Proof of Creation from Science

Originally posted by twhitehead
If it did, he would have presented his findings in a peer reviewed article in a scientific magazine. Not in a youtube video.

Do you have some peer reviewed articles on the subject matter of Evolution which we could read ?

Here are easily over 10,000 articles from a very small number of journals existing on the subject.

http://www.plosone.org/article/browse.action;jsessionid=C4D6F5F8C3433DA59237D4AE4111CCA9?field=&pageSize=10&startPage=1&catName=Evolutionary+Biology

http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/2.toc

http://www.springerlink.com/content/0022-2844/72/5-6/

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/8.toc

Originally posted by amolv06
Here are easily over 10,000 articles from a very small number of journals existing on the subject.

http://www.plosone.org/article/browse.action;jsessionid=C4D6F5F8C3433DA59237D4AE4111CCA9?field=&pageSize=10&startPage=1&catName=Evolutionary+Biology

http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/2.toc

http://www.springerlink.com/content/0022-2844/72/5-6/

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/8.toc

Which one was by the poster twhitehead ?

That is what I asked about.

Originally posted by jaywill
Which one was by the poster twhitehead ?

That is what I asked about.

What difference does that make?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
That doesn't make any sense, you asked for peer-reviewed journals on evolution, you got them. What's the issue?

I didn't ask for peer reviewed articles in general.
I asked for twhitehead's peer reviewed if he had some.
Maybe the request was not made clear.
But now you should understand what I meant. Right ?

Do you still have another beef ?
What is wrong with me asking a poster specifically if he or she has some peer reviewed and published articles on any subject ?

Originally posted by jaywill
I didn't ask for peer reviewed articles in general.
I asked for twhitehead's peer reviewed if he had some.
Maybe the request was not made clear.
But now you should understand what I meant. Right ?

Do you still have another beef ?
What is wrong with me asking a poster specifically if he or she has some peer reviewed and published articles on any subject ?

I got what you meant, hence my change of text.

What difference does it make whether he has written any peer-reviewed journals on evolution?

I don't have any 'beef', merely trying to understand.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I got what you meant, hence my change of text.

What difference does it make whether he has written any peer-reviewed journals on evolution?

I don't have any 'beef', merely trying to understand.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

What's good for Dr. Stephen Meyer is good for twhitehead.

If he wants to inquire about Dr. Meyer's peers' opinions I can inquire about twhitehead's peers' opinion too. That is if he should have some.

How do I know unless I ask twhitehead if he has some peer reviewed articles on a subject he seems articulate about ?

More problems ?

Originally posted by jaywill
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

What's good for Dr. Stephen Meyer is good for twhitehead.

If he wants to inquire about Dr. Meyer's peers' opinions I can inquire about twhitehead's peers' opinion too. That is if he should have some.

How do I know unless I ask twhitehead if he has some peer reviewed articles on a subject he seems articulate about ?

More problems ?

I have not made any scientific 'discoveries' or other such claims. I have not written any books, nor produced youtube videos. I am not a gander at all, nor do I claim to be. You know this.
So why the request?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have not made any scientific 'discoveries' or other such claims. I have not written any books, nor produced youtube videos. I am not a gander at all, nor do I claim to be. You know this.
So why the request?

I have not made any scientific 'discoveries' or other such claims. I have not written any books, nor produced youtube videos. I am not a gander at all, nor do I claim to be. You know this.
So why the request?

But you are articulate on a subject of Evolution.
There's another person, Stephen Meyer, who has some well expressed opinions about it too.

On that level, you may be compared. And we need not call in the credentialists.
But if you do call for the credentialists concerning the opinions of an articulate person why not I inquire of the credentialists in your case as well ?

But, I obtained the information I sought from you. So I'm satisfied with that aspect of my curiosity. We can move on.

Thanks

Surely Meyer is to be compared to and his work evaluated by his peers in science, not compared to twhitehead or me or jawill or RJHinds or taccolettuice. What do actual professional scientists make of Meyer's theories and his career as a niche market best selling author?

Originally posted by FMF
Surely Meyer is to be compared to and his work evaluated by his peers in science, not compared to twhitehead or me or jawill or RJHinds or taccolettuice. What do actual professional scientists make of Meyer's theories and his career as a niche market best selling author?

While everyone contemplates that question, here's another.

Is science an exercise in democracy ? I mean is the science truth always a matter of what the majority agrees is the science truth ?

Originally posted by jaywill
While everyone contemplates that question, here's another.

Is science an exercise in [b] democracy ? I mean is the science truth always a matter of what the majority agrees is the science truth ?[/b]

No, science is a matter of evidence, and reason.

Scientific consensus is achieved when the evidence is clear on a particular subject.

Science is not democratic, nobody votes to decide what is or is not true.

You present evidence, and reasoning.

When the evidence and reasoning is compelling then it becomes the consensus view.

Originally posted by jaywill

I have not made any scientific 'discoveries' or other such claims. I have not written any books, nor produced youtube videos. I am not a gander at all, nor do I claim to be. You know this.
So why the request?

But you are articulate on a subject of Evolution.
There's another person, Stephen Meyer, who has some well expressed opinions ...[text shortened]... ht from you. So I'm satisfied with that aspect of my curiosity. We can move on.

Thanks

Irrelevant.

The point is that RJHinds was claiming this was proof of creation from science, videos posted on youtube don't fit the criteria of science. You know this, i know this.

Originally posted by jaywill
While everyone contemplates that question, here's another.

Is science an exercise in [b] democracy ? I mean is the science truth always a matter of what the majority agrees is the science truth ?[/b]

no it is not. a truly genius scientist might appear and offer something truly revolutionary that is not accepted by the majority.

now be fair: is that the case here? that this dude is a lone genius, misunderstood by all? take his work and see: is it groundbreaking? or is it merely saying what you wanted to hear because you think god NEEDS you to believe in a 4 thousand year old fairy tale?

try for 10 seconds to read his work while forgetting anything about bible, religion and anything your preacher said. does it still stand?


for atheists and liberal theists, intelligent design doesn't stand on its own feet. there is no conspiracy to doom you to hell. we don't believe in evolution or 14 billion year universe because it is convenient. we know it to be true because evidence points to it. because of reason.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No, science is a matter of evidence, and reason.

Scientific consensus is achieved when the evidence is clear on a particular subject.

Science is not democratic, nobody votes to decide what is or is not true.

You present evidence, and reasoning.

When the evidence and reasoning is compelling then it becomes the consensus view.

Scientific consensus is achieved when the evidence is clear on a particular subject.

And when the consensus view was that the sun revolved around the earth according to Ptolemy's mathematics, and the evidence pointed to that, and was agreed upon by the majority, that was the best scienctific theory for awhile.

Was it the scientific truth ?

Well, eventually, other evidence came through and the consensus changed to a sun being the object the earth revolved around instead.

In the interim between the two consensuses, should people listen to a minority view ?