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

[Roy]

Sigh...

If anyone here is a LIAR that person is you and I will now prove that claim:

Note the paragraph that you took OUT OF CONTEXT - I've highlighted the relevant section:

As to your "linear extrapolation" nonsense: some - I repeat, some - people (BCs or other) may be doing this erroneously (i.e., without qualification - see below). If so, they are committing an error since the rate is definitely non-linear - we get that from solid physics. The BC groups that I know of - ICR, CRS, CMI, AiG and a few others - do not make this error, i.e., they are aware of the non-linear recession rate and a number of papers posted on their sites testify to this - look it up yourself.

What you did in order to LIE was to omit that "qualification" from my post.
Here is that qualification that you omitted so as to LIE:

[COLOR="#B22222"]All of that said, I myself have used a linear approximation using the present recession rate, here's why: Since the present rate is slower then using the present rate sets an upper age limit. It turns out that this upper age limit is approximately three billion years LESS than what the age of moon is according to you people (roughly 4.6 gigayears). That's quite a gap!

Well, first the rate of the moon's recession is dependent on the amount of friction between the ocean and the continents, which is currently relatively high due to the configuration of the oceans and continents being mainly north-south so the tidal bulges can't travel in straight lines (except in the Southern Ocean), where as in the past the continents have been located and oriented differently and the tidal bulges have had more direct routes around the planet. Also, a brief search suggests that there is experimental evidence based on tidal sediments that the tides were less fierce in the past and the moon's recession rate was slower. Note that any objection that the Earth isn't actually old enough for continental drift is irrelevant here since any calculation involving the Earth's extreme age automatically allows time for continental drift. But whether the rate of recession in the past was faster, slower, or sometimes-one-and-sometimes-the-other is not really pertinent here since the point is whether the ICR used a constant recession rate without qualification, and what you said about that.

So.

Jorge originally wrote this (my emphasis):
"All of that said, I myself have used a linear approximation..."

But when his blunder was mentioned, he responded thus (my emphasis):
"That was NOT a "blunder". I stated that they (and others including myself) have at times used a constant recession rate ..."

Note the switch. That claim to have stated that the ICR have used a constant recession rate, whether erroneously or otherwise, is a lie. You stated that only about yourself. Jorge Fernandez, you are a liar.

As for the caveat itself, Jorge explicitly stated that the ICR and others do not use a linear extrapolation erroneously, i.e. "without qualification". But the article I linked to includes no suggestion at all that the moon's recession rate is non-linear. The ICR have done exactly what you claimed they do not do, and you quoted them without realising that you were prenesciently - and hilariously - demolishing your own claim.

Spelling all of this out even further, if the linear rate yields an age of 2 billion years, and the non-linear rate yields an age of 1.5 billion years, then the linear rate would be the UPPER age limit (which is why both myself and these organizations have used the linear rate - to set an UPPER limit). That was the "qualification" that I had made and that you so dishonestly omitted in your post.

But that qualification is not in the ICR's article. There is no indication there at all that they are simplifying a non-linear relationship to a linear one, or setting an upper limit. That qualification is irrelevant to the ICR article, irrelevant to your not noticing the source of the quote, and irrelevant to the lie I highlighted - that you did not state that the ICR have at times used a constant recession rate.

You blundered, you tried to lie your way out of your blunder, and now you are trying to lie about the ICR using a linear rate to set an upper limit.

You called me a "liar" in public - I expect an apology in public also.

Go stick your head in a pig.

Roy

P.S. Apologies to sylas for the, um, fertilization of this thread. I did at least try to inject some wit, neologising and scientific information into the quagmire.

[sylas]

I did not say Charles Darwin was necessarily the first, but The existence of an informal process 'not in general use' similar to what was in place in the Linnean Society of London, where Darwin published did not functioning like a true [peer review process.' I believe Charles Darwin requested a review by Wallace for the book, and collaboration in articles to be published related to the book.

I think you have this backwards.

It was Wallace who sent his paper to Darwin; not the other way around. Wallace was away overseas. He was also a younger man and much less well known than Darwin. Darwin and Wallace had a brief exchange of letters; and as a result Wallace then sent to Darwin a copy of a paper he had written ("On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely From the Original Type") with request for comment, and also a request to pass the same on to Charles Lyell. He did not actually request anyone to publish.

Wallace had already sent a couple of papers for journal publication from overseas (in what is now Malaysia), but what he sent to Darwin (and requested be passed to Lyell) was in the form of a private letter; a communication to two more senior and well known scientists.

Darwin did pass on the letter to Lyell as requested, and included a letter of his own, saying:

Source: Darwin

I never saw a more striking coincidence; if Wallace had my MS. sketch written out in 1842, he could not have made a better short abstract! Even his terms now stand as heads of my chapters. Please return me the MS., which he does not say he wishes me to publish, but I shall, of course, at once write and offer to send to any journal. So all my originality, whatever it may amount to, will be smashed, though my book, if it will ever have any value, will not be deteriorated; as all the labour consists in the application of the theory.

I hope you will approve of Wallace's sketch, that I may tell him what you say.

© Copyright Original Source

Basically, Wallace was not attempting peer review here. He was rather seeking to communicate ideas directly with more senior colleagues; not as a part of a publication process but as a part of a normal exchange of ideas.

Also, the real problem for Darwin had nothing at all to do with concerns that are managed by review. It was entirely that he was thrown into a quandary between the ethical obligation he perceived to assist the young Wallace present these ideas formally, and the fact that he himself had been scooped. Darwin shows typical self depreciation in the above letter to Lyell. He did this a lot throughout his correspondence. But -- as he also notes -- his own work remained far more comprehensive in developing and supporting the insight that he and Wallace had arrived at independently.

Darwin took what was perhaps an easy way out. His own explicit intent was to write to Wallace, advise him that the essay should be published, and then go ahead and facilitate that. But he laid out the problem to Lyell and Hooker, both of whom urged Darwin to publish at the same time some of his own writings, so as the establish his own priority. Darwin allowed himself to be persuaded -- and one must suspect that this was with some relief.

Furthermore, they wasted no time, and published without even asking Wallace's permission -- which was actually improper; though Wallace did not (unsurprisingly) have any objections when he found out. He was apparently delighted to be associated with Darwin in the joint publication of his letter and some of Darwin's own memos, and never expressed any bitterness at Darwin muscling in to publish at the same time.

Darwin published Origin about a year later; without any review from Wallace at all. This was, of course, a monograph rather than a journal article, so the issue of peer review does not really arise anyway.

I am not aware that Darwin and Wallace ever collaborated in the sense of writing a joint publication. They continued to correspond and exchange ideas, of course, Wallace in particular wrote a number of articles or papers specifically in defense of Darwin or as comment on Darwin's work.

None of this makes sense as a precursor to peer review; the whole motivation and process was quite distinct from pre publication peer review control. It is, of course, an instance of scientists talking about their work to each other; which has been going on for a long time. It most definitely cannot stand as where concept of peer review began.

Cheers -- sylas

[Omega Red]

Jorge. I know you are busy trying to cover up your other blunders, but this one is on topic for this thread with regards to your comments over peer review.

You remember stating “The obvious example (but certainly not the only one) is 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 (which, by the way, is why people wishing to publish such works have had to resort to alternative publication outlets).”

I listed these papers in response:

• W.J. Ouweneel, “Developmental genetics of homoeosis”, Adv Genet., 18, 179-248 (1976) – fruit fly developmental anomalies
• S. Scherer, "Basic Functional States in the Evolution of Light-driven Cyclic Electron Transport", J. Theor. Bio., 104, 289-299 (1983) - evolution of light-driven cyclic electron transport an unsolved problem in theoretical biology
• G.R. Lambert, "Enzymic editing mechanisms and the origin of biological information transfer", J Theor Biol., 7, 387-403 (1984) – DNA processes should have high error rates without designer editing enzymes
• R.V. Gentry, "Radiohalos in a radiochronological and cosmological perspective", Science, 184, 62-66 (1974) - unclear formation mechanisms of halos in currently accepted cosmological models of Earth formation

Do you still conclude that these papers "are nothing more than imaginations / thoughts / hypotheses / etc. supporting the same Evolutionary paradigm within a Materialistic worldview" or have you finally realized your blunder?

[Jorge]

Sigh...Well, first the rate of the moon's recession is dependent on the amount of friction between the ocean and the continents, which is currently relatively high due to the configuration of the oceans and continents being mainly north-south so the tidal bulges can't travel in straight lines (except in the Southern Ocean), where as in the past the continents have been located and oriented differently and the tidal bulges have had more direct routes around the planet. Also, a brief search suggests that there is experimental evidence based on tidal sediments that the tides were less fierce in the past and the moon's recession rate was slower. Note that any objection that the Earth isn't actually old enough for continental drift is irrelevant here since any calculation involving the Earth's extreme age automatically allows time for continental drift. But whether the rate of recession in the past was faster, slower, or sometimes-one-and-sometimes-the-other is not really pertinent here since the point is whether the ICR used a constant recession rate without qualification, and what you said about that.

So.

Jorge originally wrote this (my emphasis):
"All of that said, I myself have used a linear approximation..."

But when his blunder was mentioned, he responded thus (my emphasis):
"That was NOT a "blunder". I stated that they (and others including myself) have at times used a constant recession rate ..."

Note the switch. That claim to have stated that the ICR have used a constant recession rate, whether erroneously or otherwise, is a lie. You stated that only about yourself. Jorge Fernandez, you are a liar.

As for the caveat itself, Jorge explicitly stated that the ICR and others do not use a linear extrapolation erroneously, i.e. "without qualification". But the article I linked to includes no suggestion at all that the moon's recession rate is non-linear. The ICR have done exactly what you claimed they do not do, and you quoted them without realising that you were prenesciently - and hilariously - demolishing your own claim.


But that qualification is not in the ICR's article. There is no indication there at all that they are simplifying a non-linear relationship to a linear one, or setting an upper limit. That qualification is irrelevant to the ICR article, irrelevant to your not noticing the source of the quote, and irrelevant to the lie I highlighted - that you did not state that the ICR have at times used a constant recession rate.

You blundered, you tried to lie your way out of your blunder, and now you are trying to lie about the ICR using a linear rate to set an upper limit.



Go stick your head in a pig.

Roy

P.S. Apologies to sylas for the, um, fertilization of this thread. I did at least try to inject some wit, neologising and scientific information into the quagmire.

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]

Jorge. I know you are busy trying to cover up your other blunders, but this one is on topic for this thread with regards to your comments over peer review.

You remember stating “The obvious example (but certainly not the only one) is 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 (which, by the way, is why people wishing to publish such works have had to resort to alternative publication outlets).”

I listed these papers in response:



Do you still conclude that these papers "are nothing more than imaginations / thoughts / hypotheses / etc. supporting the same Evolutionary paradigm within a Materialistic worldview" or have you finally realized your blunder?

Set aside for a moment - (if you are even capable of doing this) - your rabid, blinding dislike for anyone/anything related to Biblical Creationism. Answer me this: do you even TRY to read and comprehend the things that I've posted here on TWeb?

I'm obviously not referring to the posts where all I'm doing is rattling the cage of certain 'monkeys' just to get a rise out of them (because that's all that they deserve). I'm talking about the substantive posts containing hard science, philosophy and theology. So, have you even TRIED?

Bluntly, I'm asking rhetorically because I'm convinced that your rabid, blinding anti-Biblical Creation attitude prevents you from even trying, let alone achieving, what I'm asking.

BTW, in case you're wondering, what I ask here is relevant to your question because what you refer to as a "blunder" demonstrates that you have not grasped my substantive postings.

You will, of course, disagree but that's entirely expected.

Jorge

[Omega Red]

Set aside for a moment - (if you are even capable of doing this) - your rabid, blinding dislike for anyone/anything related to Biblical Creationism. Answer me this: do you even TRY to read and comprehend the things that I've posted here on TWeb?

I'm obviously not referring to the posts where all I'm doing is rattling the cage of certain 'monkeys' just to get a rise out of them (because that's all that they deserve). I'm talking about the substantive posts containing hard science, philosophy and theology. So, have you even TRIED?

Bluntly, I'm asking rhetorically because I'm convinced that your rabid, blinding anti-Biblical Creation attitude prevents you from even trying, let alone achieving, what I'm asking.

BTW, in case you're wondering, what I ask here is relevant to your question because what you refer to as a "blunder" demonstrates that you have not grasped my substantive postings.

You will, of course, disagree but that's entirely expected.

Jorge

Yes I do. Evidently more than you realise. That you call them substantive is curious, but if it massages your ego, then fine. Call them substantive. Now you can get back to my question...

Do you still conclude that those papers I posted "are nothing more than imaginations / thoughts / hypotheses / etc. supporting the same Evolutionary paradigm within a Materialistic worldview" or have you finally realized your blunder?

[Jorge]

Yes I do. Evidently more than you realise. That you call them substantive is curious, but if it massages your ego, then fine. Call them substantive. Now you can get back to my question...

Do you still conclude that those papers I posted "are nothing more than imaginations / thoughts / hypotheses / etc. supporting the same Evolutionary paradigm within a Materialistic worldview" or have you finally realized your blunder?

This would be so funny if it weren't so serious. I had written:

"BTW, in case you're wondering, what I ask here is relevant to your question because what you refer to as a "blunder" demonstrates that you have not grasped my substantive postings.

You will, of course, disagree but that's entirely expected."

Then, in your post above, you essentially demonstrate that you do NOT read my posts!
Why? Because in posts that I had written before, I showed that your question is silly.
Consider one of the papers you cite as an example:

S. Scherer, "Basic Functional States in the Evolution of Light-driven Cyclic Electron Transport", J. Theor. Bio., 104, 289-299 (1983) - evolution of light-driven cyclic electron transport an unsolved problem in theoretical biology.


They are saying that HOW the Evolution of light-driven cyclic electron transport occurred is an unsolved problem NOT IF the Evolution of light-driven cyclic electron transport occurred. See, Evolution is taken as an ABSOLUTE GIVEN, only the mechanism is being questioned. That is ideological dogmatism, not science.

Thanks for helping to prove my point, OR.

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

S. Scherer, "Basic Functional States in the Evolution of Light-driven Cyclic Electron Transport", J. Theor. Bio., 104, 289-299 (1983) - evolution of light-driven cyclic electron transport an unsolved problem in theoretical biology.

They are saying that HOW the Evolution of light-driven cyclic electron transport occurred is an unsolved problem NOT IF the Evolution of light-driven cyclic electron transport occurred. See, Evolution is taken as an ABSOLUTE GIVEN, only the mechanism is being questioned. That is ideological dogmatism, not science.

Jorge

Jorge recycles yet another old stinky Creationist PRATT - the demand that every scientific paper published must include all 150+ years of previous work that the new work is built on or the new paper is somehow invalid.

That's how "Jorge-science" works apparently, except Jorge's YEC idols never publish any supporting work in the primary literature, ever.

[Omega Red]

This would be so funny if it weren't so serious. I had written:

"BTW, in case you're wondering, what I ask here is relevant to your question because what you refer to as a "blunder" demonstrates that you have not grasped my substantive postings.

You will, of course, disagree but that's entirely expected."

Then, in your post above, you essentially demonstrate that you do NOT read my posts!
Why? Because in posts that I had written before, I showed that your question is silly.
Consider one of the papers you cite as an example:

S. Scherer, "Basic Functional States in the Evolution of Light-driven Cyclic Electron Transport", J. Theor. Bio., 104, 289-299 (1983) - evolution of light-driven cyclic electron transport an unsolved problem in theoretical biology.


They are saying that HOW the Evolution of light-driven cyclic electron transport occurred is an unsolved problem NOT IF the Evolution of light-driven cyclic electron transport occurred. See, Evolution is taken as an ABSOLUTE GIVEN, only the mechanism is being questioned. That is ideological dogmatism, not science.

Thanks for helping to prove my point, OR.

Jorge

You’re going to find it difficult to weasel your way past this problem by shifting definitions so late in the exchange. What you stated was that these papers "are nothing more than imaginations / thoughts / hypotheses / etc. supporting the same Evolutionary paradigm within a Materialistic worldview". Isn't the internet amazing for recalling your exact words.

Evidently you have failed to see your blunder. Seriously now, did you not realise that the authors of those papers I listed are young earth creationists or critics of evolutionary theory (at least were when writing those articles). Are you really trying to tell me that these fine, upstanding YECs (or anti-evolutionary in Scherer’s case) all take “Evolution” as a given? Truly remarkable. You should try and get AiG to redraft their statement of faith, Evolution is an allowable conclusion after all, and also a few of their articles on the subject of creationists publishing in notable refereed journals need to be changed. Evidently AiG is wrong according to you; these papers were only supporting the Evolutionary paradigm. And you might want to also inform the authors that they too support the Evolutionary paradigm, because it seems like they don't know their own opinions on the subject, but quite clearly you do.

I wonder if you can bring yourself to admit your blunder or will you try to weasel some more?

[Jorge]

I wonder if you can bring yourself to admit your blunder or will you try to weasel some more?

"... weasel some more" implies that I've "weaseled" before, something that I do not accept as being truthful. Yes, I am well aware that you and your ideological comrades here wish to attach that "weasel" label on me so you need not spend any energy trying to convince me of that. After all, ad hominem is one of the favorite fall-back strategies of Atheists, Humanists and TEs. I'm just telling you the facts: that label does NOT apply. You may, and probably will, continue doing the childish thing - repeating until I surrender due to exhaustion / exasperation.

BTW, I went back and read the posts leading to this present one. It is a fascinating glimpse into the dishonest mindset and tactics of TEs. Did you realize that every one of those papers you presented is at least 30 years old? Do you know that things have gotten much, much worse since then? TO WIT: Did you know that a first-class scientist like Mike Behe must now read a disclaimer before every presentation that he gives because of his opposition to the Evolutionary dogma? (yup, I upper-cased the 'E' and attached the word "dogma" again). Did you know that these and related reasons are why the ID and Creationist community were forced to set up their own publishing houses? Did you know that Springer Verlag was in the final stages of reviewing the scientific papers of the Information Symposium at Cornell in 2011 and when the Evolutionary dogmatists threatened with monetary repercussions they pulled out of publishing said proceedings? SVs action was NOT on the basis of lacking scientific merits but solely due to capitulating to ideological financial $$$ 'terrorism' (bullying). Did you know that Granville Sewell was paid thousands of dollars in legal compensation after his paper was not published SOLELY due to its opposition to Materialistic Evolution AFTER said paper had gone through peer review, everything checked out and publication had been approved?

I could go on and on and on and on and on... the list of cases is endless. For every one of your silly examples I could supply you with hundreds of examples proving my case. But why bother, the same strategy that you people practice in order to support Evolutionism - selective data gathering - that's the same strategy that you employed here, OR, and you went back 30 years to do it. Please don't be asking me to soil my hands on that kind of intellectual dishonesty.

What you should have done was to nod your head in agreement - accepting the facts - and then moved on. I personally would have respected that.

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

"... weasel some more" implies that I've "weaseled" before, something that I do not accept as being truthful.

Jorge

But Jorge, you've been caught in numerous instances of "weaseling" and not being truthful. It's one of your most dependable traits.

[Omega Red]

"... weasel some more" implies that I've "weaseled" before, something that I do not accept as being truthful.

I’ve demonstrated exactly where you weasel as I have demonstrated exactly where you blundered. It is truly remarkable to see you in action. You appear to have no capacity to admit you were wrong in your initial statement regarding peer review and then the blunder regarding those papers, but take every opportunity to try and re-write what you actually meant in an attempt to cover up your mistakes.

The problem here is your detestable practises. Had you simply said that your initial statement was an over-generalisation, we would not have had this exchange. Rather than acknowledging that you were wrong when you stated categorically “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” you compound your errors by responding that those 4 papers "are nothing more than imaginations / thoughts / hypotheses / etc. supporting the same Evolutionary paradigm within a Materialistic worldview" and also that these four papers entailed a position where “Evolution is taken as an ABSOLUTE GIVEN, only the mechanism is being questioned”. Quite clearly, had you done some research on the subject, you would have realised these were YEC (or anti-evolutionary) authors and they would not be arguing in support of “Evolution” as you wrongly claimed. Then instead of holding your hand up to that blunder, you go on to yet more sound bites, accusations and mud flinging.

You can’t escape your blunder with bluster. This is the latest episode that demonstrates your true character, which is vitally important for people to read about. Especially when you want them to trust you and believe as you do. Should they trust someone who repeatedly engages in detestable debating practises as you so frequently do? Should they trust someone who repeatedly castigates those who do not follow that person’s interpretation of the Genesis creation passages and yet ignores clear Biblical commands about owning up to one’s errors and avoiding detestable practises? Should they trust someone who says they have spent years in scholarly research and yet often gets the basics wrong? So for whatever motivation you want to assign to me to make me appear like the bad guy, if it doesn’t equate with getting you to stop your detestable practises, if it doesn’t equate with getting you to acknowledge your errors, if it doesn’t equate with getting you to stop putting false hurdles in people’s path to faith, if it doesn’t equate with getting you to demonstrate the fruits of the Spirit and follow Biblical commands, then your perception of my motivation is dead wrong and emphasises what a danger you are as a Christian. Yes, the path to over-turning your problems is tiring, but will ultimately be worth it if I/we succeed.

Yes, I am well aware that you and your ideological comrades here wish to attach that "weasel" label on me so you need not spend any energy trying to convince me of that. After all, ad hominem is one of the favorite fall-back strategies of Atheists, Humanists and TEs. I'm just telling you the facts: that label does NOT apply. You may, and probably will, continue doing the childish thing - repeating until I surrender due to exhaustion / exasperation. BTW, I went back and read the posts leading to this present one. It is a fascinating glimpse into the dishonest mindset and tactics of TEs.

Sound bites

Did you realize that every one of those papers you presented is at least 30 years old? Do you know that things have gotten much, much worse since then? TO WIT: Did you know that a first-class scientist like Mike Behe must now read a disclaimer before every presentation that he gives because of his opposition to the Evolutionary dogma? (yup, I upper-cased the 'E' and attached the word "dogma" again). Did you know that these and related reasons are why the ID and Creationist community were forced to set up their own publishing houses? Did you know that Springer Verlag was in the final stages of reviewing the scientific papers of the Information Symposium at Cornell in 2011 and when the Evolutionary dogmatists threatened with monetary repercussions they pulled out of publishing said proceedings? SVs action was NOT on the basis of lacking scientific merits but solely due to capitulating to ideological financial $$$ 'terrorism' (bullying). Did you know that Granville Sewell was paid thousands of dollars in legal compensation after his paper was not published SOLELY due to its opposition to Materialistic Evolution AFTER said paper had gone through peer review, everything checked out and publication had been approved?

The point was to demonstrate your categorical statement was false. I showed that not everything that criticized “Evolution” was toast before it got to peer review. These were the easiest papers to deal with as they were published in mainstream journals and were also used by AiG. But you simply would not have it and made accusations against those 4 papers, so I then had to get you to realise that those papers were not supporting the same “Evolutionary” paradigm. But here again, you try and weasel your way out of directly acknowledging your shortcomings.

And the answer is... yes, I am aware of the majority of these instances, though we can disagree about the emotionalism you purport is behind certain cases. Now can you truthfully say that you recall my post where I said “I’m sure it is true that material submitted by known YECs and IDers will be very difficult to get through to the peer-review stage nowadays”?

We can then go on to argue the merits of setting up your own journal and then practising exactly what you claim others have been doing to you, but in a more stringent fashion. That was contained in the same post.

I could go on and on and on and on and on... the list of cases is endless. For every one of your silly examples I could supply you with hundreds of examples proving my case. But why bother, the same strategy that you people practice in order to support Evolutionism - selective data gathering - that's the same strategy that you employed here, OR, and you went back 30 years to do it. Please don't be asking me to soil my hands on that kind of intellectual dishonesty.

Sound bites

What you should have done was to nod your head in agreement - accepting the facts - and then moved on. I personally would have respected that.

Jorge

As I have taken the lengths to respond to your criticisms, shouldered your accusations and clearly shown that you choose to engage in detestable debate tactics rather than deal with the issues, why would I ever care about you having respect for me? What is more important is whether you can truthfully say that your initial statement regarding peer-review was an over-generalisation? And whether you can truthfully acknowledge that you did blunder when you attributed those papers as supporting “Evolution”? I will be waiting. As for the false accusations you repeatedly hurled my way, well I guess I will be waiting even longer for that apology from you.

[Jorge]

I’ve demonstrated exactly where you weasel as I have demonstrated exactly where you blundered. It is truly remarkable to see you in action. You appear to have no capacity to admit you were wrong in your initial statement regarding peer review and then the blunder regarding those papers, but take every opportunity to try and re-write what you actually meant in an attempt to cover up your mistakes.

The problem here is your detestable practises. Had you simply said that your initial statement was an over-generalisation, we would not have had this exchange. Rather than acknowledging that you were wrong when you stated categorically “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” you compound your errors by responding that those 4 papers "are nothing more than imaginations / thoughts / hypotheses / etc. supporting the same Evolutionary paradigm within a Materialistic worldview" and also that these four papers entailed a position where “Evolution is taken as an ABSOLUTE GIVEN, only the mechanism is being questioned”. Quite clearly, had you done some research on the subject, you would have realised these were YEC (or anti-evolutionary) authors and they would not be arguing in support of “Evolution” as you wrongly claimed. Then instead of holding your hand up to that blunder, you go on to yet more sound bites, accusations and mud flinging.

You can’t escape your blunder with bluster. This is the latest episode that demonstrates your true character, which is vitally important for people to read about. Especially when you want them to trust you and believe as you do. Should they trust someone who repeatedly engages in detestable debating practises as you so frequently do? Should they trust someone who repeatedly castigates those who do not follow that person’s interpretation of the Genesis creation passages and yet ignores clear Biblical commands about owning up to one’s errors and avoiding detestable practises? Should they trust someone who says they have spent years in scholarly research and yet often gets the basics wrong? So for whatever motivation you want to assign to me to make me appear like the bad guy, if it doesn’t equate with getting you to stop your detestable practises, if it doesn’t equate with getting you to acknowledge your errors, if it doesn’t equate with getting you to stop putting false hurdles in people’s path to faith, if it doesn’t equate with getting you to demonstrate the fruits of the Spirit and follow Biblical commands, then your perception of my motivation is dead wrong and emphasises what a danger you are as a Christian. Yes, the path to over-turning your problems is tiring, but will ultimately be worth it if I/we succeed.



Sound bites



The point was to demonstrate your categorical statement was false. I showed that not everything that criticized “Evolution” was toast before it got to peer review. These were the easiest papers to deal with as they were published in mainstream journals and were also used by AiG. But you simply would not have it and made accusations against those 4 papers, so I then had to get you to realise that those papers were not supporting the same “Evolutionary” paradigm. But here again, you try and weasel your way out of directly acknowledging your shortcomings.

And the answer is... yes, I am aware of the majority of these instances, though we can disagree about the emotionalism you purport is behind certain cases. Now can you truthfully say that you recall my post where I said “I’m sure it is true that material submitted by known YECs and IDers will be very difficult to get through to the peer-review stage nowadays”?

We can then go on to argue the merits of setting up your own journal and then practising exactly what you claim others have been doing to you, but in a more stringent fashion. That was contained in the same post.



Sound bites



As I have taken the lengths to respond to your criticisms, shouldered your accusations and clearly shown that you choose to engage in detestable debate tactics rather than deal with the issues, why would I ever care about you having respect for me? What is more important is whether you can truthfully say that your initial statement regarding peer-review was an over-generalisation? And whether you can truthfully acknowledge that you did blunder when you attributed those papers as supporting “Evolution”? I will be waiting. As for the false accusations you repeatedly hurled my way, well I guess I will be waiting even longer for that apology from you.

You've wasted enough of my time, OR - you are simply untrainable. As bad as that is, here
at TWeb you cannot hold a candle to certain individuals, with Beagle Boy leading that parade.

Based on a recent article that I came across, I'm thinking of starting a thread on how ideology
(Materialistic Evolution ideology) finds its way into what is then labeled "science". Then, people
like you swallow it whole and begin regurgitating it left and right, further contaminating those
that are unsuspecting and ignorant of these things. The cycle repeats and multiplies until we
end up with the mess that we presently find ourselves in.

That encapsulates what is going on and, tragically, "learned" people like you only contribute to
the problem instead of being part of the solution. Oh well ... just another "sound bite".

Jorge

[Omega Red]

You've wasted enough of my time, OR - you are simply untrainable. As bad as that is, here
at TWeb you cannot hold a candle to certain individuals, with Beagle Boy leading that parade.

Based on a recent article that I came across, I'm thinking of starting a thread on how ideology
(Materialistic Evolution ideology) finds its way into what is then labeled "science". Then, people
like you swallow it whole and begin regurgitating it left and right, further contaminating those
that are unsuspecting and ignorant of these things. The cycle repeats and multiplies until we
end up with the mess that we presently find ourselves in.

That encapsulates what is going on and, tragically, "learned" people like you only contribute to
the problem instead of being part of the solution. Oh well ... just another "sound bite".

Jorge

I understand that it must be embarrassing for you to have got it wrong when it came to those papers not supporting evolution in contradiction to you stating they did. I understand it must be embarrassing for you that those papers also showed your categorical statement about the treatment of all anti-evolutionary papers in peer review was wrong. I understand it must be embarrassing for you that in getting this lot wrong you took a great many posts to accuse me of many falsehoods. But what I don’t understand is why you cannot simply say “yes I got it wrong, sorry about that” and then we can discuss other things. Is it pride? Is it anger? Is it cultural? Instead you regurgitate the same exit strategy you have used many times. It, once again, highlights your detestable debating tactics and brings into question your credibility, your honesty, your trustworthiness.

[Roy]

I understand that it must be embarrassing for you to have got it wrong when it came to those papers not supporting evolution in contradiction to you stating they did.

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