User Tag List

Page 3 of 18 FirstFirst 12345613 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 269

Thread: Why don't creationists publish?

  1. #31
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    9,247
    Thanks
    1,333
    Thanked 1,519 Times in 1,101 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    501711
    Quote Originally Posted by CabinetMaker View Post
    Some contrive data and other use a method to get to a preconceived result.
    Are you referring to the contrived data and methods used by the IPCC?
    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  2. #32
    Member of the 10 year club on TOL!! CabinetMaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    On the back of a horse someplace in Colorado
    Posts
    5,088
    Thanks
    121
    Thanked 812 Times in 562 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    307056
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    Are you referring to the contrived data and methods used by the IPCC?
    If the shoe fits.
    Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)

    But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

    What are my fruits today?

    Cityboy With Horses A blog about what happens when you say, "I Promise"

    "Moral standards" are a lot like lighthouses: they exist to help us stay on course as we sail through life. But we have to steer BY them, but not directly AT them. Lest we end up marooned on the shoals of perpetual self-righteousness.

  3. #33
    TOL Legend Arthur Brain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Precariously balanced on top of a mineshaft
    Posts
    14,844
    Thanks
    9,027
    Thanked 7,097 Times in 4,727 Posts

    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147749
    Quote Originally Posted by 6days View Post
    This is about our beliefs about the past, and about our history. Everyone uses the exact same data and scientific method. Science has very little to do with it. We can't do repeatable experiments on a one-time event in the past. We can do repeatable experiments with things in the present (dating methods, genetic variation, measure distance etc) and make conclusions about our history
    With respect, your beliefs, mine or anyone else's about the past are completely irrelevant where it comes to science. Frankly, not everybody uses the scientific method either, creationists for a start. The scientific method involves amassing data, analysing the findings and formulating theories that best support the evidence, modifying as necessary. Creationism starts with a conclusion based on a literal reading of Genesis and then tries to fit theories in with that belief while discarding anything that contradicts it. That's not the scientific method by a long shot.

    I don't know of any scientist who doesn't recognize the flaws in the peer review process.
    Like any system, it isn't going to be perfect but I don't hear of many scientists wanting to do away with it either.
    Well this is fun isn't it?


  4. #34
    Over 5000 post club 6days's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,938
    Thanks
    1,067
    Thanked 3,994 Times in 2,378 Posts

    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1805157
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Brain
    Scientists usually present data and their analysis of that data. If they did any experiments to confirm their hypothesis then then they include the experiment details and the results.
    True
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Brain
    If they have any starting assumptions, those are clearly laid out and discussed.
    False, when we are discussing common ancestry (or a common designer). If you wish, I can provide examples. The paridigm of common ancestry is the starting assumption, and interpretations of the data are made to fit the starting assumption.
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Brain
    That is the other advantage of peer reviewed journals. People can see what has been done and then they can continue to build on the work of others.
    I agree that peer review is a beneficial process. However it is a flawed process when we are discussing our beliefs about the past. Their likely are hundreds of examples... We could talk about the numerous false starting assumptions about Neandertals and how science has proven that wrong. (Even Piltdown man was pure reviewed and published as fact, in a journal many years after most of the scientific community was recognizing the problem). Those are just two examples, but the starting assumptions are made in archaeology, geology, astronomy, genetics Etc)

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to 6days For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 17th, 2018)

  6. #35
    TOL Legend Arthur Brain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Precariously balanced on top of a mineshaft
    Posts
    14,844
    Thanks
    9,027
    Thanked 7,097 Times in 4,727 Posts

    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147749
    Quote Originally Posted by 6days View Post
    True
    False, when we are discussing common ancestry (or a common designer). If you wish, I can provide examples. The paridigm of common ancestry is the starting assumption, and interpretations of the data are made to fit the starting assumption.
    I agree that peer review is a beneficial process. However it is a flawed process when we are discussing our beliefs about the past. Their likely are hundreds of examples... We could talk about the numerous false starting assumptions about Neandertals and how science has proven that wrong. (Even Piltdown man was pure reviewed and published as fact, in a journal many years after most of the scientific community was recognizing the problem). Those are just two examples, but the starting assumptions are made in archaeology, geology, astronomy, genetics Etc)
    Not sure how but you've attributed your quotes as being mine when they're actually Cabinetmaker's.
    Well this is fun isn't it?


  7. #36
    Member of the 10 year club on TOL!! CabinetMaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    On the back of a horse someplace in Colorado
    Posts
    5,088
    Thanks
    121
    Thanked 812 Times in 562 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    307056
    Quote Originally Posted by 6days View Post
    True
    False, when we are discussing common ancestry (or a common designer). If you wish, I can provide examples. The paridigm of common ancestry is the starting assumption, and interpretations of the data are made to fit the starting assumption.
    What is interesting about science is that it does not stand still. You may state a starting assumption and people may agree with you and the paper is accepted. But then something happens to change your starting assumption and invalidate it. Back to the drawing board. It is a learning process.


    I agree that peer review is a beneficial process. However it is a flawed process when we are discussing our beliefs about the past. Their likely are hundreds of examples... We could talk about the numerous false starting assumptions about Neandertals and how science has proven that wrong. (Even Piltdown man was pure reviewed and published as fact, in a journal many years after most of the scientific community was recognizing the problem). Those are just two examples, but the starting assumptions are made in archaeology, geology, astronomy, genetics Etc)
    Yes, it is a flawed process. But it is the best we have at the moment. But at least we have a process to follow and it does seem to aid in the over all process of scientific discovery.
    Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)

    But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

    What are my fruits today?

    Cityboy With Horses A blog about what happens when you say, "I Promise"

    "Moral standards" are a lot like lighthouses: they exist to help us stay on course as we sail through life. But we have to steer BY them, but not directly AT them. Lest we end up marooned on the shoals of perpetual self-righteousness.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to CabinetMaker For Your Post:

    Arthur Brain (August 17th, 2018)

  9. #37
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    21,000
    Thanks
    2,098
    Thanked 5,992 Times in 4,405 Posts

    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147733
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    The scientific method involves amassing data, analysing the findings and formulating theories that best support the evidence, modifying as necessary.




  10. #38
    Over 5000 post club fool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,389
    Thanks
    230
    Thanked 872 Times in 594 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    277753
    Quote Originally Posted by ok doser View Post
    it's a game that you have to play in certain areas of academia - those who learn to play it well tend to get promoted
    In Academia you have to publish or you won't be in Academia for long.
    Everyman is a voice in the dark.
    I II III IV

  11. #39
    Over 5000 post club 6days's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,938
    Thanks
    1,067
    Thanked 3,994 Times in 2,378 Posts

    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1805157
    Quote Originally Posted by CabinetMaker
    We can look at events from the past based on the evidence that those events leave behind. We can compare the evidence to other known events and compare the results to see if they are consistent.
    Very good!
    The problem for evolutionists is wild extrapolations that are consistent with their belief system but inconsistent with the data.

    For example geneticists admit the data (mutation rate) is inconsistent with 'uphill' evolution. But, because they start with the conclusion that 'molecule to molecular biologist' evolution is truth, they ignore the data and invent rescue devices such as synergistic epistasis.

  12. #40
    Over 2000 post club User Name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    2,104
    Thanks
    498
    Thanked 441 Times in 310 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    213201
    Creationists don't publish because creationists don't do science.

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to User Name For Your Post:

    Arthur Brain (August 17th, 2018),Hedshaker (August 18th, 2018)

  14. #41
    Over 5000 post club 6days's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,938
    Thanks
    1,067
    Thanked 3,994 Times in 2,378 Posts

    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1805157
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Brain
    With respect, your beliefs, mine or anyone else's about the past are completely irrelevant where it comes to science.
    That is so true. I wish evolutionists would understand that.
    Frankly, not everybody uses the scientific method either, evolutionists
    for a start. The scientific method involves amassing data, analysing the findings and formulating theories that best support the evidence, modifying as necessary. Evolutonism starts with a conclusion based on a belief and then tries to fit theories in with that belief while discarding anything that contradicts it. That's not the scientific method by a long shot.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Brain
    Like any system, it isn't going to be perfect but I don't hear of many scientists wanting to do away with it either.
    Nobody suggested that pure review be done away with. We can agree though that it is flawed system, and especially so when it comes to interpretations of data shoe horned to fit belief systems.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to 6days For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 17th, 2018)

  16. #42
    Over 5000 post club 6days's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,938
    Thanks
    1,067
    Thanked 3,994 Times in 2,378 Posts

    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1805157
    Quote Originally Posted by CabinetMaker
    What is interesting about science is that it does not stand still. You may state a starting assumption and people may agree with you and the paper is accepted. But then something happens to change your starting assumption and invalidate it. Back to the drawing board. It is a learning process.
    You just provided an excellent explanation of why evolutionism is not science . They start with the conclusion and stick with it no matter what the data shows. For example science has proven virtually everything false that evolutionists believed at the time of the famous Scopes trial. But in spite of the data evolutionist still stick with the belief / paradigm of common ancestry. And science in recent yearscontinues to prove evolutionist beliefs are false. (Junk DNA, useless appendix, dimwitted Neanderthals, pseudogenes Etc)

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to 6days For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 17th, 2018)

  18. #43
    TOL Legend Arthur Brain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Precariously balanced on top of a mineshaft
    Posts
    14,844
    Thanks
    9,027
    Thanked 7,097 Times in 4,727 Posts

    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147749
    Quote Originally Posted by 6days View Post
    That is so true. I wish evolutionists would understand that.
    Frankly, not everybody uses the scientific method either, evolutionists
    for a start. The scientific method involves amassing data, analysing the findings and formulating theories that best support the evidence, modifying as necessary. Evolutonism starts with a conclusion based on a belief and then tries to fit theories in with that belief while discarding anything that contradicts it. That's not the scientific method by a long shot.
    Doesn't work 6Days. The ToE came about after the data had been analysed, not beforehand, the same as with common theory that the age of the earth is a lot older than six to ten thousand years. There was no conclusion with evidence shoe horned in to fit in with any of it. Creationism works in reverse and you can't really deny it. You automatically disregard anything that doesn't fit in with your religious belief whereas science doesn't.

    Nobody suggested that pure review be done away with. We can agree though that it is flawed system, and especially so when it comes to interpretations of data shoe horned to fit belief systems.
    There's always going to be imperfections in any system so improvements, sure, absolutely. If you think the global consensus on the age of the earth and evolution arose though "belief systems" then this is kinda pointless.
    Well this is fun isn't it?


  19. #44
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    17,393
    Thanks
    326
    Thanked 10,662 Times in 7,768 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147826
    Quote Originally Posted by User Name View Post
    Creationists don't publish.
    Except that they do.

    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 17th, 2018)

  21. #45
    Over 2000 post club User Name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    2,104
    Thanks
    498
    Thanked 441 Times in 310 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    213201
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    Except that they do.
    https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2012...ly-publishing/

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to User Name For Your Post:

    Arthur Brain (August 17th, 2018)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us