Creation/Evolution Debate
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#1405 Nov 30, 2012
An experiment in 1998 designed to test what peer review uncovers:

Researchers intentionally introduced eight errors into a research paper.
More than 200 researchers identified an average of only two errors.

That same year, a paper in the Annals of Emergency Medicine showed that reviewers couldn’t spot two thirds of the major errors in a fake manuscript.
In July 2005, an article in JAMA showed that among recent clinical research articles published in major journals

16% of the reports showing that a particular intervention was effective
Were contradicted by later findings
This suggested that reviewers had missed major flaws.

McCook A, Is peer review broken? The Scientist 20(2) 26 Feb 2006
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#1406 Nov 30, 2012
Robert Higgs, a scientist with many years experience as a researcher, university professor and peer reviewer has called the peer review system a ”crap shoot”......... amongst other things...

Higgs R, Peer review, publication in top journal, scientific consensus, and so forth, George Mason University’s History News Network, 7 May 2007
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#1408 Nov 30, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Not based on the evidence, no. Otherwise Sol would be a binary..
There goes the “tilt” again...
I find it so awfully funny!
It makes me go off on all sorts of tangents.....

EVIDENCE FOR THE EVOLUTION OF EVERYTHING IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD, Including my Argyle Socks

By Don Quixote, The King Of The World

(Awaiting publishing since 1979)

ABSTRACT

I am fed up of creationists. I am going to shut them up once and for all. Damn you, Science, scourge of the ages, you slug, inept mongrel, maggot. I am going to whip you into submission, Science, you WILL do as I say, you WILL. Long gone are the days of freedom you have enjoyed to come and go as you please. NO MORE!$#@^&&&&( (##@@$$%^&&&^^^**^ ^%%%

METHOD

Excessive and unjustifiable investigator interference. Addition of 100 times more phosphate than contained in the oceans today. Artificial heating/ cooling in order to force desired outcomes. Addition of industrially obtained RNA strands, enzymes and chemicals. Background sporadic hideous manic laughter. And $$$%%##@@@&&&& **^^^^^)()

RESULTS

**(()))***&&&& &&&^^^%%%$$## I still don’t know JACK %%%$$$&&** But I am finding evidence that I am VERY RIGHT ^^^%%$$$$#&&&^^((( ))))&&^^^%%%% Yes, siree, VERY right indeed &&&^^%%$$$$ Don’t anyone DARE contradict me***&&&^^^^%%%%%% NEVER MIND that this is trash science &&&%%%$$##@@@And never mind it proves NUTHIN’&&$$3##I am still KING OF THE WORLD

DISCUSSION

Still don’t know JACK. Wish we knew more. More research is needed. Well, it must have happened, we’re here aren’t we?

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I love you evo-god, love you, love you. I want to kiss your cheeks.......ARrrrggh yuck! Spit, spit, spit.....What did you do THAT for evo-god? Those were not the cheeks I was wanting to kiss.....oh well, never mind....cheeks are cheeks I suppose.
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#1409 Nov 30, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
The difference is that evolution can be tested. It passes those tests.
Huh?
What tests has evolution passed?

That’s news indeed, Don...
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Bingo. God didn't tell you about evolution but He sure used it.
Where has God used evolution?
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#1410 Nov 30, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You idiot. Footprints in beds that were supposedly deposited during the flood and sand dunes are proof the flood did not happen.
Russell will believe his totally effed up source if it tells him critter walked with 20,000 feet of water over them and the wind was blowing down there while that happened. What a pinhead.
Your skim-read of the article I had linked has brought your further destruction...
But I will endeavour to be kind

Why so hasty?
So desperate to BE RIGHT........to not lose face

Well, you are wrong:

“These additional studies confirmed the conclusions of his earlier researches. Thus, Dr Brand concluded that all his data suggest that the Coconino Sandstone fossil tracks should not be used as evidence for desert wind deposition of dry sand to form the Coconino Sandstone, but rather point to underwater deposition. These evidence from such careful experimental studies by a Flood geologist overturn the original interpretation by evolutionists of these Coconino Sandstone fossil footprints, and thus call into question their use by Young and others as an argument against the Flood”

AND

“These additional studies confirmed the conclusions of his earlier researches. Thus, Dr Brand concluded that all his data suggest that the Coconino Sandstone fossil tracks should not be used as evidence for desert wind deposition of dry sand to form the Coconino Sandstone, but rather point to underwater deposition. These evidence from such careful experimental studies by a Flood geologist overturn the original interpretation by evolutionists of these Coconino Sandstone fossil footprints, and thus call into question their use by Young and others as an argument against the Flood”
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#1411 Nov 30, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not just evolutionary timescales, it's chemical and physics timescales too.
But they aren't your only problem.
Of course everything fits creationism if you ignore evidence and just use Godmagic.
Physics and chemistry are not any support for evolutionary wishful thinking

Evolutionary time scales most certainly are....
They’re going down ....soon

First things first....
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#1412 Nov 30, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Square wheels already failed. And you're still using 'em.
Another funny!

Ha ha ha

I am trying to be encouraging...
Keep going pal

I’ll soon be able to count all your funnys on one hand
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#1413 Nov 30, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Moi? "Sweeping statements"?
I *DO* have considerable (general) knowledge about the evidence for an Old Earth, and for the Theory of Evolution.
As far as the "challenge".....go for it.
I dont think you have the testicular prerequisites for real science, however.
I understand, Kong

I know you have good general knowledge

I acknowledge that respectfully

But that’s still not good enough, Bud

Science is my passion!

I thought it was EVERYTHING
Then I met God
And you know what?
Science is now in the correct place in my list of priorities

It’s not a god
It’s a tool to study God’s creation
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#1414 Nov 30, 2012
AND FURTHERMORE

I will no sooner cease linking to Creation.com than expect Rosa Parks to give up her seat.
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#1415 Nov 30, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
Now Russell, I mean Biatch #2 is completely into fairy tales. The Bible is written very poetically in places and it can be reinterpreted after the fact to match reality. No one used those interpretations of the Bible before the facts were found out. Changing your interpretation after the fact is a form of lying. That of course is nothing new for Biatch #2. He thinks it is perfectly fine to lie for God.
Nope!

I don’t like fairy tales much

Just the truth

And I never lie
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#1416 Nov 30, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, Biatch #2 is well named for his dropping of deuces all over the place.
Not only is he against evolution. He is opposed to all science. If any part of science shows that the Earth is not 10,000 years old or less he will find some crank at his creation site that disputes it. There are millions of scientists in the world, is it any wonder that there are a few thousand who still believe their childhood bedtime stories?
Worse yet he is a total hypocrite. If you are opposed to modern science then you should not use it in your daily life. That means no computers, no TV's, no modern agriculture products, and of course the biggest no product at all where oil is involved in any way. Of course if he did not play the role of a hypocrite he could not be here for our entertainment.
As I have said over and over again

I have no issues with science. None.

I have huge issues with materialistic bigotry AND the defiant DISREGARD of science

Yes, I do not believe that evolutionary paradigms explain our origins.

I have seen no evidence for this.

....Just wailings, ramblings, wishful thinking and such nonsense.

Why bend to convention for the sake of consensus?

Why not use your noodles and THINK?
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#1417 Nov 30, 2012
¬¬¬
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Who just happens to be Biatch #1. He was getting a bit difficult last night so I challenged him to a debate. He promptly made countless excuses and ran away.
These cretinists continually claim that "evolution" is wrong when they mean "science" is wrong. It makes it easier for them to denigrate one small part of science. But it shows the strength of evolution that for them to attack it they have to attack ALL of science.
Suggesting that 'evolution' is science is stretching things somewhat

The scientific process requires observation, testability, reproducibility...

When observations tainted by evolutionary thinking are proven, by SCIENCE, to be wrong

Adherents cling even more desperately to their belief that it is TRUE

Not only that, but dissenters are persecuted...
As evidenced in this forum...

That is why evolution and atheism, since they usually go hand in hand, are religious beliefs
http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion

AND as I’ve said before:
I will no sooner cease linking to Creation.com than expect Rosa Parks to give up her seat

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1418 Nov 30, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
AND
<quoted text>
“It’s not peer reviewed”
Another evolutionary mantra, an excuse to reject design and creationist arguments.
Here is an example of materialistic bigotry that you are guilty of:
Stephen Meyer published in the peer reviewed journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, an ‘intelligent design’ paper, on the origin of basic types in the Cambrian explosion.
Evolutionist groups wrote to the journal railing that the article was sub-standard---before even reading it!
Then the Biological Society’s governing council capitulated, saying that had they known about it beforehand,“they would have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the ‘Proceedings’.”
The editor Dr Richard Sternberg actually lost his job at the Smithsonian
So much for academic freedom and peer review
Meyer, S C, The methodological Equivalence of Design and Descent: Can there be a ‘Scientific Theory of Creation’? in J P Moreland ed, The Creation Hypothesis, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove IL, 1994
These are mere more Russell bedtime stories without substantiation. If I remember correctly the job loss was because the editor cheated on the peer review process.

So let's see if you have more info on this or is just another Russell lie.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1419 Nov 30, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope!
I don’t like fairy tales much
Just the truth
And I never lie
Creation is a fairy tale and you have been count in countless lies.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1420 Nov 30, 2012
Biatch #2, how many activities that require evolution did you do today? I bet your count comes up low.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#1421 Nov 30, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Your skim-read of the article I had linked has brought your further destruction...
But I will endeavour to be kind
Why so hasty?
So desperate to BE RIGHT........to not lose face
Well, you are wrong:
“These additional studies confirmed the conclusions of his earlier researches. Thus, Dr Brand concluded that all his data suggest that the Coconino Sandstone fossil tracks should not be used as evidence for desert wind deposition of dry sand to form the Coconino Sandstone, but rather point to underwater deposition. These evidence from such careful experimental studies by a Flood geologist overturn the original interpretation by evolutionists of these Coconino Sandstone fossil footprints, and thus call into question their use by Young and others as an argument against the Flood”
AND
“These additional studies confirmed the conclusions of his earlier researches. Thus, Dr Brand concluded that all his data suggest that the Coconino Sandstone fossil tracks should not be used as evidence for desert wind deposition of dry sand to form the Coconino Sandstone, but rather point to underwater deposition. These evidence from such careful experimental studies by a Flood geologist overturn the original interpretation by evolutionists of these Coconino Sandstone fossil footprints, and thus call into question their use by Young and others as an argument against the Flood”
The evidence for footprints being made underwater comes from rather ambiguous statistical studies, but is contradicted by evidence (Lockley 1992; Lockley and Hunt 1995; Loope 1992), including the following:

• "One of the most common observations is that the tracks have bulges or sand crescents on one side, thereby proving that they were made on inclined surfaces" (Lockley and Hunt 1995).
• Tracks showing possible loping, running, and galloping gaits are found throughout the Coconino Sandstone. These can only have been made on dry land.
• Tracks of small arthropods, attributable to spiders, centipedes, millipedes, and scorpions, occur abundantly in the Coconino Sandstone.(Schur [2000] has some excellent pictures.) Some of these trackways can only be made on completely dry sand.
• Raindrop impressions also appear.

2. The Coconino Sandstone covers an area of 200,000 square miles. Snelling and Austin (1992) proposed that thousands of cubic miles of sand were transported from hundreds of miles north. Forces violent enough to transport the sand would have killed any animals that got in the way. There would have been nothing alive within a hundred miles of where the footprints were found.


3. Brand himself, in the conclusion to one of his papers, wrote that: "The data do suggest that the Coconino Sandstone fossil trackways may have been produced in either subaqueous sand or subaerial damp sand" (1996). So Brand's own work, taken at face value, does not necessarily indicate that the footprints were made underwater.


4. There is abundant geological evidence that the Coconino Sandstone was eolian.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC365.h...

A number of studies have found evidence contradicting Brand and Tang's conclusions and Lockley and Hunt's 1995 book Dinosaur Tracks and Other Fossil Footprints of the Western United States suggests an alternative explanation with the tracks being made in air by extinct mammal-like reptiles called caseids. Inconsistencies that contradict the underwater hypothesis include:[19][23]

Tracks demonstrating various running gaits impossible under water, at various angles to the slope;

Tracks made by many forms of invertebrates which would not leave prolific underwater tracks, including some which could only be made on completely dry sand; and raindrop impressions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_R._Brand

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1422 Nov 30, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
AND
<quoted text>
“It’s not peer reviewed”
Another evolutionary mantra, an excuse to reject design and creationist arguments.
Here is an example of materialistic bigotry that you are guilty of:
Stephen Meyer published in the peer reviewed journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, an ‘intelligent design’ paper, on the origin of basic types in the Cambrian explosion.
Evolutionist groups wrote to the journal railing that the article was sub-standard---before even reading it!
Then the Biological Society’s governing council capitulated, saying that had they known about it beforehand,“they would have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the ‘Proceedings’.”
The editor Dr Richard Sternberg actually lost his job at the Smithsonian
So much for academic freedom and peer review
Meyer, S C, The methodological Equivalence of Design and Descent: Can there be a ‘Scientific Theory of Creation’? in J P Moreland ed, The Creation Hypothesis, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove IL, 1994
And another series of lies and half truths from Biatch #2. My memory was correct. The editor of the journal in question avoided the peer review process. The paper was not even an original paper but a literature review. It was a review of existing articles on the topic.

So, no original science. True peer review avoided. The editor was rightfully fired. In a normal peer reviewed paper there are multiple reviewers, not just one. You can read more on this yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sternberg_peer_r...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1423 Nov 30, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Your skim-read of the article I had linked has brought your further destruction...
But I will endeavour to be kind
Why so hasty?
So desperate to BE RIGHT........to not lose face
Well, you are wrong:
“These additional studies confirmed the conclusions of his earlier researches. Thus, Dr Brand concluded that all his data suggest that the Coconino Sandstone fossil tracks should not be used as evidence for desert wind deposition of dry sand to form the Coconino Sandstone, but rather point to underwater deposition. These evidence from such careful experimental studies by a Flood geologist overturn the original interpretation by evolutionists of these Coconino Sandstone fossil footprints, and thus call into question their use by Young and others as an argument against the Flood”
AND
“These additional studies confirmed the conclusions of his earlier researches. Thus, Dr Brand concluded that all his data suggest that the Coconino Sandstone fossil tracks should not be used as evidence for desert wind deposition of dry sand to form the Coconino Sandstone, but rather point to underwater deposition. These evidence from such careful experimental studies by a Flood geologist overturn the original interpretation by evolutionists of these Coconino Sandstone fossil footprints, and thus call into question their use by Young and others as an argument against the Flood”
Nope, more lies. Countless researchers agree, and can show that the footprints in the Coconinosandstone are land based and not water based. The rock shows cross bedding from dunes, not delta deposits. The sand shows air impacts not water impacts.

More Piles of crap left by Biatch #2. Though he is following the rule of not introducing anything new.

Since: Sep 12

United States

#1424 Nov 30, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>You say:
"What makes you better why should your unprovable ideas take the place of mine?

The fact is his ideas ARE provable and yours are NOT.

You say:
"So your people stomp on the rights of Christians and spew your stupidity as fact expect us to eat it and complain because of some type of injustice you never lived through. Grow up!

You are wrong here too dude...It is Christians that have been spewing their evil, evil crap on mankind for 2000 years...they have killed and maimed their own and done pure evil things to promote the faith. NEVER trust a religious person.

I don't know what the hell you mean that we stomp on the rights of Christians, Christians control the whole damn USA and half of the rest of the world. Just because a few atheists speak up for their rights occasionally you would think we are committing genocide against your whole world and that's bullsh!t

Are you getting like the Muslim sh!t heads who think nobody can say ANYTHING bad about Islam??

Get real and try to understand a changing world where your kind do not control everything.
You do not know me you know nothing. I do not shove religion in anyone's face for the most part I and my family just want to be left alone. When I am asked I give my opinion. I get dirty looks for praying to my God in peace I'm told I can't say Christmas in public. I was asked to take the cross around MY neck off when I go to my kids school. My kids can't read the bible alone at school. I don't care if the world converts and at this point I don't care what you circle talking morons think or have to say. You choose to ignore even the evidence that some of the creo science guys have been posting. The only reason you think your ideas are better is because they exclude God and for you it better to hide than face the music. This will be my last post here because you and your band of evo idiots do not listen to any idea but the same crap. I have answered your stupid questions about faith and none of you can prove faith doesn't exist nor can you disprove God. All of you say you can but you can't. The reason you can't is because he is real. As it stands if you don't seek truth you will see me while you are in hell. So please don't change a thing.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1425 Nov 30, 2012
Bat Foy, I don't think anyone has claimed that they can disprove god. They may have pointed out that your god is logically impossible, but that is not quite disproving his existence.

On the PC police, I agree with you. If someone wants to wear a symbol that shows their religious belief that is no problem with me, unless it is a dead chicken or some other health threat. The world has all sorts of religions in it and people have to realize that. Telling you to take off your cross was stupidity on their part, and I am betting that they were PC Christians. When I owned my own small furniture store I had a very liberal Christian working for me who would not say "Merry Christmas" and the atheist at the store, me, would.

The reality is that this is the holiday season of Christmas in the U.S. regardless of your religious beliefs. So go ahead and say "merry Christmas", I know that I will.

Over sensitivity is just another way of lying.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr replaytime 79,741
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 9 hr Agents of Corruption 222,728
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 12 hr Science 163,695
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Sun Dogen 32,575
Life started in Tennessee proof. Sep 15 Science4life 1
What's your religion? Sep 8 Ateesiks 1
Science News (Sep '13) Sep 8 Ricky F 4,001
More from around the web