Argument by bad analogy

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Are you referring to established scientific fact as the 'party line'? If you are then of course you can question it, you question the 'party line' by making a case, presenting your evidence and submitting your work for peer review. That's how science works.

You on the other hand are questioning the party line with nothing, I started another thread, a ...[text shortened]... ldview. You admit to having nothing. You're questioning the party line with nothing but hot air.

How people work is what I was getting at, and as I pointed out to you it is
people who teach science. You really want to try and take people out of the
equation when it comes to science, it cannot be done! We strive to keep as
clean as possible, but we are still left with us making assumptions, and
going after what we think is true and see those things in the best possible
light that proves our points.

If a little nugget of info supports evolution, well hell we can reject all the
issues others point out for it going as far as some claim.

Originally posted by KellyJay
How people work is what I was getting at, and as I pointed out to you it is
people who teach science. You really want to try and take people out of the
equation when it comes to science, it cannot be done! We strive to keep as
clean as possible, but we are still left with us making assumptions, and
going after what we think is true and see those things ...[text shortened]... ion, well hell we can reject all the
issues others point out for it going as far as some claim.

Do you know how the peer review process works?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Do you know how the peer review process works?

The process involves people so there are as many flaws in it as there are
almost everything else we do.

Originally posted by KellyJay
The process involves people so there are as many flaws in it as there are
almost everything else we do.

Not as many flaws as in everything else we do. It's a quality control that goes beyond what we do in everyday life. Of course peer-reviewed articles can be wrong. It happens all the time. Do you know how they're exposed as wrong? It's not enough to repeatedly state that you find them hard to believe or understand.

Originally posted by C Hess
Not as many flaws as in everything else we do. It's a quality control that goes beyond what we do in everyday life. Of course peer-reviewed articles can be wrong. It happens all the time. Do you know how they're exposed as wrong? It's not enough to repeatedly state that you find them hard to believe or understand.

People, if people are involved you have built in flaws!
Error checking not withstanding we will act as we always do with the flaws
of our nature. We will never rise above that just as water never rises above
its source. So suggesting 'science' means we are no longer hindered by the
nature of man is just putting on blindfolds to the issues we always bring to
the table!

I think it is one of the best processes we have, but it still is us doing our
thing!

Originally posted by C Hess
Not as many flaws as in everything else we do. It's a quality control that goes beyond what we do in everyday life. Of course peer-reviewed articles can be wrong. It happens all the time. Do you know how they're exposed as wrong? It's not enough to repeatedly state that you find them hard to believe or understand.

I am pretty sure that all the peer-reviewed magazines you accept do not allow critique or publication by known creationists. They are obviously biased toward or in favor of evolution.

Originally posted by KellyJay
The process involves people so there are as many flaws in it as there are
almost everything else we do.

That doesn't answer my question Kelly, do you know how the peer review process works?

Originally posted by KellyJay
People, if people are involved you have built in flaws!
Error checking not withstanding we will act as we always do with the flaws
of our nature. We will never rise above that just as water never rises above
its source. So suggesting 'science' means we are no longer hindered by the
nature of man is just putting on blindfolds to the issues we always brin ...[text shortened]... table!

I think it is one of the best processes we have, but it still is us doing our
thing!

Once it's been determined that an article is factually correct and logically sound when compared to what we already know (hence the need for peers), it will be published. But that's just the beginning, really. Using the article as the foundation for running new tests and building new hypotheses, is the ultimate test. If the article is wrong, it is revealed by this process. For articles that spark little interest, and for which no futher work is done, you can easily suspect the human error to play a part (especially in new fields of science), but for well tested papers, it's hard to make the case that those papers are "just" another idea.

But I see where you're coming from now. Basically, you can't trust that this post I just wrote is even here, because it could very well be that you're just hallucinating. After all, you're just a human, and humans are flawed. Right?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am pretty sure that all the peer-reviewed magazines you accept do not allow critique or publication by known creationists. They are obviously biased toward or in favor of evolution.

No peer-reviewed magazine will allow an article that is factually incorrect, logically unsound, not falsifiable, or (as in the case with creationism) all three. This is a very, very good thing that we should all protect and celebrate. If we drop these principles, then next we'll be reading about homeopathy, astrology and who knows what, and that is of no use to real science.

Originally posted by C Hess
No peer-reviewed magazine will allow an article that is factually incorrect, logically unsound, not falsifiable, or (as in the case with creationism) all three. This is a very, very good thing that we should all protect and celebrate. If we drop these principles, then next we'll be reading about homeopathy, astrology and who knows what, and that is of no use to real science.

Then maybe those magazines should just drop publication of anything dealing with evolution because evolution is not real science but a belief system. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Then maybe those magazines should just drop publication of anything dealing with evolution because evolution is not real science but a belief system. 😏

If an article is factually correct, logically sound and presents a falsifiable idea, then it's scientific. I'm sorry, but you repeating a false statement ad nauseum means absolutely nothing.

Originally posted by C Hess
If an article is factually correct, logically sound and presents a falsifiable idea, then it's scientific. I'm sorry, but you repeating a false statement ad nauseum means absolutely nothing.

I don't believe everything those magazines publish are factually correct or logically sound. As KellyJay has pointed out, people with flaws and biases and unsound logic in their thinking are responsible for determining what they want or don't want to publish.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I don't believe everything those magazines publish are factually correct or logically sound. As KellyJay has pointed out, people with flaws and biases and unsound logic in their thinking are responsible for determining what they want or don't want to publish.

Like I said in an earlier post, the real challenge to an article begins once it's been published, and it's being used in further reasearch. Facts derived at through this process are usually quite sturdy. I can't even know how many articles related to evolution that's been published and used in further research. Evolution as a concept is a safe bet by now, though details are still being hypothesised and debated within the scientific community.

Originally posted by C Hess
Like I said in an earlier post, the real challenge to an article begins once it's been published, and it's being used in further reasearch. Facts derived at through this process are usually quite sturdy. I can't even know how many articles related to evolution that's been published and used in further research. Evolution as a concept is a safe bet by now, though details are still being hypothesised and debated within the scientific community.

Actually there are many problems with the evolution fraud, but the biased publishers of your peer-review journals do not allow articles they see as debunking evolution or suggesting any doubt about it. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Actually there are many problems with the evolution fraud, but the biased publishers of your peer-review journals do not allow articles they see as debunking evolution or suggesting any doubt about it. 😏

If there were genuine problems with the theory of evolution as a whole, trust me, it would be dropped like yesterdays underwear. Give me one problem with the theory of evolution. Just one. Don't link to a youtube video, but tell me one problem, and if I can I'll explain why it's not a problem.