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So I want to ask how does one decide whether a journal is or is not peer reviewed?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?

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

If you feel there's a post that forms part of a legitimate conversation that I had with you and that I did not respond to or did not respond satisfactorily then simply bring it to my attention, link to said post.

If you feel I said something with which you take issue then quote the exact words that I wrote, you continue to paraphrase me when complaining about my posts, surely as a scientist yourself you can see the huge scope for misunderstanding when one takes such an undisciplined approach?

If this is not to your liking then I'm afraid I really can't help you, these are the expectations I have when debating anything with others, in this and every other forum.

[Jose Fly]

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.

That's really interesting. The only person I think of as a "creationist leader" that I've interacted with was Bill Dembski when he made his rather brief appearance at an old ID forum. It didn't last very long though. He would make claims about what scientists hadn't investigated (or weren't investigating) and we'd reply by posting links to papers showing scientists investigating those very things. Eventually he just accused us of "hurling elephants" and left. Not exactly a good look for him.

[Jose Fly]

If you feel there's a post that forms part of a legitimate conversation that I had with you and that I did not respond to or did not respond satisfactorily then simply bring it to my attention, link to said post.

If you feel I said something with which you take issue then quote the exact words that I wrote, you continue to paraphrase me when complaining about my posts, surely as a scientist yourself you can see the huge scope for misunderstanding when one takes such an undisciplined approach?

If this is not to your liking then I'm afraid I really can't help you, these are the expectations I have when debating anything with others, in this and every other forum.

Okay, tell ya' what....let's hit the reset button.

Let's start by establishing common ground. Do you agree that evolutionary mechanisms have been observed to generate new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species?

[Sherlock Holmes]

If you feel there's a post that forms part of a legitimate conversation that I had with you and that I did not respond to or did not respond satisfactorily then simply bring it to my attention, link to said post.

If you feel I said something with which you take issue then quote the exact words that I wrote, you continue to paraphrase me when complaining about my posts, surely as a scientist yourself you can see the huge scope for misunderstanding when one takes such an undisciplined approach?

If this is not to your liking then I'm afraid I really can't help you, these are the expectations I have when debating anything with others, in this and every other forum.

Okay, tell ya' what....let's hit the reset button.

Let's start by establishing common ground. Do you agree that evolutionary mechanisms have been observed to generate new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species?

Start a new thread, present your thesis and lets see what happens, this one - I'm as guilty as anyone - came off the rails many days ago.

[Jose Fly]

If you feel there's a post that forms part of a legitimate conversation that I had with you and that I did not respond to or did not respond satisfactorily then simply bring it to my attention, link to said post.

If you feel I said something with which you take issue then quote the exact words that I wrote, you continue to paraphrase me when complaining about my posts, surely as a scientist yourself you can see the huge scope for misunderstanding when one takes such an undisciplined approach?

If this is not to your liking then I'm afraid I really can't help you, these are the expectations I have when debating anything with others, in this and every other forum.

Okay, tell ya' what....let's hit the reset button.

Let's start by establishing common ground. Do you agree that evolutionary mechanisms have been observed to generate new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species?

Start a new thread, present your thesis and lets see what happens, this one - I'm as guilty as anyone - came off the rails many days ago.

Will do.

[The Barbarian]

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.

That's really interesting. The only person I think of as a "creationist leader" that I've interacted with was Bill Dembski when he made his rather brief appearance at an old ID forum. It didn't last very long though. He would make claims about what scientists hadn't investigated (or weren't investigating) and we'd reply by posting links to papers showing scientists investigating those very things. Eventually he just accused us of "hurling elephants" and left. Not exactly a good look for him.

Dembski has a reputation for having a bit of a short fuse. Heard that before. On one forum a participant was touting the ideas of an Australian creationist (Jonathan Sarfati). I critiqued his ideas in a fairly dispassionate way, and got a rather intemperate response. Apparently, the participant actually was Sarfati.

[Difflugia]

On one forum a participant was touting the ideas of an Australian creationist (Jonathan Sarfati). I critiqued his ideas in a fairly dispassionate way, and got a rather intemperate response. Apparently, the participant actually was Sarfati.

Calling himself "Socrates," I presume? Ah, the good old days.

[The Barbarian]

On one forum a participant was touting the ideas of an Australian creationist (Jonathan Sarfati). I critiqued his ideas in a fairly dispassionate way, and got a rather intemperate response. Apparently, the participant actually was Sarfati.

Calling himself "Socrates," I presume? Ah, the good old days.

Yes. He started calling me "the lupine one." So I began to refer to him as "the musteline one." Which was fine until he looked it up.

[JoeyKnothead]

Yes. He started calling me "the lupine one." So I began to refer to him as "the musteline one." Which was fine until he looked it up.

Mustelids're cool. I reread my Grzimeks a lot, and passed by that section again back in January.

Smart, inquisitive, brave. I love em!

[Jose Fly]

Dembski has a reputation for having a bit of a short fuse. Heard that before.

A well earned reputation for sure.

On one forum a participant was touting the ideas of an Australian creationist (Jonathan Sarfati). I critiqued his ideas in a fairly dispassionate way, and got a rather intemperate response. Apparently, the participant actually was Sarfati.

Lol....you pushed his buttons apparently!