SMH if this poll is anywhere near accurate.

[AUDub 11,147]

The one plus is that at least a majority rejected the premise. This just goes to show you people are ignorant as all get out regarding science (hint hint)

Hey, they are peer reviewed idiots tho. Their peers are as myopic as they are and that's all that counts.

And let's be TOTALLY HONEST here. The Gruber Goobers will believe any freakin thing they are told. ANYTHING. You can tell them the moon is made of cheese and in their poor lil minds, it will be made of cheese. You can tell them that lie after lie after lie after lie about their own lives and the ACA and they will believe it even though their Doctors and their check books are telling them a differing stark reality. So neither side has any claims to being ignorance proof here.

You still don't quite get what peer review is or how it works. Big shock.

As for the rest of your post? Uhh, OK.

Apparently you dont get how peer review works. It is simply Review by Peers.

<sigh>

What peer review is not

Many people think that the process of peer review is meant to settle the actual validity of the work, and that in any paper that has passed peer review, the science is entirely correct. This is not the case. Peer review is an "entry level" sort of test that weeds out the pseudoscience and obviously bad work, but is not intended to be a catch-all for outright fraud or experimental error - reviewers simply challenge the rigour by which scientists are reporting their own work or challenge their conclusions if they haven't successfully eliminated competing hypotheses. Often enough, the demand for the right data and better conclusions made by reviewers is more than enough to ensure the work is valid enough, as the process is about making sure everything is submitted and out in the open with nothing being hidden. Due to this, direct replication and validation isn't usually a priority or even a necessity for peer review.

There are a few exceptions. For example, the American Chemistry Society won't accept computational chemistry papers unless the results have been verified. This is because taking parameters from a paper's supplemental material and running it on a computer for a few hours is practical; rigorously replicating experiments that may have taken months to get right and require specialised and bespoke equipment, is not.

Passing peer review and publication is indicative that (by the standards of the journal in question) the science is thorough, there are no glaring omissions, and the interpretation of the results presented are at least plausible, but this does not cement the science. Further publications and research can then use the data contained in the paper and its conclusions can be amended (in worst-case scenarios, retracted) in later publications.

To make a legal analogy, if it is erroneously assumed that the peer review process is like a trial (the case either proven true or dismissed), the actual process is more like an arraignment, only verifying that the case has enough merit to be heard. Indeed the "trial" part of a scientific work is a very much on-going and continuous process that happens as other scientists cite the paper, or attempt to replicate or use it in their own work.

It is also worth noting whom those "peers" may be, as practitioners of pseudoscience might form a circle of pseudoscientists who start a pseudoscientific journal. It isn't the support of a claim that makes it true, it's the honest attempts to disprove a claim through experimentation that solidifies it.

[AUDub 11,147]

This is off topic for sure, and I might just need to start a new topic on it.

But how exactly are people so sure the earth is 4k-6k years old from the bible? I have heard it was from them counting the years of each person mentioned... but from what I remember does it not just say "XXX beget XXX who beget XXX who beget XXX" and so on for a lot of the ancestry? And didn't the early people in the Bible live varying ages, some extremely long? It seemed strange to me that if someone lived for hundreds of years you would assume they still had their kids while in their 20's.

I don't know if we have anyone on the forums that believe in this, but maybe we have someone who knows enough to explain how they get their dating.

They got it from this guy.

[aubfaninga 16]

This is off topic for sure, and I might just need to start a new topic on it.

But how exactly are people so sure the earth is 4k-6k years old from the bible? I have heard it was from them counting the years of each person mentioned... but from what I remember does it not just say "XXX beget XXX who beget XXX who beget XXX" and so on for a lot of the ancestry? And didn't the early people in the Bible live varying ages, some extremely long? It seemed strange to me that if someone lived for hundreds of years you would assume they still had their kids while in their 20's.

I don't know if we have anyone on the forums that believe in this, but maybe we have someone who knows enough to explain how they get their dating.

Many different ways to get the approximate time frame since Adam and they all roughly come out the same. Then throw in the constant recital of the seventh day Sabbath and Jesus returning the third day and you get close to 6000 years(the day of 6000 starting the seventh day Sabbath). Just for fun I say it has been 5988 years from Adam give or take 10 years. (1988 years since Jesus was crucified+\-10). The "Jewish" calendar is roughly close to my guess but they did not count years of the Babylonian Exile. Might be because they knew the Prophet Daniel predicted the very year their messiah would come. Way too close to this Jesus guy for them I guess.

Using the timeline from Adam is easy. Its Genesis 1 that seperates many. Bible readers have different views of the days from Genesis 1 as some say a literal 24hr day, some a 1000 years for each day, and some ages of unknown periods etc...

I just see Genesis 1 as the poetry that it is and moved on.

[DKW 86 7,419]

[quote name='Bigbens42' timestamp='1435381215' post='2279367'

What peer review is not

Many people think that the process of peer review is meant to settle the actual validity of the work, :lmao:

and that in any paper that has passed peer review, the science is entirely correct. This is not the case.

Peer review is an "entry level" sort of test that weeds out the pseudoscience and obviously bad work, (These days Peer Review is simply passing along anything that you agree with politically.There is no review of anything in many cases.)

but is not intended to be a catch-all for outright fraud or experimental error - reviewers simply challenge the rigour by which scientists are reporting their own work or challenge their conclusions if they haven't successfully eliminated competing hypotheses. (In this poll, we see that no one challenged, even nominally, the work of the fraud that Science published.)

Often enough, the demand for the right data and better conclusions made by reviewers is more than enough to ensure the work is valid enough, as the process is about making sure everything is submitted and out in the open with nothing being hidden. (Again, total fail. In this poll, the original data was removed and was never shared. The data was hidden from review.)

Due to this, direct replication and validation isn't usually a priority or even a necessity for peer review. (How many times have we seen the exact opposite claimed with several AGW studies? That they actually have been replicated and validated, when in reality they have not?)

There are a few exceptions. For example, the American Chemistry Society won't accept computational chemistry papers unless the results have been verified. This is because taking parameters from a paper's supplemental material and running it on a computer for a few hours is practical; rigorously replicating experiments that may have taken months to get right and require specialised and bespoke equipment, is not. (This should be the MINIMUM standard for any Peer Review.)

Passing peer review and publication is indicative that (by the standards of the journal in question) the science is thorough, there are no glaring omissions ?, and the interpretation of the results presented are at least plausible, but this does not cement the science. Further publications and research can then use the data contained in the paper and its conclusions can be amended (in worst-case scenarios, retracted) in later publications.

To make a legal analogy, if it is erroneously assumed that the peer review process is like a trial (the case either proven true or dismissed), the actual process is more like an arraignment, only verifying that the case has enough merit to be heard. Indeed the "trial" part of a scientific work is a very much on-going and continuous process that happens as other scientists cite the paper, or attempt to replicate or use it in their own work.

It is also worth noting whom those "peers" may be, as practitioners of pseudoscience might form a circle of pseudoscientists who start a pseudoscientific journal. It isn't the support of a claim that makes it true, it's the honest attempts to disprove a claim through experimentation that solidifies it.

In short you have just made the case i was sssooo poorly pointing out to you and others. Saying something is Peer Reviewed can mean in some cases some valid work making the case that the original work was solid. Peer Review can also mean in many many cases nothing more than a head nod/hat tip toward a fellow "scientist," pseudo-scientist or not.

The ACS standard is the IMPLIED Peer Review Standard in the media today. In reality, PR CAN actually mean little to nothing.

[AUDub 11,147]

[quote name='Bigbens42' timestamp='1435381215' post='2279367'

What peer review is not

Many people think that the process of peer review is meant to settle the actual validity of the work, :lmao:/> :lmao:/> :lmao:/>

and that in any paper that has passed peer review, the science is entirely correct. This is not the case. :thumbsup:/>

Peer review is an "entry level" sort of test that weeds out the pseudoscience and obviously bad work, (These days Peer Review is simply passing along anything that you agree with politically.There is no review of anything in many cases.)

Not so. Papers are rejected far more frequently now than ever before.

but is not intended to be a catch-all for outright fraud or experimental error - reviewers simply challenge the rigour by which scientists are reporting their own work or challenge their conclusions if they haven't successfully eliminated competing hypotheses. (In this poll, we see that no one challenged, even nominally, the work of the fraud that Science published.)

But it was challenged. In fact, it was retracted. It wasn't caught in peer review, which is a shame, but peer review is not the be all end all.

Often enough, the demand for the right data and better conclusions made by reviewers is more than enough to ensure the work is valid enough, as the process is about making sure everything is submitted and out in the open with nothing being hidden. (Again, total fail. In this poll, the original data was removed and was never shared. The data was hidden from review.)

Peer review doesn't generally review all of the data. That's left to others after the fact. The malfeasance was caught then. One of the co-authors even requested it's retraction.

Due to this, direct replication and validation isn't usually a priority or even a necessity for peer review. (How many times have we seen the exact opposite claimed with several AGW studies? That they actually have been replicated and validated, when in reality they have not?)

Cite an example.

There are a few exceptions. For example, the American Chemistry Society won't accept computational chemistry papers unless the results have been verified. This is because taking parameters from a paper's supplemental material and running it on a computer for a few hours is practical; rigorously replicating experiments that may have taken months to get right and require specialised and bespoke equipment, is not. (This should be the MINIMUM standard for any Peer Review.)

No, it shouldn't.

Passing peer review and publication is indicative that (by the standards of the journal in question) the science is thorough, there are no glaring omissions ?, and the interpretation of the results presented are at least plausible, but this does not cement the science. Further publications and research can then use the data contained in the paper and its conclusions can be amended (in worst-case scenarios, retracted) in later publications.

This should.

To make a legal analogy, if it is erroneously assumed that the peer review process is like a trial (the case either proven true or dismissed), the actual process is more like an arraignment, only verifying that the case has enough merit to be heard. Indeed the "trial" part of a scientific work is a very much on-going and continuous process that happens as other scientists cite the paper, or attempt to replicate or use it in their own work.

It is also worth noting whom those "peers" may be, as practitioners of pseudoscience might form a circle of pseudoscientists who start a pseudoscientific journal. It isn't the support of a claim that makes it true, it's the honest attempts to disprove a claim through experimentation that solidifies it.

In short you have just made the case i was sssooo poorly pointing out to you and others. Saying something is Peer Reviewed can mean in some cases some valid work making the case that the original work was solid. Peer Review can also mean in many many cases nothing more than a head nod/hat tip toward a fellow "scientist," pseudo-scientist or not.

The ACS standard is the IMPLIED Peer Review Standard in the media today. In reality, PR CAN actually mean little to nothing.

Still don't get it. Peer review filters out a lot of the chaff. Some crap like the aforementioned paper in Science can slip through, but peer review is a generally reliable indicator that what you're reading isn't pseudoscience.

[homersapien 11,367]

It's amusing to note that for many people, the less they know about a subject, the more definitive and emphatic their statements are about it.

[WarTim 3,456]

It's amusing to note that for many people, the less they know about a subject, the more definitive and emphatic their statements are about it.

I am glad you realize you haven't a clue. Good for you!!!

[cooltigger21 0]

Well for one thing with regards to the age of the people, the age at which they had their children was listed generally. We have the history recorded back to Noah and why would we then say that what happened before then wasn't accurate? Some people just have this incessant need to say that the biblical record of things is inaccurate or it's poetry or some such thing so they can dismiss the rest of what it says and pretend they don't have to worry about not following it.

[AUDub 11,147]

It's amusing to note that for many people, the less they know about a subject, the more definitive and emphatic their statements are about it.

Yup

One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision.

[homersapien 11,367]

Yup

One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision.

Wow. That's still timely. Perhaps universal?

(If that Yup was a link, it's not working. It took me to wikipedia for an error message. )

[AUDub 11,147]

Yup

One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision.

Wow. That's still timely. Perhaps universal?

There's a good reason it was in my signature for so long.

[quietfan 233]

We have the history recorded back to Noah and why would we then say that what happened before then wasn't accurate? Some people just have this incessant need to say that the biblical record of things is inaccurate or it's poetry or some such thing so they can dismiss the rest of what it says and pretend they don't have to worry about not following it.

I don't challenge your viewpoint in evaluating the actions of others, that they may say the Bible is inaccurate or merely poetry.

I'm not sure how you can be as confident in evaluating their motives or "incessant needs", however.

[aubfaninga 16]

We have the history recorded back to Noah and why would we then say that what happened before then wasn't accurate? Some people just have this incessant need to say that the biblical record of things is inaccurate or it's poetry or some such thing so they can dismiss the rest of what it says and pretend they don't have to worry about not following it.

I don't challenge your viewpoint in evaluating the actions of others, that they may say the Bible is inaccurate or merely poetry.

I'm not sure how you can be as confident in evaluating their motives or "incessant needs", however.

This is not directed at you quietfan but just a clarification.

Please let me clarify my statement of "poetry" since it may have been misread as I was saying Genesis 1 is "merely poetry" and nothing more. If you choose to believe the first person that agrees with your personal belief that Genesis 1 is not poetry without searching for yourself then "it is what it is". Maybe I should have said that I see Genesis 1 as a "poetic narrative" of factual events.

What we now call Genesis 1 verse 1 through Genesis 2 verse 3 (not the entire book of Genesis) is in fact, and without any doubt, poetry. To make an argument against this fact only shows lack of understanding or care of the subject. The fact that these lines are poetry does nothing to invalidate it's accuracy, at least in my faith of it. In fact, now that I read it as poetry I can now see it for it's more "literal" meaning. Too many details to cover but an example is when someone asks the question of how can vegetation grow before the sun was created. The simple answer most give is, "GOD can do anything". While this answer is not inaccurate it does not represent the true understanding of Genesis 1. Again, too many details to cover but I will show how Genesis 1 is reasoned (for me) once totality of the verses has been understood and basic concepts of the poetry style Moses was using in his literal narrative of events.

Genesis 1:1-2 is the header

Genesis 1:3-5 (light) is the spoken WORD and Genesis 1:14-19 (light) is the spoken WORD manifested ("the WORD became flesh")(please also keep in mind the scriptural concept from Isaiah 14:24 "The LORD of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand:) (Hebrews 11:1)

Genesis 1:6-8 (Firmament, sky, sea) and Genesis 1:20-23 (Inhabitants, birds, fish)

Genesis 1:9-10 (Dry Land) and Genesis 1:24-25 (Land Animals)

Genesis 1:11-13 (Vegetation) and Genesis 1:26-31 (MAN)

and Genesis 2:1-3 is the conclusion of the matter

Before anyone dismisses this simple reading as nonsense please remember the claim in scripture. Isaiah 46:10 "Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:" The biblical GOD will tell you his will before it is manifested. (Psalm 33:11, Isaiah 14:24, Isaiah 25:1) Two more important ones from Isaiah to take into consideration are from chapter 48 verse 3 and chapter 55 verse 10-11.

"I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of my mouth, and I shewed them; I did them suddenly, and they came to pass."

"For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:

"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it."

So here is how I "HEAR" and "SEE" Genesis 1...

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

Then God said, Let there be light; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

Then God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth; and it was so. Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Then God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.

Then God said, Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens. So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth. So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Then God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the third day.

Then God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.

And God said, See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food; and it was so. Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

[homersapien 11,367]

God, I just love biblical throw-downs!

[AUDub 11,147]

(If that Yup was a link, it's not working. It took me to wikipedia for an error message. )

It's my danged iPad. Somehow formatting of links has been getting thrown off lately. I've caught it twice in the last few days but missed it here.

Corrected link

[DKW 86 7,419]

It's amusing to note that for many people, the less they know about a subject, the more definitive and emphatic their statements are about it.

I am glad you realize you haven't a clue. Good for you!!!

homer you really really stepped into that one. If there was any one thing i would attribute to you, it would be making emphatic statements about subjects and people you demonstrably know absolutely nothing about.

[AUDub 11,147]

It's amusing to note that for many people, the less they know about a subject, the more definitive and emphatic their statements are about it.

I am glad you realize you haven't a clue. Good for you!!!

homer you really really stepped into that one. If there was any one thing i would attribute to you, it would be making emphatic statements about subjects and people you demonstrably know absolutely nothing about.

Really? You though "I know you are but what am I?" was funny?

[homersapien 11,367]

It's amusing to note that for many people, the less they know about a subject, the more definitive and emphatic their statements are about it.

I am glad you realize you haven't a clue. Good for you!!!

homer you really really stepped into that one. If there was any one thing i would attribute to you, it would be making emphatic statements about subjects and people you demonstrably know absolutely nothing about.

For example?

(Just one will do.)

[icanthearyou 4,462]

(If that Yup was a link, it's not working. It took me to wikipedia for an error message. )

It's my danged iPad. Somehow formatting of links has been getting thrown off lately. I've caught it twice in the last few days but missed it here.

Corrected link

I am growing weary of the use of the old,,,,,,,,,,iPad excuse.

It's amusing to note that for many people, the less they know about a subject, the more definitive and emphatic their statements are about it.

I am glad you realize you haven't a clue. Good for you!!!

homer you really really stepped into that one. If there was any one thing i would attribute to you, it would be making emphatic statements about subjects and people you demonstrably know absolutely nothing about.

UNBELIEVABLE!

Homer, stop sending me those crazy PMs that cite your "superior" education and, demand that I agree with you! Especially stop sending me the really nutty, profanity laced ones that follow my, "I respectfully disagree" replies.

Thank goodness DKW recognizes you for who you really are. :-\

[AUDub 11,147]

(If that Yup was a link, it's not working. It took me to wikipedia for an error message. )

It's my danged iPad. Somehow formatting of links has been getting thrown off lately. I've caught it twice in the last few days but missed it here.

Corrected link

I am growing weary of the use of the old,,,,,,,,,,iPad excuse.

Whoa. Check it out. If you follow the link in the post you quoted (post 40), it links fine, but the one in your quote (post 44) is now wrecked. How weird is that?

[DKW 86 7,419]

I am not going to into a rehash of the multiple misquotes, altered posts, etc by posters on this board.

Letting it go, letting it go...Not going down that road again.

Water under the bridge. moving on.

[WarTim 3,456]

It's amusing to note that for many people, the less they know about a subject, the more definitive and emphatic their statements are about it.

I am glad you realize you haven't a clue. Good for you!!!

homer you really really stepped into that one. If there was any one thing i would attribute to you, it would be making emphatic statements about subjects and people you demonstrably know absolutely nothing about.

This made me smile....and then laugh out loud!!!.......

[icanthearyou 4,462]

(If that Yup was a link, it's not working. It took me to wikipedia for an error message. )

It's my danged iPad. Somehow formatting of links has been getting thrown off lately. I've caught it twice in the last few days but missed it here.

Corrected link

I am growing weary of the use of the old,,,,,,,,,,iPad excuse.

Whoa. Check it out. If you follow the link in the post you quoted (post 40), it links fine, but the one in your quote (post 44) is now wrecked. How weird is that?

What can I say? That stupid iPad has done it again!