Problems with Science

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Then I would like him to try to prove you wrong.

I have already presented him with much evidence to prove him wrong, but he is too stubborn and brainwashed to even consider it, just as you seem to be.

Originally posted by RJHinds
My ONLY agends is to get to the truth.

Yes, your agenda to kill evolution and force creationism to be foisted on impressionable minds. THAT is your only agenda. You could care less about the truth.

See what I mean.

Originally posted by RJHinds
"Too many" means too numerous to number.

This is a place to state opinions on science, so you are welcome to disagree with my quoted expert source of information.

Not good enough, I want to know what fraction of papers, published in peer reviewed journals, suffer the faults you describe. Since "too many" could be just "some" you can make a small problem sound like a big one.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Not good enough, I want to know what fraction of papers, published in peer reviewed journals, suffer the faults you describe. Since "too many" could be just "some" you can make a small problem sound like a big one.

whats the point of being peer reviewed if everyone as Huxley so eloquently puts it, 'is reading from the same cookbook?'

Originally posted by DeepThought
Not good enough, I want to know what fraction of papers, published in peer reviewed journals, suffer the faults you describe. Since "too many" could be just "some" you can make a small problem sound like a big one.

Read the referenced article. I don't recall any mention of fractions.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
whats the point of being peer reviewed if everyone as Huxley so eloquently puts it, 'is reading from the same cookbook?'

True. The Journals published by those promoting the evolution and billions of years ideas do not allow peer review from the scientists that disagree with those ideas.

Originally posted by RJHinds
True. The Journals published by those promoting the evolution and billions of years ideas do not allow peer review from the scientists that disagree with those ideas.

I dont know about that but if a bunch of young earth creationists decide to get together and interpret a piece of scientific data and publish it so that other YEC can read it and they all reach a consensus as to its veracity is it not also peer reviewed?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I dont know about that but if a bunch of young earth creationists decide to get together and interpret a piece of scientific data and publish it so that other YEC can read it and they all reach a consensus as to its veracity is it not also peer reviewed?

No, the relevant peer group is the scientific community working in that field, so if you only include YECs then it's not the entire peer group. With regard to a paper about some point of biblical interpretation then YECs possibly could constitute a reasonable peer group, and scientists wouldn't.

Originally posted by DeepThought
No, the relevant peer group is the scientific community working in that field, so if you only include YECs then it's not the entire peer group. With regard to a paper about some point of biblical interpretation then YECs possibly could constitute a reasonable peer group, and scientists wouldn't.

No because then YECs would only make up a class or type of Biblical scholars and do not represent the entire Biblical scholarship community. One cannot have one rule for scientists and another for Bible scholars 😀

Originally posted by sonhouse
Do you realize his main agenda with all this? To belittle science, to weaponize pseudoscience,

Yes, but he's doing a piss-poor job of it.

Originally posted by DeepThought
No, the relevant peer group is the scientific community working in that field, so if you only include YECs then it's not the entire peer group. With regard to a paper about some point of biblical interpretation then YECs possibly could constitute a reasonable peer group, and scientists wouldn't.

You seem not to understand that there are scientists that are YECs. You seem brainwashed into believing that scientists must be evolutionists.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You seem not to understand that there are scientists that are YECs. You seem brainwashed into believing that scientists must be evolutionists.

If they pursue YEC in science, they are not scientists, they are politicians. In other words, they start out with an agenda that they feel must be proven regardless of the validity of their claims.

They are in the exact same boat as flat Earthers.

So, they will start off with the POV that carbon dating, rock dating, all dating techniques are AUTOMATICALLY bad and that is their starting point.

They won't then go, well since we have found dating techniques bad, we need to study dating techniques that give the correct dates. They don't do that, they simply put down the entire science of age dating.

They would be the last people in the world to actually invent a new technique to date rocks or fossils, since they don't want ANY data that says the Earth is more than a few thousand years old.

In other words, they are blinded by their own religious propaganda.

Originally posted by sonhouse
If they pursue YEC in science, they are not scientists, they are politicians. In other words, they start out with an agenda that they feel must be proven regardless of the validity of their claims.

They are in the exact same boat as flat Earthers.

So, they will start off with the POV that carbon dating, rock dating, all dating techniques are AUTOMATI ...[text shortened]... a few thousand years old.

In other words, they are blinded by their own religious propaganda.

As I said before, you are brainwashed into believing a lie and are too stubborn to listen to the truth. Your statements are wrong. Some of those scientists that became YEC were in the evolution camp until the real science led them to the truth. Unlike you, they were open-minded enough to follow the evidence to where it led.

Dating techniques are available that show a young earth, but evolutionists are resisting the use of them. I have made reference to them before, but you continue to ignore what you do not want to believe.

quOriginally posted by RJHinds
As I said before, you are brainwashed into believing a lie and are too stubborn to listen to the truth. Your statements are wrong. Some of those scientists that became YEC were in the evolution camp until the real science led them to the truth. Unlike you, they were open-minded enough to follow the evidence to where it led.

Dating techniques are avai ...[text shortened]... have made reference to them before, but you continue to ignore what you do not want to believe.

EVERY one of those so-called techniques have been refuted several times over but in your own self mutilated propagandized mind you cling to fantasy. Show me the so-called techniques and I will show you the refutation.