Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Comments (Page 1,977)

Showing posts 39,521 - 39,540 of105,880
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
ARGUING with IDIOTS

Chico, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40980
Aug 24, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry, I checked out your article and the author is claiming that it is being well received. If that was the case he could have sited a few references. The author is a neurosurgeon. He may very well be out of his specialty.

One author alone cannot make changes as large as he claims. If you cannot supply some actual peer reviewed articles then you lose.
Where did you come up with these standards and can we apply them to both sides of the argument?
Anonymous

Jackson, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40981
Aug 24, 2012
 
Good Question!

Where did you come up with these standards and can we apply them to both sides of the argument? Are there many other sides to this particular argument?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40982
Aug 24, 2012
 
ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did you come up with these standards and can we apply them to both sides of the argument?
Of course those standards should apply to us too. In fact that is why we love Talk Origins. Those articles always use peer reviewed articles fro references. No double standard here.
Take that with you

Chico, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40983
Aug 24, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course those standards should apply to us too. In fact that is why we love Talk Origins. Those articles always use peer reviewed articles fro references. No double standard here.
Okay, so how many authors does it take then?

Also, for any article to be offered, it must be reviewed by peers or it can be dismissed?
Anonymous

Jackson, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40984
Aug 24, 2012
 
Must we list every author or is it the thought that might actually matter more in certain conditionings.

Level 1

Since: Oct 08

Wellington

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40985
Aug 24, 2012
 
Wake Up wrote:
It is funny that men have tried to manipulate theWel calendar and change the number of days of the year and the number of months for centuries...but there remained one contant that man has not been able to manipulate and that is seven days in a week in which God, the creator, created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them.
Well, that's laughably wrong. For one thing, the "week" has no scientific basis at all, it's purely arbitrary. A year is the time it takes for the earth to orbit the sun.(Yes, I do accept the Godless, unbiblical science if heliocentricity.) A day is the time it takes for the earth to complete one rotation.

A week, on the other hand, could be anything. Four days, seven days, ten days...whatever the prevailing culture finds convenient. The ancient Egyptians and Chinese had ten day weeks.

Our seven day week is based on astrology. There are seven moving things in the sky that can be seen with the naked eye - the sun, the moon, and the planets Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. It's no coincidence that our weekdays are named after those objects.

Level 1

Since: Oct 08

Wellington

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40986
Aug 24, 2012
 
Wake Up wrote:
I've learned one thing..
Oh, well done! If you keep it up, one day you might have learned two things. Then you'll be twice as clever.
Take that with you

Chico, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40987
Aug 24, 2012
 
Anonymous wrote:
Must we list every author or is it the thought that might actually matter more in certain conditionings.
Still waiting for the answer to that myself...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40988
Aug 24, 2012
 
Take that with you wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, so how many authors does it take then?
Also, for any article to be offered, it must be reviewed by peers or it can be dismissed?
It depends upon how strong of a piece of evidence you want your article to be. There is no set number. If you are dong a report on one peer reviewed paper links to that paper may be enough. If you are dealing with a more complex idea it may take several sources to have a fully supported claim. It all depends upon what you are claiming.

And yes, some sort of peer reviewed article is definitely preferred. Otherwise you get the sort of nonsense that Duane Gish vomited.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40989
Aug 24, 2012
 
Anonymous wrote:
Must we list every author or is it the thought that might actually matter more in certain conditionings.
Trust me, any important scientifically supported idea has some sort of peer review in these debates. The creationists avoid peer review like the plague because they know deep down inside that there arguments are wrong.
Take that with you

Chico, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40990
Aug 24, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
It depends upon how strong of a piece of evidence you want your article to be. There is no set number. If you are dong a report on one peer reviewed paper links to that paper may be enough. If you are dealing with a more complex idea it may take several sources to have a fully supported claim. It all depends upon what you are claiming.
And yes, some sort of peer reviewed article is definitely preferred. Otherwise you get the sort of nonsense that Duane Gish vomited.
This is sounding a lot different then what the term 'standards' mean.

You won't except just one, but can not provide how many.

If it all depends on the claim, then who makes the decision what standards to use?

Now you state that peer review is prefered? Does that mean peer review is not mandatory?
Take that with you

Chico, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40991
Aug 24, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Trust me, any important scientifically supported idea has some sort of peer review in these debates. The creationists avoid peer review like the plague because they know deep down inside that there arguments are wrong.
Come on now, so is it just prefered as you stated, or is it mandatory as you are implying?

or do you just want to use what ever fits for you?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40992
Aug 24, 2012
 
Take that with you wrote:
<quoted text>
This is sounding a lot different then what the term 'standards' mean.
You won't except just one, but can not provide how many.
If it all depends on the claim, then who makes the decision what standards to use?
Now you state that peer review is prefered? Does that mean peer review is not mandatory?
Please read my post again. I did not say that.

And the word you wanted to use was "accept" not "except".
wolverine

Greeley, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40993
Aug 24, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet your homophobic fears have been shown to be false.
According to the American Psychological Association:
"In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth."
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parentin...
First...I Did Not Say They Were Unfit.
Second....The American Psychological Association Speculates And Has No Bearing On Me, OR Authority.

When You LIve With Drunks You More LIkely To Become One.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40994
Aug 24, 2012
 
Take that with you wrote:
<quoted text>
Come on now, so is it just prefered as you stated, or is it mandatory as you are implying?
or do you just want to use what ever fits for you?
My oh my, your reading comprehension is extremely low. It is obvious that when someone says "preferred" as I did in that post that a peer reviewed article definitely "outranks" one without any outside support at all. Duane Gish made all sorts of nonsense claims that when investigated were found to be totally without merit. In other words they were bovine posterior end product.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40995
Aug 24, 2012
 
wolverine wrote:
<quoted text>
First...I Did Not Say They Were Unfit.
Second....The American Psychological Association Speculates And Has No Bearing On Me, OR Authority.
When You LIve With Drunks You More LIkely To Become One.
So does that last statement of your refer to you or to your friends?
Take that with you

Chico, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40997
Aug 24, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Please read my post again. I did not say that.
And the word you wanted to use was "accept" not "except".
Sorry about that. Does that error mean I can be dismissed now?
Take that with you

Chico, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40998
Aug 24, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
My oh my, your reading comprehension is extremely low. It is obvious that when someone says "preferred" as I did in that post that a peer reviewed article definitely "outranks" one without any outside support at all. Duane Gish made all sorts of nonsense claims that when investigated were found to be totally without merit. In other words they were bovine posterior end product.
Well that is a little different version and makes more sense.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40999
Aug 24, 2012
 
Take that with you wrote:
<quoted text>
Well that is a little different version and makes more sense.
I keep forgetting we are dealing with creationists here. They are not the sharpest tool in the shed and need a bit more clarification than normal.
Take that with you

Chico, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41000
Aug 25, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I keep forgetting we are dealing with creationists here. They are not the sharpest tool in the shed and need a bit more clarification than normal.
You admit that you have a retention deficiency, then insult another on intelligence?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 39,521 - 39,540 of105,880
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••