Forums | MacLife

Hank Rearden wrote:

It is true that "peers" (and the general public, who are not peers) can read a paper after publication.  That, however, is not "peer review" in the strict sense.

It's not peer review in the publishing sense, it is peer review in the scientific method sense - where your procedure and data collections methods are laid out for scrutiny (and often that's where mistakes are found, no?)

At any rate - I still don't see what your definition of peer review has to do with the statements were made.

At the time of the second addendum to the article, the additional finds had not been published in a peer review journal - regardless of how you are defining peer review. As such, AiG did not lie when they wrote the original article, it was wrong for the scientist to have accused the lying - when they wrote the article based upon the evidence he presented in a peer review journal, and furthermore, the additional evidence was not published in a peer review journal until AFTER AiG responded to the accusation of lying.

And the only official recourse that the readers have at that point is to do their own experiments and then submit that to the process, as I just described.

Which is a process of peer review.

Hank Rearden wrote:

resedit wrote:

It's not peer review in the publishing sense, it is peer review in the scientific method sense - where your procedure and data collections methods are laid out for scrutiny (and often that's where mistakes are found, no?)

It is not peer review.  Period.  You can call it that if you want to, and try to define it as such.  But no one "in the know" will have a clue what the heck you're talking about.

The thing about science is that term are well-defined and used properly.  It's good to practice this in everyday life as well.

As such, "peer review" describes the process that I posted.  What you are describing is more like "critical analysis" or something of that sort.

OK.
For publishing purposes, peer review happens before it is published. Fine.
Now explain to me what the hell that has to do with the fact that the newer findings had not been published in a peer review journal when the rebuttal to the accusation of lying had been made?

The facts are still the facts regardless of how you define peer review.
They wrote an article the same year the initial finding was made (well, the author did - don't know if AiG existed at that point)

The information used for that article was the information the scientist had provided in his findings in his article.

The scientist called him liar, because he had made further findings that had not been published in a peer review journal - now matter how the bleep you define a jumbo jet. But since those findings had not been subject to peer review, and possibly hadn't even been found when AiG wrote their response, the accusation of lying was dishonest.

Furthermore, when AiG wrote their rebuttal, the findings STILL had not been published in a peer review article. The article you referenced is from 2002, the AiG to the rebuttal is from January 2002.

So what the hell is your point?

resedit wrote:

So what the hell is your point?

On the point of "peer review", it's the fact that you continually were using the term incorrectly and I wanted some terminological accuracy.

On the point of the whales, sure there're  2002 articles from Thewissen and from AiG.  Fine, if AiG wants to criticize, that's OK.  But, the moment the scientific article comes out, they should either heavily revise their criticism, or they ought to remove it.

In any case, criticism of "speculation", in general, is unwarranted if the speculation in the scientific paper is couched in terms of uncertainty and if it is meant as an hypothesis.

Basically, there is some latitude for extrapolation.  And an extrapolation, if it is consistent with the known facts to date but is not yet proven, is an hypothesis.  It is up to the researcher that extrapolates (or other researchers that agree or disagree with the extrapolation) to test the hypothesis that has been generated.

Find if AiG wants to criticise an hypothesis.  That is great.  But then they ought to, if they seek any legitimacy at all, go out and run a study and HONESTLY inspect and report the results.  And, that reporting should happen through legitimate channels.

Of course, AiG has legitimacy among the scientifically-ignorant.  And, for the purposes of fundraising, that's all that they really care about.

If the sought real legitimacy, they would have to shut down shop as the premise upon which they are built is as rotten as a jackolantern left out 'til Christmas.

Last edited by Hank Rearden (2005-09-24 8:57 pm)

resedit wrote:

Note that when the AiG article was written, these additionals finds had not been published in a peer review article - and that when AiG wrote their rebuttal to the accusation of lying, they both pointed that out, and pointed out that the new finds still had not been through a peer review journal.

But now that you have seen the evidence, have you changed your evil ways? Or will you remain proud and unrepentent?

resedit wrote:

Metacell wrote:

resedit wrote:

Note that when the AiG article was written, these additionals finds had not been published in a peer review article - and that when AiG wrote their rebuttal to the accusation of lying, they both pointed that out, and pointed out that the new finds still had not been through a peer review journal.

But now that you have seen the evidence, have you changed your evil ways? Or will you remain proud and unrepentent?

I've seen evidence that they found a fossil of an animal, probably a mammal, that lived primarily in Water. It is not very much like a whale.

Why attack this guy?  He is not the major peerson behind this thought.  Let him believe.  No hard fealings...   Just thought it was getting pretty dumb 

Hank Rearden wrote:

It's good for me to hear these arguments.  It's good for the "believers" to hear the truth.  In the case of res, it's good for him to understand that evolutionary theory (or, in fact, any scientific theory) is not something that stands against his Christian faith.

I do not claim that evolutionary theory stands against the Christian faith.
I know many christians who are more devout than I am who believe evolution.
I don't however believe there is a valid basis for evolution.

I believe that what happened with evolution, the theory evolved from what now is known to be complete misconceptions (Darwin and friends knew nothing of genetics) - but it was accepted and believed, and continued to be believed even though the foundation of the theory was taken out from under it.

Falsehoods and misconceptions are regularly taught that enforce the idea that evolution is true, which results in people believing evolution before they have a mind with which to see the flaws - its indoctrination.

As an example - my radio station does these science blurbs called "Earth and Sky". They are really neat. Just this morning though:

"Cod off of Canadas shores have been overfished, resulting in a depletion of the population. However, since fisherman go after the large cod, the population has evolved and the average size of the adult cod has shrinken considerably. Evolution doesn't always take thousands of years, sometimes it can happen in as few as 50. If we stopped fishing the cod, there's a good chance rapid evolution to a larger size would happen again"

That's not evolution. That is natural selection. Cod with the genes for a smaller size had an advantage over cod with the genes for a larger size. As such, the population had a shift in which genes were more common. If we didn't fish them, the smaller size gene would not give a distinct advantage and thus the genes that make bigger cod quite likely would become more common again.

It is bull smurf like that that needs to stop. That kind of smurf indoctrinates kids and adults alike.
They aren't being told the truth, and "Earth and Sky" as a science program needs to fire their producer for letting that kind of indoctrination go out on the air.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050925.html

Explanation: Analyses of a new high-resolution map of microwave light emitted only 380,000 years after the Big Bang appear to define our universe more precisely than ever before. The eagerly awaited results announced last year from the orbiting Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe resolve several long-standing disagreements in cosmology rooted in less precise data. Specifically, present analyses of above WMAP all-sky image indicate that the universe is 13.7 billion years old (accurate to 1 percent), composed of 73 percent dark energy, 23 percent cold dark matter, and only 4 percent atoms, is currently expanding at the rate of 71 km/sec/Mpc (accurate to 5 percent), underwent episodes of rapid expansion called inflation, and will expand forever. Astronomers will likely research the foundations and implications of these results for years to come.

mo' ron wrote:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050925.html

Explanation: Analyses of a new high-resolution map of microwave light emitted only 380,000 years after the Big Bang appear to define our universe more precisely than ever before. The eagerly awaited results announced last year from the orbiting Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe resolve several long-standing disagreements in cosmology rooted in less precise data. Specifically, present analyses of above WMAP all-sky image indicate that the universe is 13.7 billion years old (accurate to 1 percent), composed of 73 percent dark energy, 23 percent cold dark matter, and only 4 percent atoms, is currently expanding at the rate of 71 km/sec/Mpc (accurate to 5 percent), underwent episodes of rapid expansion called inflation, and will expand forever. Astronomers will likely research the foundations and implications of these results for years to come.

That's all fascinating.
In the thread Oatmeal locked - they found the opposite of what they thought they woyld find when they looked way out there - what they saw did not fit the idea of how the universe came to be because they were looking at light that supposedly was from too young a universe to see what they saw.

An old universe does not necessarily mean an old earth, time is relative - the universe could have been created in six days ~ 7,000 years ago from our perspective, and in six days billions of years ago from the perspective of those stars way out there - and we would see their light, as their light would have had billions of years to reach us.

Also, it is possible that the universe is much older than creation - Angels etc were created before we were, so even from an ID perspective, ID does not demand a young universe.

resedit wrote:

mo' ron wrote:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050925.html

Explanation: Analyses of a new high-resolution map of microwave light emitted only 380,000 years after the Big Bang appear to define our universe more precisely than ever before. The eagerly awaited results announced last year from the orbiting Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe resolve several long-standing disagreements in cosmology rooted in less precise data. Specifically, present analyses of above WMAP all-sky image indicate that the universe is 13.7 billion years old (accurate to 1 percent), composed of 73 percent dark energy, 23 percent cold dark matter, and only 4 percent atoms, is currently expanding at the rate of 71 km/sec/Mpc (accurate to 5 percent), underwent episodes of rapid expansion called inflation, and will expand forever. Astronomers will likely research the foundations and implications of these results for years to come.

That's all fascinating.
In the thread Oatmeal locked - they found the opposite of what they thought they woyld find when they looked way out there - what they saw did not fit the idea of how the universe came to be because they were looking at light that supposedly was from too young a universe to see what they saw.

It wasn't anything that was completely implausible though. Plus, that new data will only help refine the currently accepted model of the universe. Being wrong is not a bad thing in science.

An old universe does not necessarily mean an old earth, time is relative - the universe could have been created in six days ~ 7,000 years ago from our perspective, and in six days billions of years ago from the perspective of those stars way out there - and we would see their light, as their light would have had billions of years to reach us.

It could, but there is no evidence to indicate that. Everything so far seems to point to the Earth being as old as the stuff around it.

Also, it is possible that the universe is much older than creation - Angels etc were created before we were, so even from an ID perspective, ID does not demand a young universe.

It demands a young Earth, which everything we know strongly points against, including the Earth in context of the universe.

It says so...IN THE BIBLE.

resedit wrote:

That's not evolution.

Six of one...

resedit wrote:

That is natural selection.

...half dozen of the other.

Anyhow, I'm glad that you know that evolutionary theory and Christian faith aren't incompatible.

So, now, if you really want to get to the truth, it wouldn't hurt you to take a few college courses on the topic.

resedit wrote:

An old universe does not necessarily mean an old earth, time is relative - the universe could have been created in six days ~ 7,000 years ago from our perspective, and in six days billions of years ago from the perspective of those stars way out there - and we would see their light, as their light would have had billions of years to reach us.

This statement contains not just scientific fallacies, but theological fallacies as well (at least from a standpoint of orthodox doctrine).

That is, if God created stars or other light-emitting objects that are billions of light years away, but did so only a few thousand years ago, then he had to also create light beams coming from those objects that were several billions of light years long.

Contained in those beams would have to be information pertaining to the history of that object for the past several billion years.  But, at the same time, that object has no history of several billion years, but only of a few thousand years.

So, when astronomers look at that object and the information contained in the beam of light, they are looking at false information...information of events that never occurred.

Thus, in such a scenario,  a god would have to be lying, as he gave us the ability to look at and read such information, but he also created false information and then presented it to us.

I, personally, have difficulty believing in a god that is not truthful.  And the God of the Bible claims truth as one of His characteristics.  And He also claims that his character is seen in creation.

To believe otherwise means that Last Thursdayism might as well be true for all we know.

icr and AiG are unrelated.
Feel free to use their feedback option to set them straight.
They like getting feedback from Evolutionists.

In fact, they rarely publish feedback from us IDers.

Last edited by resedit (2005-09-25 12:13 pm)