Einstein and peer review. (I've never been published in Nature, but...)

[Omega Red]

You clearly must have far too much free time on your hands.

I can do just as you - go back and nit-pick every one of your posts searching for a single word or syllable that is out of place, a single ambiguity, a single unclear statement and then saying, "Aha, see, you said ..." when in fact your intended meaning had nothing to do with that out-of-place word or syllable. That practice, in case you don't know, is Pharisee-like Legalism. The funny part is that you then accuse me of what you yourself are practicing. Hollywood couldn't make this stuff up. [Yeah ... "sound bites" -- another one of your phrases meant to further your agenda.]

You continue to insist on making this about me - my "trustworthiness" or whatever. Feel free to think the absolute worst of me, OR - thankfully, you won't be my Judge at the appointed time.

Lastly, you say "I know what your ultimate point is about peer review. How can I be denying it when I said I was in agreement back in post #23?" If that's true then you should have left it at that instead of trying to prove me wrong by citing papers that had been published 30-40 years ago. Why not go out and find one paper - a single one - from, say, the last 3 years? (it's probably been much longer than that - I can't recall the last one). Hadn't I stated that things have been getting far, far worse?

THAT was and remains my point - I'll not back down one iota because it's the truth. Due to your pride and ego you have become obsessed with going beyond that simple message and wish to vilify me in the process. Go right ahead, knock yourself out.

Jorge

It is incredible the lengths you are willing to stoop to in order to save face. What you have done is to detach yourself from your over generalisation, ignore the blunders you made along the way and then tried to attribute my position to your subtly shifted goal posts and ending up with a straw man. A very dishonest tact from you. Moreover, you liberally sprinkle false accusations along the way. A detestable and anti-scriptural practise from you. At no point have I taken your words out of context, as you dishonestly and falsely imply.

As I said before, and perhaps the following highlights will help you...

No matter how much slander, malice, deceit you throw my way, it can never change the wording in your posts. To keep you on the actual points, rather than what you want to shift them to:

You first stated an over-generalisation that “anything that criticizes the Evolution dogma - that paper paper [sic] will be toast before it even gets to 1st base of PR regardless of its scientific merits”. I posted 4 papers that showed your statement was wrong.

In response you blundered by stating those 4 papers "are nothing more than imaginations / thoughts / hypotheses / etc. supporting the same Evolutionary paradigm within a Materialistic worldview". They were not.

I challenged you to correct your blunder, but you said that these papers clearly show that “Evolution is taken as an ABSOLUTE GIVEN, only the mechanism is being questioned”. They did not.

Do you deny you said these?
Do you deny you erred and blundered?
Do you deny that it shows your reading comprehension was poor?
Do you deny that you simply responded blindly rather than having considered my post and did some background research?
Do you deny that you have spent considerable energy trying to turn the tables, calling me anything under the sun, in trying to escape responsibility for your words?

Try answering these questions for a change.

You don’t want to accept responsibility for your own words and keep harping on about 30 year old papers that directly refuted your initial statement. Had you admitted you made an over generalisation back then, we would not be having this exchange. But that wasn’t the problem. The real problem came next.

You don’t want to admit your blunders by ignoring your incorrect understanding of those papers, but instead have done everything to shift the spotlight away from you. Had you admitted you made a mistake, we would not be having this exchange.

You want to hurt me because you’re angry and prideful. Nothing else can explain why you try and turn the tables and constantly throw as much slander, malice, deceit at me as possible. I’ve highlighted your errors and your blunders and more importantly your anti-scriptural behaviour and that is causing you pain.

Again, as I said before...

The issue does become about your character when you castigate anyone for not believing the Bible as you do and then you repeatedly demonstrate you ignore clear Biblical commands (do I really need to list them again?). It brings into question your credibility, your honesty, your trustworthiness, which is very important for the message you want to convey in NS301. There’s no way you’ll be able to rely on the rubbish you put in post #80 either; Matthew 7:21-23 shows you are cruising towards rejection.

And nothing you have posted to date can over throw that. And so your desperation and ire continue to mount. And all I’ll keep doing is keep you focused on your problems with those 3 posts of yours I’ve linked to above. Until you relinquish your pride, acknowledge your errors and apologise or until you stop responding.

[Jorge]

I know what your ultimate point is about peer review. How can I be denying it when I said I was in agreement back in post #23? The problem is, you ran your mouth off, made a couple of blunders and tried desperately to cover them up. That is dishonest. It is also part of the many detestable and anti-scriptural traits you’ve shown here. But rather than face them, you’ve tried to weasel your way out of it and at the same time fling as much muck in the hope that others might think something may have stuck.

It is very evident that your neural wiring is shot to pieces and that you really have a major problem admitting you are wrong. Why else would you engage in trying to do your very best to divert everyone’s attention from your errors, blunders and detestable debating tactics? No matter how much slander, malice, deceit you throw my way, it can never change the wording in your posts. To keep you on the actual points, rather than what you want to shift them to:

You first stated an over-generalisation that “anything that criticizes the Evolution dogma - that paper paper [sic] will be toast before it even gets to 1st base of PR regardless of its scientific merits”. I posted 4 papers that showed your statement was wrong.

In response you blundered by stating those 4 papers "are nothing more than imaginations / thoughts / hypotheses / etc. supporting the same Evolutionary paradigm within a Materialistic worldview". They were not.

I challenged you to correct your blunder, but you said that these papers clearly show that “Evolution is taken as an ABSOLUTE GIVEN, only the mechanism is being questioned”. They did not.

Do you deny you said these?
Do you deny you erred and blundered?
Do you deny that it shows your reading comprehension was poor?
Do you deny that you simply responded blindly rather than having considered my post and did some background research?
Do you deny that you have spent considerable time trying to turn the tables, calling me everything under the sun, in trying to escape responsibility for your words?

Try answering these questions for a change.

That you now want to restate your position where you now avoid your initial over-generalisation and having swept under the carpet your blunders about those articles is understandable. But why should I let you do so? To me these are not really issues, but it’s how you responded that I take umbrage with. The issue does become about your character when you castigate anyone for not believing the Bible as you do and then you repeatedly demonstrate you ignore clear Biblical commands (do I really need to list them again?). It brings into question your credibility, your honesty, your trustworthiness, which is very important for the message you want to convey in NS301. There’s no way you’ll be able to rely on the rubbish you put in post #80 either; Matthew 7:21-23 shows you are cruising towards rejection.

I can only guess that you are really infuriated that this non-YEC continues to show you up. Let go of your pride, admit you blundered and we can move on. The longer you leave it, the more difficult it will become.

You clearly must have far too much free time on your hands.

I can do just as you - go back and nit-pick every one of your posts searching for a single word or syllable that is out of place, a single ambiguity, a single unclear statement and then saying, "Aha, see, you said ..." when in fact your intended meaning had nothing to do with that out-of-place word or syllable. That practice, in case you don't know, is Pharisee-like Legalism. The funny part is that you then accuse me of what you yourself are practicing. Hollywood couldn't make this stuff up. [Yeah ... "sound bites" -- another one of your phrases meant to further your agenda.]

You continue to insist on making this about me - my "trustworthiness" or whatever. Feel free to think the absolute worst of me, OR - thankfully, you won't be my Judge at the appointed time.

Lastly, you say "I know what your ultimate point is about peer review. How can I be denying it when I said I was in agreement back in post #23?" If that's true then you should have left it at that instead of trying to prove me wrong by citing papers that had been published 30-40 years ago. Why not go out and find one paper - a single one - from, say, the last 3 years? (it's probably been much longer than that - I can't recall the last one). Hadn't I stated that things have been getting far, far worse?

THAT was and remains my point - I'll not back down one iota because it's the truth. Due to your pride and ego you have become obsessed with going beyond that simple message and wish to vilify me in the process. Go right ahead, knock yourself out.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Sounds similar to what I'm certain many of the Pharisees that Christ criticized for their slavish devotion to the letter of the Law while ignoring its spirit would have said.

If this weren't such a serious matter, you'd be funnier than a room full of clowns. We Biblical Creationists do everything we can to acquire and practice the proper meaning of God's Word - what Christ stated the Pharisees did NOT do. So clearly what you're insinuating is all jackassbackwards from reality.

Compare this with what Theistic Evolutionists such as yourself practice: you willingly / purposefully distort God's Word (including deletions, additions, reinterpretations, classifying as myth, allegory, and so on) just so that God's Word aligns itself with the edicts of a modern "science" establishment, an establishment that is chock-full of declared Humanists and Atheists.

SUMMARIZING: The goal of Biblical Creationists is to be aligned with the actual meaning of God's Word. The goal of Theistic Evolutionists is to make God's Word align itself with what a secular "scientific" establishment has decreed is "Truth". One must then ask: exactly what "god" is it that Theistic Evolutionists serve ... whose side are they truly on?

In an earlier post you ask me if I actually read the posts that I respond to. For the most part, yes, I certainly do. Now I ask you if you even bother to think about what you write. Because let me tell you, many times it appears that you pulled it out from some bodily orifice with nary a thought. And don't take that personally - others here at TWeb practice as you do.

Jorge

[Omega Red]

No, OR, you are wrong again. Just like Terror, you insist on making this an issue about me, my beliefs and so on. Your tactics are childishly transparent. Try remaining on point. My thesis was and remains that we do NOT have a level playing field in the scientific publication arena. You are denying this with every breath you can muster. To that I simply reply that you are either ignorant of the facts or you are dishonest - there is no other possibility. In order to "win" - the only thing that you seem interested in - you pull out 30-40 year-old papers that were published. I refuse to allow you to get away with such underhanded tactics. You don't like that and here we are. Now you are hell-bent on proving to the world that I am "dishonest" because I won't let you get away with tactics that would make Bill Clinton blush in shame - a very hard thing to do.

Go right ahead - prance around in your underwear as a "victory dance" - I don't care. The facts remain what they are - we do NOT have a level playing field when it comes to publishing scientific papers. Hundreds upon hundreds of cases, individuals and organizations may testify to that fact.
Of course, you may remain living in denial of this until the cows are brought home for the milking.

Jorge

I know what your ultimate point is about peer review. How can I be denying it when I said I was in agreement back in post #23? The problem is, you ran your mouth off, made a couple of blunders and tried desperately to cover them up. That is dishonest. It is also part of the many detestable and anti-scriptural traits you’ve shown here. But rather than face them, you’ve tried to weasel your way out of it and at the same time fling as much muck in the hope that others might think something may have stuck.

It is very evident that your neural wiring is shot to pieces and that you really have a major problem admitting you are wrong. Why else would you engage in trying to do your very best to divert everyone’s attention from your errors, blunders and detestable debating tactics? No matter how much slander, malice, deceit you throw my way, it can never change the wording in your posts. To keep you on the actual points, rather than what you want to shift them to:

You first stated an over-generalisation that “anything that criticizes the Evolution dogma - that paper paper [sic] will be toast before it even gets to 1st base of PR regardless of its scientific merits”. I posted 4 papers that showed your statement was wrong.

In response you blundered by stating those 4 papers "are nothing more than imaginations / thoughts / hypotheses / etc. supporting the same Evolutionary paradigm within a Materialistic worldview". They were not.

I challenged you to correct your blunder, but you said that these papers clearly show that “Evolution is taken as an ABSOLUTE GIVEN, only the mechanism is being questioned”. They did not.

Do you deny you said these?
Do you deny you erred and blundered?
Do you deny that it shows your reading comprehension was poor?
Do you deny that you simply responded blindly rather than having considered my post and did some background research?
Do you deny that you have spent considerable time trying to turn the tables, calling me everything under the sun, in trying to escape responsibility for your words?

Try answering these questions for a change.

That you now want to restate your position where you now avoid your initial over-generalisation and having swept under the carpet your blunders about those articles is understandable. But why should I let you do so? To me these are not really issues, but it’s how you responded that I take umbrage with. The issue does become about your character when you castigate anyone for not believing the Bible as you do and then you repeatedly demonstrate you ignore clear Biblical commands (do I really need to list them again?). It brings into question your credibility, your honesty, your trustworthiness, which is very important for the message you want to convey in NS301. There’s no way you’ll be able to rely on the rubbish you put in post #80 either; Matthew 7:21-23 shows you are cruising towards rejection.

I can only guess that you are really infuriated that this non-YEC continues to show you up. Let go of your pride, admit you blundered and we can move on. The longer you leave it, the more difficult it will become.

[rogue06]

You can keep trying to make this an issue about me and my beliefs, Terror. I have amply explained / demonstrated that it is nowhere near being about me or my personal beliefs, it is all about being properly aligned with what GOD says.

And utterly ignoring what God says through His creation.

[rogue06]

I'll bet the farm ten times over (make that twenty times!) that on Judgment Day I will stand before God far more confidently than you will. Why is that? Because I know with 100.00% certainty that I have always aimed at following HIS Word without trying to impose my own views and desires upon that Word. You and the other TEs, on the other hand, will always carry that doubt - be it to a lesser or greater extent - that you have in multiple instances butchered God's Holy Word just so that the theories and vain imaginations of men (e.g., Evolutionism) may remain standing. I wouldn't trade your status with mine for all the tea in China. Yeah ... "sound bite".

Jorge

Sounds similar to what I'm certain many of the Pharisees that Christ criticized for their slavish devotion to the letter of the Law while ignoring its spirit would have said.

[klaus54]

You can keep trying to make this an issue about me and my beliefs, Terror. I have amply explained / demonstrated that it is nowhere near being about me or my personal beliefs, it is all about being properly aligned with what GOD says. Biblical Creationism is, Theistic Evolution is not - period ... end of story ... go home. Until you both accept and publicly acknowledge that fact, you will remain immersed in that delusional world that you reside in.

P.S. As you know, you have plenty of company in that delusional world so you shouldn't worry about being lonely.

Jorge

Jorge,

To help clarify your blathering, you may want to restate your definition of Biblical Creationism.

Due to your stridency about BC, this ought to be a piece of cake for you.

I notice you left the "Scientific" part out. Does this mean you've given up your claim that Creationism is scientific?

K54

[rogue06]

Not that I expected any more or any less.

Dishonesty and limitless pride are essentially synonymous with Materialism / Atheism / Humanism and, quite often, with Theistic Evolutionism so your response was wholly predictable.

Good show, R-R-R-Roy!

Jorge

Jorge, do you even bother to actually read the posts you respond to or do you have a pre-written script to select from when you give a knee-jerk response?

[Jorge]

I see, so you are basically saying that rather than acknowledging your errors, as per clear commandments in scripture, and then compounding the situation by engaging in slander, malice, deceit, hypocrisy, and all manner of detestable debating tactics, you hope to bear any punishment meted out for those sins already incurred in this thread on Judgement Day. Why would you choose to wear your pride and anger as a badge, cloak yourself in slander and malice? Because you think you are safe by “following” His word? Your refusal to follow clear commandments clearly shows that you are not following His word. I think most Christians would join me in saying remember Matthew 7:21-23 Jorge, lest it be too late. You’re on a slippery slope that will not end well for you. You should know this; you’ve read the same scriptures that I have.

But I guess you must be really fuming that this non-YEC highlighted your blunder and wont let you forget it. The sad thing is that I really don’t care that you made a mistake, but evidently you do. The fact that you could not have properly read my post is also evident, given that I agreed with you about the difficulties for pro-YEC papers in modern peer review. I care more about your reactions after it was pointed out you made a mistake, which is why I wont let you forget it until you come clean.

No, OR, you are wrong again. Just like Terror, you insist on making this an issue about me, my beliefs and so on. Your tactics are childishly transparent. Try remaining on point. My thesis was and remains that we do NOT have a level playing field in the scientific publication arena. You are denying this with every breath you can muster. To that I simply reply that you are either ignorant of the facts or you are dishonest - there is no other possibility. In order to "win" - the only thing that you seem interested in - you pull out 30-40 year-old papers that were published. I refuse to allow you to get away with such underhanded tactics. You don't like that and here we are. Now you are hell-bent on proving to the world that I am "dishonest" because I won't let you get away with tactics that would make Bill Clinton blush in shame - a very hard thing to do.

Go right ahead - prance around in your underwear as a "victory dance" - I don't care. The facts remain what they are - we do NOT have a level playing field when it comes to publishing scientific papers. Hundreds upon hundreds of cases, individuals and organizations may testify to that fact.
Of course, you may remain living in denial of this until the cows are brought home for the milking.

Jorge

[Jorge]

That's right because disagreeing with Jorge, in any way, is equal to compromising the faith and it is absolutely impossible that those who disagree with Jorge could also be approaching the Bible with honest intentions. So who else is going to be excluded from your little circle? Non KJVist? Catholics? Methodist? Anybody who doesn't 100% walk in lock step with what Jorge believes and says?

You can keep trying to make this an issue about me and my beliefs, Terror. I have amply explained / demonstrated that it is nowhere near being about me or my personal beliefs, it is all about being properly aligned with what GOD says. Biblical Creationism is, Theistic Evolution is not - period ... end of story ... go home. Until you both accept and publicly acknowledge that fact, you will remain immersed in that delusional world that you reside in.

P.S. As you know, you have plenty of company in that delusional world so you shouldn't worry about being lonely.

Jorge

[Omega Red]

I'll bet the farm ten times over (make that twenty times!) that on Judgment Day I will stand before God far more confidently than you will. Why is that? Because I know with 100.00% certainty that I have always aimed at following HIS Word without trying to impose my own views and desires upon that Word. You and the other TEs, on the other hand, will always carry that doubt - be it to a lesser or greater extent - that you have in multiple instances butchered God's Holy Word just so that the theories and vain imaginations of men (e.g., Evolutionism) may remain standing. I wouldn't trade your status with mine for all the tea in China. Yeah ... "sound bite".

Jorge

I see, so you are basically saying that rather than acknowledging your errors, as per clear commandments in scripture, and then compounding the situation by engaging in slander, malice, deceit, hypocrisy, and all manner of detestable debating tactics, you hope to bear any punishment meted out for those sins already incurred in this thread on Judgement Day. Why would you choose to wear your pride and anger as a badge, cloak yourself in slander and malice? Because you think you are safe by “following” His word? Your refusal to follow clear commandments clearly shows that you are not following His word. I think most Christians would join me in saying remember Matthew 7:21-23 Jorge, lest it be too late. You’re on a slippery slope that will not end well for you. You should know this; you’ve read the same scriptures that I have.

But I guess you must be really fuming that this non-YEC highlighted your blunder and wont let you forget it. The sad thing is that I really don’t care that you made a mistake, but evidently you do. The fact that you could not have properly read my post is also evident, given that I agreed with you about the difficulties for pro-YEC papers in modern peer review. I care more about your reactions after it was pointed out you made a mistake, which is why I wont let you forget it until you come clean.

[lilpixieofterror]

I'll bet the farm ten times over (make that twenty times!) that on Judgment Day I will stand before God far more confidently than you will. Why is that? Because I know with 100.00% certainty that I have always aimed at following HIS Word without trying to impose my own views and desires upon that Word. You and the other TEs, on the other hand, will always carry that doubt - be it to a lesser or greater extent - that you have in multiple instances butchered God's Holy Word just so that the theories and vain imaginations of men (e.g., Evolutionism) may remain standing. I wouldn't trade your status with mine for all the tea in China. Yeah ... "sound bite".

Jorge

That's right because disagreeing with Jorge, in any way, is equal to compromising the faith and it is absolutely impossible that those who disagree with Jorge could also be approaching the Bible with honest intentions. So who else is going to be excluded from your little circle? Non KJVist? Catholics? Methodist? Anybody who doesn't 100% walk in lock step with what Jorge believes and says?

[Jorge]

As I said before, you cannot cover up your blunder with bluster. You must be truly desperate to divert the attention away from your errors to say the above, but it doesn’t change the facts one bit.

1. You stated that anything that challenged evolution would be toast before it got to peer review
2. You stated that the papers I listed supported the evolutionary paradigm

You had plenty of time to research these papers and still stated they took evolution as an absolute given. You dug your own hole and resorted to weaselling your way out of being accountable for your errors.

So is it pride that prevents you from acknowledging your errors and apologising? Or is it anger because this non-YEC showed you up in a public forum?

How you have chosen to deal with your blunders is very telling of your attitude. “It, once again, highlights your detestable debating tactics and brings into question your credibility, your honesty, your trustworthiness.” I’m guessing only the hierarchy of organisations such as AiG would approve of your methods, but I know that your methods ignore clear Biblical commands, i.e. James 5:16, Proverbs 28:13, Psalm 34:13, 1 Peter 2:1, Ephesians 4:31-32, and your gems above only compound your problems.

I'll bet the farm ten times over (make that twenty times!) that on Judgment Day I will stand before God far more confidently than you will. Why is that? Because I know with 100.00% certainty that I have always aimed at following HIS Word without trying to impose my own views and desires upon that Word. You and the other TEs, on the other hand, will always carry that doubt - be it to a lesser or greater extent - that you have in multiple instances butchered God's Holy Word just so that the theories and vain imaginations of men (e.g., Evolutionism) may remain standing. I wouldn't trade your status with mine for all the tea in China. Yeah ... "sound bite".

Jorge

[Omega Red]

In the Kingdom of Lies, telling the truth is a crime. It has never been a mystery to me why most (not all) Theistic Evolutionists (TEs) have a major conflict with Biblical Creationists - often times more so than with Atheists / Humanists. TEs have been immersed in that 'Kingdom of Lies' and so the truth is offensive to them ... it grates on their ears, and anyone bearing that "offensive message" becomes their opponent by definition - an opponent that must be vilified and discredited at every opportunity.

So again, your attitude towards people like me is no mystery at all.

Jorge

As I said before, you cannot cover up your blunder with bluster. You must be truly desperate to divert the attention away from your errors to say the above, but it doesn’t change the facts one bit.

1. You stated that anything that challenged evolution would be toast before it got to peer review
2. You stated that the papers I listed supported the evolutionary paradigm

You had plenty of time to research these papers and still stated they took evolution as an absolute given. You dug your own hole and resorted to weaselling your way out of being accountable for your errors.

So is it pride that prevents you from acknowledging your errors and apologising? Or is it anger because this non-YEC showed you up in a public forum?

How you have chosen to deal with your blunders is very telling of your attitude. “It, once again, highlights your detestable debating tactics and brings into question your credibility, your honesty, your trustworthiness.” I’m guessing only the hierarchy of organisations such as AiG would approve of your methods, but I know that your methods ignore clear Biblical commands, i.e. James 5:16, Proverbs 28:13, Psalm 34:13, 1 Peter 2:1, Ephesians 4:31-32, and your gems above only compound your problems.

[Omega Red]

It should be particularly embarrassing since one of the papers you cited - Gentry's work with Po halos - has been sufficiently discussed in fora like this one to be instantly recognisable to some-one who has been involved in evolution/creation for as long as Jorge has. Unless Jorge is very ignorant of the history of his own ideology, or has a memory that would be rejected by a goldfish, the most likely explanation is that he simply couldn't be bothered to read the post to which he was responding, and simply guessed its content incorrectly.

Roy

Yes and for a person who so often says 'go read some articles on AiG' he should have really picked up on this sooner. Misreading posts & articles is something he has done plenty of times. What astounds me more is not that he made the error, but that he cannot bring himself to acknowledge he made the error.