone's opinion, I just presented my own opinion.

The evidence indicates otherwise, and in no uncertain terms. You clearly said folks should heed the "researchers".

So far, you exposed that you don't compromise, have little understand of the earth and its systems and insisting on arguing against things that go your way.

That's untrue. I do compromise. At least I have on too many occasions to count. You should restrict what you say about me to what you actually know about me.

In matters like "Which movie shall we watch?" I compromise frequently. In matters like "What colour are my black shoes?" I do not compromise. I think any fairly young child is capable of fully understanding the difference.

I see you have dropped the Chinese translating, the water vapour and CO2 discussion.

View Post

Are you challenging me to a game of get-the-last-post?

#124 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 27 December 2009 - 11:18 AM

I don't expect this thread will go far. 

The press has released that there are several (thousands) emails written by hundreds of "Global Warming" experts and leaders of the field.  A very small number of these have been viewed publically.  There is very good evidence in the little we can see, that the "experts" have been using peer review, to eliminate legitimate argument against their case.  It seems they freely admit in the (secret) emails that they are not dis-allowing peer review because of any lack of evidence or research.  They are quite clear that it is because allowing the offending articles to be accredited in the peer review process would legitimize the debate against man-made global warming.  There is even the chance that the public could find out the Earth is has actually not been getting any warmer for about a decade and global temperatures may indicate a cooling trend.

Why point this all out?  Peer review.  Isn't that one requirement I keep hearing ID needs to be legitimized.  We are constantly told that no reputable scientist or scientific organization would stoop so low that prejudism of any sort could foul the peer review system.  That these people are above that pettyness, that they only follow the research etc.  Is that only ToE researches then?

The authors of these emails include (all are from the little I have been able to read) the leaders in the field from the research and bureacratic offices.

Of course, I am sure :D there is no chance that such a circumstance would occur in the ToE areas of research.   :lol:

View Post

Larrywj2,
I thought this would go along with your original post, and particularly your quote,

"Peer review. Isn't that one requirement I keep hearing ID needs to be legitimized. We are constantly told that no reputable scientist or scientific organization would stoop so low that prejudism of any sort could foul the peer review system. "

The reality is we, who are on the perimeter of mainstream science--the teachers, no-name professors, doctors, the industrial science people like chemical engineers, the amateur enthusiasts, and science readers (like me), do not see the dynamics and politics of what goes on in peer review theses.

Here is an excerpt from people who do:

" Tattersall and Schwartz add that it is common for this monograph publication period to take decades or longer, and may never be completed. Examples they provide is Louis Leakey’s Homo habilis finds, which were finally written up in the form of a detailed technical monograph by Professor Phillip V. Tobias “some 30 years after their discovery, while the important fossil crania from Forbes’ Quarry and Steinheim” site are yet to be written up in any detail 150 and 69 years respectively since their recoveries. More recently

several new hominid species legally published as early as 1994 still remain off-limits to researchers not belonging to the describing cliques. This has potentially harmful consequences, for, if not rapidly subjected to informed scrutiny, the initial describers’ interpretation of the specimens’ significance tends automatically to become established wisdom in the field. In this way, untested notions readily become incorporated into textbooks, the secondary literature, and the vast reaches of the popular media, without any consideration of alternative interpretations. As things too often are, alternative interpretations are difficult or impossible to formulate, because even casts (poor substitutes for the originals in any event) are rarely available and . . . photographs of specimens published in Nature or Science tend to be so small and lacking in contrast that much useful information is obscured(Tattersall and Schwartz 2002, p. 240). '" (Fraud and Forgery in Paleoanthropology, Jerry Bergman, Northwest State College; Answers Research Journal 2 (2009): 201-210.)

In a nutshell, the actual evidence is not being scrutinized--only the interpretations of the discoverers. The information is being publicized, written about, and mentioned in textbooks--before the evidence can be scrutinized by "other camps" among the evolutionists, let alone creationists!

#125 Guest_Thanos_*

Guest_Thanos_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 December 2009 - 06:37 PM

I suggest you review the context if you wonder what I'm talking about.

That wasn't a rhetorical question. I honestly don't know what your talking about. But if you don't wish to share that's fine by me.

Um, let's see... There are gases which have been designated "greenhouse gases". Since they are in the atmosphere the world must always continue to get hotter and hotter and hotter no matter what. Well, unless we all agree to pay triple taxes and give up having jobs. In that case, it would magically all work out. Yes, I understand the hype quite well.

Just as with evolutionism, the problem you face is people who do understand the silly game(s).


So you don't know.
could have made life much easier and saved me some reading.

That piece of propaganda is totally unrelated to your previous propaganda. You're just spewing randomly.


If you can't link one and one together, fine by me. You care not to explain and I will care not to explain as well. You get what you put in.

The evidence indicates otherwise, and in no uncertain terms. You clearly said folks should heed the "researchers".


And THAT was my opinion. Is it that hard to understand?

That's untrue. I do compromise. At least I have on too many occasions to count. You should restrict what you say about me to what you actually know about me.

In matters like "Which movie shall we watch?" I compromise frequently. In matters like "What colour are my black shoes?" I do not compromise. I think any fairly young child is capable of fully understanding the difference.


Well clearly you have no understanding of the compromise I've made in my statements of my opinion.

Are you challenging me to a game of get-the-last-post?

View Post


no, why? I was just pointing out that you've dropped those subjects. I mean, do you have nothing to say about them anymore? Or do you not care to go on discussing them?

It seems you have a general hostility towards people who don't support your opinion as in everything I say is an attack, which to clarify is not. I'm only as hostile as you are to me most of the time. Sometimes it's late at night or I lack sleep and I apologize but you really don't like people who don't see things the way you do? =/

#126 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 27 December 2009 - 08:14 PM

I never tried to sway anyone's opinion, I just presented my own opinion.

View Post

The evidence indicates otherwise, and in no uncertain terms. You clearly said folks should heed the "researchers".

View Post

And THAT was my opinion. Is it that hard to understand?

View Post

You need to equivocate a lot harder if you want it to be difficult to understand. Nobody can fail to see through this weak attempt.

Also, what's the point in trying to convince everyone I know so little, if not to sway opinion? Or what's the point in trying to convince them the "researchers" know that which cannot be known?

If you choose to continue, please try to be amusing.

Edited by CTD, 27 December 2009 - 08:17 PM.


#127 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 27 December 2009 - 10:42 PM

Larrywj2,
I thought this would go along with your original post, and particularly your quote,

"Peer review.  Isn't that one requirement I keep hearing ID needs to be legitimized.  We are constantly told that no reputable scientist or scientific organization would stoop so low that prejudism of any sort could foul the peer review system. "

The reality is we, who are on the perimeter of mainstream science--the teachers, no-name professors, doctors, the industrial science people like chemical engineers, the amateur enthusiasts, and science readers (like me), do not see the dynamics and politics of what goes on in peer review theses.

Here is an excerpt from people who do:

" Tattersall and Schwartz add that it is common for this monograph publication period to take decades or longer, and may never be completed. Examples they provide is Louis Leakey’s Homo habilis finds, which were finally written up in the form of a detailed technical monograph by Professor Phillip V. Tobias “some 30 years after their discovery, while the important fossil crania from Forbes’ Quarry and Steinheim” site are yet to be written up in any detail 150 and 69 years respectively since their recoveries. More recently

   several new hominid species legally published as early as 1994 still remain off-limits to researchers not belonging to the describing cliques. This has potentially harmful consequences, for, if not rapidly subjected to informed scrutiny, the initial describers’ interpretation of the specimens’ significance tends automatically to become established wisdom in the field. In this way, untested notions readily become incorporated into textbooks, the secondary literature, and the vast reaches of the popular media, without any consideration of alternative interpretations. As things too often are, alternative interpretations are difficult or impossible to formulate, because even casts (poor substitutes for the originals in any event) are rarely available and . . . photographs of specimens published in Nature or Science tend to be so small and lacking in contrast that much useful information is obscured(Tattersall and Schwartz 2002, p. 240). '"   (Fraud and Forgery in Paleoanthropology, Jerry Bergman, Northwest State College; Answers Research Journal 2 (2009): 201-210.)

In a nutshell, the actual evidence is not being scrutinized--only the interpretations of the discoverers.  The information is being publicized, written about, and mentioned in textbooks--before the evidence can be scrutinized by "other camps" among the evolutionists, let alone creationists!

View Post



Hi AFJ.

Good observation. It sounds like good science but you have to check the assumptions.

The following would be a great research paper if the had not left out the word evolution. Let me illustrate: link


The flow of genetic information from DNA to RNA to protein constitutes the basis for cellular life. DNA replication, transcription and translation, the processes through which information transfer occurs, are the result of millions of years of evolution during which they have achieved levels of accuracy and speed that make modern life possible. All three processes have base complementarity at the core of their mechanisms. DNA replication and transcription both depend on complementarity of the incoming nucleotide to the DNA template, whereas translation depends on the complementarity of the anticodon of the incoming transfer RNA (tRNA) to the codon in the template messenger RNA (mRNA). Fidelity of genetic information transfer thus relies heavily on discrimination between complementary, Watson-Crick (and in a few cases wobble) base pairs and non-complementary ones.


Notice how evolution is assumed and inserted evolution randomly. No proof needed. After you read enough research papers it becomes starts to look silly IMHO.

While the accuracy of DNA replication and transcription depend only on cognate base pair selection, translation depends on an additional, base-pairing-independent reaction that must be carried out with high specificity.  Each tRNA must be covalently attached to a specific amino acid – aminoacylated – preserving an unambiguous codon-amino acid correspondence known as the genetic code.  This reaction is carried out by aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases specific for each amino acid and a corresponding group of tRNAs (isoacceptors).  These enzymes must therefore recognize two substrates: first, a group of tRNAs which share a collection of ‘identity elements’ and second, an amino acid that may be distinguished by small differences in side-chain properties.


They are discussing how these molecular machines can distinguish between very similar amino acids. Evolution created this somehow but nobody knows how. Evolution is only true because they assumed it to be true. Evolution doesn't need to be proven, it is just assumed. The peer reviewed article was reviewed and rubber stamped by someone who believed the same assumptions.


How do synthetases deal with this?  The aminoacylation reaction, which takes place at a site of the enzyme called the synthetic site, occurs in two steps.  First the amino acid is activated by adenylation (consuming ATP) and then it is transferred to the tRNA (releasing AMP).  Steric exclusion of amino acids with larger side-chains and recognition of specific properties of each amino acid generally make this synthetic site specific enough so that only the correct amino acid can be activated and transferred.  But amino acids having similar properties to and a smaller size than the cognate amino acid can be misactivated at frequencies that are too high to maintain an unambiguous code.  As a consequence, enzymes facing this problem have evolved a second active site, distinct from the synthetic site, called the editing site, where misactivated amino acids or misacylated tRNAs are hydrolyzed.




Did you catch that? Hocus Pocus. Here we have extremely accurate machines, but since there was a “need” for an “unambiguous code,” and some amino acids were so similar that mistakes leaked through, well – we are told, no problem– evolution to the rescue: they just “evolved” an editing site with the ability not only to distinguish threonine from valine and serine, but to send the imposters to the recycle bin. LOL, This article only makes sense if you insert the words intelligent design everywhere you see the words evolution. Once you get that evolution isn't proven but assumed it becomes very funny. I laughed with tears running down my cheek reading this article.

link

You see, evolution explains more complexity, and more simplicity. It explains why flight arose in some birds, but was lost in others. With evolution, organs and genomes can become more complicated, or more streamlined. Eyes emerge through evolution, but eyes are also lost by evolution. Evolution makes the cheetah fast but the sloth slow. By evolution, dinosaurs grow to skyscraper size, and hummingbirds grow tiny. With evolution, peacocks grow more flashy and crows more black, giraffes tall and flatworms flat. Evolution explains predator and prey, loner and herder, light and dark, high and low, fast and slow, profligacy and stinginess, terrorism and altruism, religion and atheism, virtue and selfishness, psychosis and reason, extinction and fecundity, war and peace. Evolution explains everything.

Now you understand why nothing in biology makes sense except in the “light” of evolution. By stating at the outset that “whatever happens, evolution did it,” evolution can’t be falsified. It’s a completely vacuous theory that is true by definition. It explains opposite things. It can’t possibly be wrong, if you can mold enough skulls full of mush to accept the premise. The only hard part is making up the just-so story to explain the de jure fact. We think people should go for de facto facts.

#128 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 28 December 2009 - 07:22 AM

Once you get that evolution isn't proven but assumed it becomes very funny. I laughed with tears running down my cheek reading this article.

link

View Post

:)
You know how to get me to follow a link.

In the past, I avoided taking the links to the "next Dumb Idea" there. What was I thinking!!! I must make up for lost laughs at once!

#129 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 09 January 2010 - 07:44 PM

okay, well firstly, I'd like to say that if we are arguing about a climate change purely based on man's actions, I do not agree to such a thing. Yes, the climate cycles and we should be in a warming cycle but the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising too quickly to be natural.

Secondly, I am not a eco weirdo. I think there are numerous things that contribute to global warming, one being man, second being normal cycles and thirdly being increase solar activity. Then there's hypothesizes that indicate a whole whack load of little effects on climate as far as we know right now.

Thirdly, I agree that we can not flick on a switch and over night we'll become a green society. It's not going to happen. I also that we shouldn't let the "radical eco society" get it's way. Their goals and standards are near impossible to achieve unless people just utterly are forced to change their way of life. And for both you in the USA and me in Canada, we both know that democracy is a gift and I think it's safe to say that both you and I will take up arms to defend democracy. (correct me if I'm wrong)
There's no way we can completely go green tomorrow unless we give up some of our rights and freedoms.

Lastly, about the volcanoes. There has been research done on how volcanoes effect climate (eruptions I'm talking about). The volcanic eruptions are not the best example you should use. The three main materials that come out of volcanic eruptions are Sulfur (sulfuric compounds or sulfides), water vapour and CO2. This is a general outline, certain volcanoes may spew out different different material as well or one of those materials may not be in the top three etc.
Water vapour and CO2 are good greenhouse gases, no question about that. Sulfur on the other hand has a high albedo. This means they reflect sunlight quiet well. Now the question is which effect out weights the other. I have yet to see a conclusive paper on this issue. If you have seen one, by all means, I would love to read it. If not, just keep that in the back of your mind the next time you bring it up. This volcano thing is really a toss up factor right now.

Thanks for your time.

Edit: I think I forgot to mention that we both do agree that man is playing a role (I won't say how much of a role) in global warming right? Or was that a bad assumption on my part? =/

View Post


Sorry it took so long to reply. Thank you for a rational opinion. Yes man has responsibility, and Biblically we need to take action, regarding dominion. Our INDUSTRIAL contribution is already taking a great turn. It did so not because of any agreement to control emmissions. It was an economic decission. Lower mpg = lower cost to run an auto and less need of Arab oil.

Vulcanic releases. You are relying only on vulcanic eruption. I am a power plant operator. I know much about geothermal release. Eruption is a fraction of the whole. Geothermal releases are a great amount of the whole of climate gases. So, if we let the economic process proceed and the eco wierdos get out of the way of geothermal plants (yes they are bolocking them too) then we can capture and control geothermal energy before it can be released (do to overpressurization) and protect the environment AND produce power with no climate effect.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users