What is peer review?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Often when debating atheism or questioning the evolution doctrine, the supporters of evolution will reject arguments against it made by scientists because they insist that only "peer reviewed" publications are to be trusted (else it must be pseudo science).

So I want to ask how does one decide whether a journal is or is not peer reviewed? what definition do people use to help them make this decision?

[Jose Fly]

Nope, sorry Jose, I do not intend to get into a personal bickering match, either argue against something I actually said or leave me alone, find someone else to pick on.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You refuse to engage on so many things....scientific data, your own assertions, the role of your religious beliefs, what you've allegedly read, and now you even refuse to engage on what you're trying to accomplish.

I've often wondered why creationists tend to join discussion boards and subsequently refuse to engage in discussion beyond mere assertion. The only thing I can figure is that y'all are so acclimated to the church environment that it affects how you approach online forums. IOW, you're used to settings where one person preaches and everyone else sits and nods, and never questions the preacher. So on some level you expect the same thing here.

Maybe I'm wrong on that, but you've given me absolutely no reason to think so.

So if you don't want to discuss the scientific data, your assertions, the role of your religious beliefs, your alleged reading material, or what your goal is.....what do you want to discuss?

All you're doing is more avoidance behavior. I finished by asking you what you wanted to discuss and you even avoided that!

BTW, the ad hominem fallacy is when someone attacks you personally and then uses that to conclude "therefore you're wrong". I've not done that at all. But then since it seems you only invoked it as a means to avoid discussion, your error is at least somewhat understandable.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Nope, sorry Jose, I do not intend to get into a personal bickering match, either argue against something I actually said or leave me alone, find someone else to pick on.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You refuse to engage on so many things....scientific data, your own assertions, the role of your religious beliefs, what you've allegedly read, and now you even refuse to engage on what you're trying to accomplish.

I've often wondered why creationists tend to join discussion boards and subsequently refuse to engage in discussion beyond mere assertion. The only thing I can figure is that y'all are so acclimated to the church environment that it affects how you approach online forums. IOW, you're used to settings where one person preaches and everyone else sits and nods, and never questions the preacher. So on some level you expect the same thing here.

Maybe I'm wrong on that, but you've given me absolutely no reason to think so.

So if you don't want to discuss the scientific data, your assertions, the role of your religious beliefs, your alleged reading material, or what your goal is.....what do you want to discuss?

All you're doing is more avoidance behavior. I finished by asking you what you wanted to discuss and you even avoided that!

BTW, the ad hominem fallacy is when someone attacks you personally and then uses that to conclude "therefore you're wrong". I've not done that at all. But then since it seems you only invoked it as a means to avoid discussion, your error is at least somewhat understandable.

Sorry, that is not the established definition of ad hominem. Presenting any counter argument that refers to a person's beliefs, sex, race, age, qualifications, books they read, motivations and so on (that is everything but their argument!) constitutes ad-hominem.

I've explained this to you before, you've been pulled up about it before by moderators too, in this very thread no less.

[Jose Fly]

Sorry, that is not the established definition of ad hominem.

Correct, but it is the definition of the ad hominem fallacy, which you accused me of. Please pay closer attention.

Presenting any counter argument that refers to a person's beliefs, sex, race, age, qualifications, books they read, motivations and so on (that is everything but their argument!) constitutes ad-hominem.

No it doesn't. If that were the case, then lawyers would just pick random people off the street to testify about genetics, and courts would bar anyone from questioning their qualifications to do so.

I mean....why do you think lawyers call expert witnesses and have them state their background and qualifications at the beginning of their testimony? Sheesh.....

[Sherlock Holmes]

Sorry, that is not the established definition of ad hominem.

Correct, but it is the definition of the ad hominem fallacy, which you accused me of. Please pay closer attention.

Presenting any counter argument that refers to a person's beliefs, sex, race, age, qualifications, books they read, motivations and so on (that is everything but their argument!) constitutes ad-hominem.

No it doesn't. If that were the case, then lawyers would just pick random people off the street to testify about genetics, and courts would bar anyone from questioning their qualifications to do so.

I mean....why do you think lawyers call expert witnesses and have them state their background and qualifications at the beginning of their testimony? Sheesh.....

Same reason people supply resume's when they apply for a job. But I'm not applying to you for anything, I want nothing from you, I am not answerable to you.

If you believe that because you have a greater knowledge of - say - genetics than I do, then every time we disagree on some aspect of genetics you will invariably be right and I will invariably be wrong, then please just state that.

Then we can look for examples where an "expert" in some discipline was proven wrong by a relative novice and then that will hopefully correct the misapprehension you see to have.

I care not if you think I'm an expert or not, I care not if you think you are an expert or not, just stick to what is actually said, it's that easy.

If you want the forum to impose a rule for participants to be certificated then raise that with them, until then, leave the matter alone.

I'll vigorously defend arguments I make, so if you want to discuss arguments I've made go and find one and lets move forward.

[JoeyKnothead]

Nope, sorry Jose, I do not intend to dignify your baseless accusations by responding to them, ...

He responded, oblivious to the ironicity.

[Jose Fly]

Same reason people supply resume's when they apply for a job. But I'm not applying to you for anything, I want nothing from you, I am not answerable to you.

Seen this countless times from creationists.....come into a forum, make a series of empty assertions, and when challenged to support them say "I don't have to answer to you".

I doubt you appreciate it, but the main thing you accomplish by doing that is demonstrating that your assertions and claims are baseless. If there were any substance to them, you'd be quite eager to answer all sorts of questions.

I care not if you think I'm an expert or not, I care not if you think you are an expert or not, just stick to what is actually said, it's that easy.

If you want the forum to impose a rule for participants to be certificated then raise that with them, until then, leave the matter alone.

LOL...so you want to be able to make all sorts of grand proclamations about subjects you know little about, while being shielded from being questioned about them and/or being expected to back them up.

Like I said, just like in church.

I'll vigorously defend arguments I make, so if you want to discuss arguments I've made go and find one and lets move forward.

OMG...no you don't. You claimed to have studied genetics, yet when asked what you studied (or even what specific aspect of genetics you studied) you refused to say and claimed that merely asking you those questions constituted a personal attack. You claimed that the fossil record falsifies evolution, yet you refused to explain how despite repeated requests for you to do so, while also completely ignoring the material Barbarian posted. You go on and on about atheists and their agenda with evolution, but then when asked about how your own religious beliefs affect your views on evolution, you claim it's an ad hominem.

IOW, your behavior does not match your rhetoric. Like I noted when I first joined here....you talk a big game, but when the whistle blows and it's time to step on the court and show us your game, suddenly you can't be bothered.

Finally, I hope you realize that I wouldn't be talking about any of this if you'd just engaged on the science in the first place. Since you won't engage on that front, and you wont engage on religion either, there's not really much left to discuss except your behaviors. So the solution here is all yours.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Same reason people supply resume's when they apply for a job. But I'm not applying to you for anything, I want nothing from you, I am not answerable to you.

Seen this countless times from creationists.....come into a forum, make a series of empty assertions, and when challenged to support them say "I don't have to answer to you".

I doubt you appreciate it, but the main thing you accomplish by doing that is demonstrating that your assertions and claims are baseless. If there were any substance to them, you'd be quite eager to answer all sorts of questions.

I care not if you think I'm an expert or not, I care not if you think you are an expert or not, just stick to what is actually said, it's that easy.

If you want the forum to impose a rule for participants to be certificated then raise that with them, until then, leave the matter alone.

LOL...so you want to be able to make all sorts of grand proclamations about subjects you know little about, while being shielded from being questioned about them and/or being expected to back them up.

Like I said, just like in church.

I'll vigorously defend arguments I make, so if you want to discuss arguments I've made go and find one and lets move forward.

OMG...no you don't. You claimed to have studied genetics, yet when asked what you studied (or even what specific aspect of genetics you studied) you refused to say and claimed that merely asking you those questions constituted a personal attack. You claimed that the fossil record falsifies evolution, yet you refused to explain how despite repeated requests for you to do so, while also completely ignoring the material Barbarian posted. You go on and on about atheists and their agenda with evolution, but then when asked about how your own religious beliefs affect your views on evolution, you claim it's an ad hominem.

IOW, your behavior does not match your rhetoric. Like I noted when I first joined here....you talk a big game, but when the whistle blows and it's time to step on the court and show us your game, suddenly you can't be bothered.

Finally, I hope you realize that I wouldn't be talking about any of this if you'd just engaged on the science in the first place. Since you won't engage on that front, and you wont engage on religion either, there's not really much left to discuss except your behaviors. So the solution here is all yours.

More baseless accusations, is this really the best you can throw at me?

If you believe that because you might have a greater knowledge of - say - genetics than I do, then every time we disagree on some aspect of genetics you will invariably be right and I will invariably be wrong, then please just state that, is that what you believe? Yes or No ???

If you want to hide behind qualifications or academic book lists then do so, but it won't help you in a real debate, not with me, I've dealt with such trickery many times.

[Jose Fly]

More baseless accusations, is this really the best you can throw at me?

Would you like me to back them up? It's not at all difficult to pull up the posts you know.

If you believe that because you might have a greater knowledge of - say - genetics than I do, then every time we disagree on some aspect of genetics you will invariably be right and I will invariably be wrong, then please just state that, is that what you believe? Yes or No ???

Nope, never said that at all. You claimed to have studied genetics; all I did was ask what you studied, which you not only refused to answer, you got extremely defensive about (which is very revealing).

See, when creationists claim that I've not studied creationism and I tell them that I actually have studied it quite a bit, I list the creationist books I've read, the creationist websites I read, etc. I don't run to "I don't have to answer to you".

If you want to hide behind qualifications or academic book lists then do so, but it won't help you in a real debate, not with me, I've dealt with such trickery many times.

This is why creationism can't win in courts or science. In both of those arenas you can't get away with repeatedly dodging questions without consequence. Oh sure you can do that all day in internet forums and all that'll happen is a loss of credibility. But pull that crap in court or in a science setting and things will be quite different.

So if you want to get this back on topic, you can start by addressing one or more of the following: 1) your assertion that evolution has been falsified (i.e., explain how), 2) the papers on pre-Cambrian to Cambrian transitional fossils that Barbarian posted, 3) the papers on speciation I posted, 4) the info on functional redundancy and cytochrome C Barbarian posted, and 5) what specific aspect of genetics you've studied (e.g., molecular, population, other).

Anything less and we're right back to where we are now.

[The Barbarian]

If that were the case, then lawyers would just pick random people off the street to testify about genetics, and courts would bar anyone from questioning their qualifications to do so.

Then they'd be just like many creationists. Not all of them to be sure.

[The Barbarian]

See, when creationists claim that I've not studied creationism and I tell them that I actually have studied it quite a bit, I list the creationist books I've read, the creationist websites I read, etc. I don't run to "I don't have to answer to you".

Actually, I've had some very good relationships with a number of YE creationist leaders. Thomas Woodward was kind enough to send me a signed copy of Doubts About Darwin; he apparently considered our online debates at the C.S.Lewis Society website in that book. John Woodmorappe, author of Noah's Ark; a Feasibility Study, spent some time in email with me, clarifying his ideas from that book. Many creationists are honest and decent people, and some of them do take a great deal of time reading scientific literature for more than just quote-mining.

Unfortunately, many of the most prominent creationists don't fit that description.