Intelligent design theory, PROVEN

originally posted by: Raggedyman



Peer review, it sounds like your holy texts

Go read how many peer reviews have been overturned recently, how many study's have been proven wrong

Apparently you still don't quite grasp how the peer review process works. It's not the scientific ark of the covenant as you keep trying to portray it. The entire point of the peer review process is for other people to attempt to replicate your work and achieve the same results. Simply having a paper published doesn't equate it as a given fact. Nor does it, as you have put forth repeatedly in other threads, make something a scientific theory simply because it has been published in a peer reviewed publication.

A peer review is still at best an educated guess,

science once accepted the earth was round,

It's not?

smoking was good for you,

There is a huge difference between not having long term data indicating links to cancer etc... In the 1950's and stating that smoking was healthy for you.

arsenic fed dna

Misunderstanding biomethylation isn't a corollary for arsenic feeding DNA. Please provide a citation to the contrary though.

and proved evolution

Just like that round earth eh?

and aliens

If it's not an outright lie and unchecked as proven countless times

It must be science

Right... That's how it works... You keep telling yourself that while ignoring the fact that the science you don't understand and refuse to educate yourself on is supported by multiple scientific disciplines. Including some that you don't ignore the benefits from which you gain.

a reply to: peter vlar

Or you can just run around shouting lalalala with your fingers in your ears believing evolution is a proven scientific field

a reply to: Raggedyman

Lmao

you can't be serious...

dude that is your modus operandi

a reply to: Akragon

Really, I guess that means you are putting your hand up to show some empirical evidence

Maybe your tail ...

a reply to: Akragon

you're doing it both. And you're both very good at it.

First, examine whether there is bias. What is the motive for the message? If the message is rife with name-calling and loaded words, why is that? Loaded language aside, what are the merits of the message itself? Also, if possible, try to check the track record of those speaking. Are they known to speak the truth? If “authorities” are used, who or what are they? Why should you regard this person—or organization or publication—as having expert knowledge or trustworthy information on the subject in question? If you sense some appeal to emotions, ask yourself, ‘When viewed dispassionately, what are the merits of the message?’

Do not just follow the crowd: If you realize that what everybody thinks is not necessarily correct, you can find the strength to think differently. While it may seem that all others think the same way, does this mean that you should? Popular opinion is not a reliable barometer of truth. Over the centuries all kinds of ideas have been popularly accepted, only to be proved wrong later. Yet, the inclination to go along with the crowd persists. The command given at Exodus 23:2 serves as a good principle: “You must not follow after the crowd for evil ends.”

Source: the article in my sig

On ATS, stars are meant to indicate when the crowd likes what it's hearing (2 Timothy 4:3,4, Matthew 7:13,14).

What convinces me it's intelligent design is the lack of intelligence we possess when trying to solve it. Every wise man has had a chuckle at the foolishness of the mind.
When will it be your turn.... ????

a reply to: Raggedyman

Why would anybody bother showing you even more evidence for evolution when you have stated several times and quite clearly that there I's absolutely nothing that could ever make you believe the biological sciences are correct? All you're doing is trolling people with this BS about empirical evidence. You wouldn't know empirical evidence if it gave you a lap dance.

a reply to: Pinocchio

So your idea of wisdom is discounting the mountains of evidence for evolution because of your own ignorance?

Doesn't sound very wise to me.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Pinocchio

So your idea of wisdom is discounting the mountains of evidence for evolution because of your own ignorance?

Doesn't sound very wise to me.

Mountains of subjective evidence that are at best a flimsy theory that has no empirical evidence, at best a faith

Some can call ignorance from the other side of the fence

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Raggedyman

Why would anybody bother showing you even more evidence for evolution when you have stated several times and quite clearly that there I's absolutely nothing that could ever make you believe the biological sciences are correct? All you're doing is trolling people with this BS about empirical evidence. You wouldn't know empirical evidence if it gave you a lap dance.

Let me repeat myself again and again and again.
I will accept evolution if I can be shown empirical evidence.
I fully accept biological science when valid evidence is shown.

I have no issues with empirical evidence.

Should I repeat myself again

Why don't you stop the talk and produce evidence that can't be dismissed

I don't think you know the difference between empirical evidence and theory, it's evident in your posts

And to be clear, there is absolutely nothing I have seen or read to this point in time that would make me think evolution is anything more than myth

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Raggedyman

Why would anybody bother showing you even more evidence for evolution when you have stated several times and quite clearly that there I's absolutely nothing that could ever make you believe the biological sciences are correct? All you're doing is trolling people with this BS about empirical evidence. You wouldn't know empirical evidence if it gave you a lap dance.

Let me repeat myself again and again and again.
I will accept evolution if I can be shown empirical evidence.
I fully accept biological science when valid evidence is shown.

I have no issues with empirical evidence.

Should I repeat myself again

Why don't you stop the talk and produce evidence that can't be dismissed

I don't think you know the difference between empirical evidence and theory, it's evident in your posts

And to be clear, there is absolutely nothing I have seen or read to this point in time that would make me think evolution is anything more than myth

Definition of Empirical Evidence:
Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method.Mar 24, 2015

There are 526 scientific journals with 126859 research articles which present EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION - which represents only a 3 year period. You can multiply that by a factor of 5 to obtain the true number of EMPIRICAL JOURNAL ARTICLES in the literature demonstrating evolution and various subtopics therein.

Every journal article fulfills the definition of EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.. The complete list is linked below.

It's up to YOU to tell us why none of these research articles falls within the definition of empirical evidence for evolution.

And please don't bother citing the crackpot creationist definition of empirical anything. We don't need another dose of psycho/pseudo science. Thank you.





www.scimagojr.com...

a reply to: whereislogic

you're doing it both. And you're both very good at it.

Nice sentence...

I personally have nothing to do with these threads, but i follow along due to extreme amusement

Thats the ONLY following you'll see from me... though i do favor logic over religious blindfolds

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Peer review, it sounds like your holy texts

Go read how many peer reviews have been overturned recently, how many study's have been proven wrong
A peer review is still at best an educated guess, science once accepted the earth was round, smoking was good for you, arsenic fed dna and proved evolution and aliens, If it's not an outright lie and unchecked as proven countless times

It must be science

The obvious difference is that I do not consider science absolute truth as you do with your faith based scriptures. Science is a pathway to knowledge. It doesn't always get to the full answer right away, but it leads us in the right direction via vigorous testing. Instead of fighting it tooth and nail, just sit back and enjoy the ride. Regardless of your whining, scientists will continue to work hard, improving our knowledge and implementing it into technology that directly benefits your life. Keep attacking it for no reason, truth is nobody cares, the world will keep on turning and scientists will keep on learning.

a reply to: Raggedyman

What faithis that neighbour? My faith is nDraíocht, my job is science.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Raggedyman

Why would anybody bother showing you even more evidence for evolution when you have stated several times and quite clearly that there I's absolutely nothing that could ever make you believe the biological sciences are correct? All you're doing is trolling people with this BS about empirical evidence. You wouldn't know empirical evidence if it gave you a lap dance.

Let me repeat myself again and again and again.
I will accept evolution if I can be shown empirical evidence.
I fully accept biological science when valid evidence is shown.

I have no issues with empirical evidence.

Should I repeat myself again

Why don't you stop the talk and produce evidence that can't be dismissed

I don't think you know the difference between empirical evidence and theory, it's evident in your posts

And to be clear, there is absolutely nothing I have seen or read to this point in time that would make me think evolution is anything more than myth

I'm going to say you really don't understand science very well. First there is something called facts this is what we call direct observation. So knowing species adapt is a fact. It's not debatable nature showed us that to be the case. Now evolution is what's called a theory. In science theories explain why we observed certain facts. The theory of evolution is there to explain these changes we see period. Any theory that were to replace it would also need to explain why species change with time.arguing they don't goes against observation and in science anything that contradicts observation is wrong.

Could evolution be wrong yeah it could however it's been 150 years and scientists haven't found any thing yet that explains why better. However it does happen look at Newton he had around a 400 year run before Einstein showed he was wrong. But here's the point a new theory didn't change gravity apples didn't stop falling. If evolution is shown wrong whatever replaces it has to explain adaptations and why they occur.

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Raggedyman

Why would anybody bother showing you even more evidence for evolution when you have stated several times and quite clearly that there I's absolutely nothing that could ever make you believe the biological sciences are correct? All you're doing is trolling people with this BS about empirical evidence. You wouldn't know empirical evidence if it gave you a lap dance.

Let me repeat myself again and again and again.
I will accept evolution if I can be shown empirical evidence.
I fully accept biological science when valid evidence is shown.

I have no issues with empirical evidence.

Should I repeat myself again

Why don't you stop the talk and produce evidence that can't be dismissed

I don't think you know the difference between empirical evidence and theory, it's evident in your posts

And to be clear, there is absolutely nothing I have seen or read to this point in time that would make me think evolution is anything more than myth

Definition of Empirical Evidence:
Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method.Mar 24, 2015

There are 526 scientific journals with 126859 research articles which present EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION - which represents only a 3 year period. You can multiply that by a factor of 5 to obtain the true number of EMPIRICAL JOURNAL ARTICLES in the literature demonstrating evolution and various subtopics therein.

Every journal article fulfills the definition of EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.. The complete list is linked below.

It's up to YOU to tell us why none of these research articles falls within the definition of empirical evidence for evolution.

And please don't bother citing the crackpot creationist definition of empirical anything. We don't need another dose of psycho/pseudo science. Thank you.

www.scimagojr.com...

Please phantom don't site these crackpot fundamental religious lunatic journals at me

Sick of your preaching.


If they were science they would have evidence, they wouldn't have to dump truckloads of stuff to pass off as evidence

That there is your argument and the way scientists present it to the world.
"Her is all this stuff that we believe, now I have shown you the amount of stuff we have, believe it"

No real explanation, no real detail, just a simple and silly, I believe so should you.

Science run by dictators

That's not evidence, that's a link

Pure religios fundamentalism, thanks phantom, but no thanks

a reply to: Raggedyman

No one cares what you accept. Or at the very least, they shouldn't.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Raggedyman

No one cares what you accept. Or at the very least, they shouldn't.

Yet here you are

I dont get that, if you dont like me, my poste, my thread, move along

‘Peer-review is critical for scientific research to be taken seriously … Basically, several other scientists who are experts in the field examine your work to see if it contains errors. Occasionally you will see young earth claims of their work being peer-reviewed. … However, for young earth work to be taken seriously, it must pass the muster of peer-review from non young-earth scientists … Normally, a peer-reviewed article which passes muster would be published in a leading journal such as from the Geological Society of America, [not just] on the ICR website. If the RATE [Radio isotopes and the Age of The Earth] project truly publishes some work which is good enough for publication in secular journals, then they would surely pursue that route. It is clear in this case that the “peers” for these articles are other young-earth proponents, which cast serious doubts upon the validity of the works.’2
Apart from the glaring inconsistencies in this line of argument (if young-earth research should only be taken seriously if it passes the peer-review of non young-earth scientists, then shouldn’t old-earth research only be taken seriously if it passes the peer-review of young-earth scientists? Are the ‘peers’ of old-earth scientists not also proponents of an old earth? Would this not cast serious doubt on the validity of their research?), it reveals an astonishing ignorance and naivety of how science and the peer-review process is actually conducted.

creation.com...

Moreover, additional kudos and prestige is attached to those articles published in the leading journals such as Nature and Science. Yet as Thomas Stossel, a Professor at Harvard Medical School, stated:

‘But unbeknownst to the media, the journals at the top got there because of herd behavior by researchers, not because they are better than lower-tier journals at vetting research quality. Here’s why: Researchers submit their best work to the top journals, which can therefore afford to maintain their prestige by rejecting, not publishing, many high quality papers. That’s brand creation—not science. Most of their editorial effort goes into deciding which submitted papers are sufficiently newsworthy. Anonymous peer review by jealous competitors has its merits, but it has a tendency to select for fashionable if relatively unoriginal and inoffensive papers … although these reports often do not substantively advance scientific knowledge, and many subsequently are invalidated.’5



he First Law of Thermodynamics (law of conservation of energy) was first formulated by German physician J. R Mayer in 1842. However, Mayer’s revolutionary research was rejected by the leading German physics journal Annalen der Physik.7 The leading journal Nature also admitted in a mea culpa editorial:

‘(T)here are unarguable faux pas in our history. These include the rejection of Cerenkov radiation, Hideki Yukawa’s meson, work on photosynthesis by Johann Deisenhofer, Robert Huber and Hartmut Michel, and the initial rejection (but eventual acceptance) of Stephen Hawking’s black-hole radiation.’8

a reply to: Raggedyman

Theres rules about copying and pasting an entire page from another website...

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Raggedyman

Why would anybody bother showing you even more evidence for evolution when you have stated several times and quite clearly that there I's absolutely nothing that could ever make you believe the biological sciences are correct? All you're doing is trolling people with this BS about empirical evidence. You wouldn't know empirical evidence if it gave you a lap dance.

Let me repeat myself again and again and again.
I will accept evolution if I can be shown empirical evidence.
I fully accept biological science when valid evidence is shown.

I have no issues with empirical evidence.

Should I repeat myself again

Why don't you stop the talk and produce evidence that can't be dismissed

I don't think you know the difference between empirical evidence and theory, it's evident in your posts

And to be clear, there is absolutely nothing I have seen or read to this point in time that would make me think evolution is anything more than myth

Definition of Empirical Evidence:
Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method.Mar 24, 2015

There are 526 scientific journals with 126859 research articles which present EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION - which represents only a 3 year period. You can multiply that by a factor of 5 to obtain the true number of EMPIRICAL JOURNAL ARTICLES in the literature demonstrating evolution and various subtopics therein.

Every journal article fulfills the definition of EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.. The complete list is linked below.

It's up to YOU to tell us why none of these research articles falls within the definition of empirical evidence for evolution.

And please don't bother citing the crackpot creationist definition of empirical anything. We don't need another dose of psycho/pseudo science. Thank you.

www.scimagojr.com...

Please phantom don't site these crackpot fundamental religious lunatic journals at me

Sick of your preaching.


If they were science they would have evidence, they wouldn't have to dump truckloads of stuff to pass off as evidence

That there is your argument and the way scientists present it to the world.
"Her is all this stuff that we believe, now I have shown you the amount of stuff we have, believe it"

No real explanation, no real detail, just a simple and silly, I believe so should you.

Science run by dictators

That's not evidence, that's a link

Pure religios fundamentalism, thanks phantom, but no thanks

You're a joke. Of course the biological sciences aren't correct - that's why you go to the doctor when you're sick, right?

Your responses always provide validation for what the rest of us know - evolution is a fact.

You're wrong and we're right. Simple as that. Get over it.

"Don't confuse me with the facts!" Raggedyman, 675888 B.C.