Argument by bad analogy

Originally posted by C Hess
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 ...[text shortened]... be that you're just hallucinating. After all, you're just a human, and humans are flawed. Right?

I know with people like you in a discussion it isn't the topic you really like
staying on it is attacking those that disagree with you, which you have
already admitted you have issues when it comes to this.

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.

Creationism which I believe in is not science, it cannot be validated by
science there is nothing science can do with it for or against! Creation is
a matter of faith, I've not brought creation into this as much as I have
been poking holes into the doctrine of evolution being able to go from
a simple life form to all we see today. I've kept my side of the discussion
away things that cannot be proven, and pointed out those things that
you claim can be but yet have not been seen only believed in.

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

Yes

Originally posted by KellyJay
Creationism which I believe in is not science, it cannot be validated by
science there is nothing science can do with it for or against! Creation is
a matter of faith, I've not brought creation into this as much as I have
been poking holes into the doctrine of evolution being able to go from
a simple life form to all we see today. I've kept my side of t ...[text shortened]... and pointed out those things that
you claim can be but yet have not been seen only believed in.

if creationism is a matter of faith, why in another thread to you say there was evidence for creationism everywhere? seems like a bit of an oxymoron to me.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
if creationism is a matter of faith, why in another thread to you say there was evidence for creationism everywhere? seems like a bit of an oxymoron to me.

Creation is faith, evidence means is something we can point to that shows
what we are saying is true. All of creation is still all of creation, can I prove
it is by any means, no. But what we see around us is all there is therefore
it is the evidence, we are just debating on what it means and why.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Creation is faith, evidence means is something we can point to that shows
what we are saying is true. All of creation is still all of creation, can I prove
it is by any means, no. But what we see around us is all there is therefore
it is the evidence, we are just debating on what it means and why.

let me try to understand you.

creation is faith. then if there were no evidence for creation, you would still have faith and believe in creation. correct?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes

Good.

How come the peer review process has worked out fantastically well for launching satellites into orbit resulting in incredible developments in communication devices, ie, the internet, GPS, mobiles phones etc. Yet the same process has failed spectacularly with regard to explaining evolution. Because if evolutionary theory is wrong then that means a multitude of scientific areas are so wide of the mark it's scary. For example, a list of the top of my head.

All of Biology
Genetics
Archaeology
Physics
Astrophysics
Astronomy
Dendrochronolgy

The list goes on. How come scientists within this diverse range disciplines are so spectacularly wrong? How did that happen?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
let me try to understand you.

creation is faith. then if there were no evidence for creation, you would still have faith and believe in creation. correct?

The output of creation is the universe it has to be the evidence, the same
is true for every other theory, we do not get to pick and choose what parts
are ours and what are someone else's.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Good.

How come the peer review process has worked out fantastically well for launching satellites into orbit resulting in incredible developments in communication devices, ie, the internet, GPS, mobiles phones etc. Yet the same process has failed spectacularly with regard to explaining evolution. Because if evolutionary theory is wrong then that means ...[text shortened]... cientists within this diverse range disciplines are so spectacularly wrong? How did that happen?

I'm all for science, I'm all for peer review process nothing at all in anything
I've said suggests otherwise. Where I draw the line is that the process has
people in it, and people by their nature are flawed. We can get things right
even working under the wrong assumptions, we learn a lot doing it that way
as well.

We are talking about the distant past, and processes that cannot be shown
doing what is being suggested in the here and now. So there isn't any
thing to hang your hat on that says this proves common ancestors are
real! We agree in small changes, where we part company is what you are
suggesting can happen over millions of years. That has not been show it
can only be believed.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm all for science, I'm all for peer review process nothing at all in anything
I've said suggests otherwise. Where I draw the line is that the process has
people in it, and people by their nature are flawed. We can get things right
even working under the wrong assumptions, we learn a lot doing it that way
as well.

We are talking about the distant pa ...[text shortened]...
suggesting can happen over millions of years. That has not been show it
can only be believed.

[b]"Where I draw the line is that the process has
people in it"[b/]

i dont think you realise just how bad this comment is. you are blaming errors in scientific process because people are involved.

these people (a huge number of people) are hugely intelligent people, reviewing papers that are not works of opinion, but mathematical records of proof, of evidence. its not like a court case where the reviewer gets to judge. if the math adds up and the methods are accurate then the paper is published...simple as that.

your comment also makes man the flaw in the scientific system, yet it is man who drives the system, its man using this system who has given us all the science that we have today. if man is so flawed and unable to look at others ideas unbiased then we would not exist with the level of technology that we have.

you trust a pilot to fly your plane, you trust a surgeon to operate on you and an engineer to build your bridge.....yet scientist are all bumbling idiots, who are all fixated one a false premise? really?

can you imagine doctors all getting together and deciding brain surgery should be done via the rectum....despite people telling them through the skull would be better.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm all for science, I'm all for peer review process nothing at all in anything
I've said suggests otherwise. Where I draw the line is that the process has
people in it, and people by their nature are flawed. We can get things right
even working under the wrong assumptions, we learn a lot doing it that way
as well.

We are talking about the distant pa ...[text shortened]...
suggesting can happen over millions of years. That has not been show it
can only be believed.

That doesn't really answer my question. How can countless scientists from pretty much every scientific discipline get it wrong for so long? Yet other scientists working with the same laws of nature, using the same scientific process get it right? How does that happen?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
That doesn't really answer my question. How can countless scientists from pretty much every scientific discipline get it wrong for so long? Yet other scientists working with the same laws of nature, using the same scientific process get it right? How does that happen?

And of particular interest, why do they only seem to get it wrong when their findings conflict with Kellys religious beliefs, but not otherwise?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b]"Where I draw the line is that the process has
people in it"[b/]

i dont think you realise just how bad this comment is. you are blaming errors in scientific process because people are involved.

these people (a huge number of people) are hugely intelligent people, reviewing papers that are not works of opinion, but mathematical records of proof ...[text shortened]... should be done via the rectum....despite people telling them through the skull would be better.

"i dont think you realise just how bad this comment is. you are blaming errors in scientific process because people are involved."

I thought I was very clear, I am blaming error in the scientific process
because people are involved. If there is any doubt let them set to rest
because that is exactly what I'm doing!

Originally posted by C Hess
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.

Orphan genes reveal that macro-evolution does not represent reality, and is physically impossible.

The gradual morphing of one type of creature to another that evolution predicts is nowhere to be found. There should have been millions of transitional creatures if evolution were true. In fact, there are no fossil ancestors at all for complex invertebrates or fish. That alone is fatal to the theory of evolution. The fossil record shows that evolution never happened.

There is no natural process that causes things to fall together into organized complexity.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
let me try to understand you.

creation is faith. then if there were no evidence for creation, you would still have faith and believe in creation. correct?

Evidence is in the eye and the mind of the beholder. You point to something and claim that it is evidence for evolution, but I see the same thing and claim it is evidence for creation. Belief in evolution is as much faith for you as creation is for me. You point to your evolution scientists and peer-review journals for proof of your belief in evolution; and I point to creation scientists and their creation magazines and youtube videos plus the Holy Bible for proof of my belief.

Neither of us were there 6,000+ years ago to see for ourselves that some ape turned into a man or God create man and woman, so we both believe mainly with faith.