The importance of peer review

[finlarg]

Thanks for expressing so clearly WHY peer review is so important. The guy who posted the video response to this doesn't get it at all!

[TheReboundingWorld]

The wonders of peer-review & consensus medicine & mercantilism/corporatism have enriched the U.S. w/: 95,000 deaths annually fr. easily-prevented-hospital-born­e staph infections, central-bank-printed counterfeit currency, the Dalkon Shield, mercury-preserved serums, chem-trails (aerial obscuration), the irradiation of the Arab World via depleted uranium, the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children under the "oil for food program," automobile air bags and the Americans with Disabilities' Act.

[NUTCASE71733]

@TheReboundingWorld

You can't be fucking serious...

[TheReboundingWorld]

Do your tattoos express your personality, or what?

[NUTCASE71733]

@TheReboundingWorld

What does that have to do with anything? I was asking are you really serious tht peer review is some kind of evil conspiracy? If you seriously think that, you need to have your head examined.

[Pendu068]

@NUTCASE71733 Qualified creation scientists would generally not view the peer process as an evil conspiracy. The reality is though, that for anything to get past the existing peer process all observations must fit the prevailing 'old earth' paradigm. The belief system and assumptive case of 'big bang' to man evolution over eons of time, is so strongly entrenched it is no longer questioned. It is assumed as ‘fact’ even in the face of compelling scientific evidence proving otherwise.

[NUTCASE71733]

@Pendu068

"Qualified creation scientists "

You lose automatically, but I'll continue dissecting this tripe anyway.

" The reality is though, that for anything to get past the existing peer process all observations must fit the prevailing 'old earth' paradigm."

That's because the evidence points to that, sonny. No evidence of any global flood in one strata or a fossil deposit of all known species found within said layer.

[NUTCASE71733]

@Pendu068

"The belief system and assumptive case of 'big bang' to man evolution over eons of time, is so strongly entrenched it is no longer questioned. It is assumed as ‘fact’ even in the face of compelling scientific evidence proving otherwise."

The big bang has nothing to do with evolution, but it is accepted because we see many varying pieces of evidence that helps support the idea of an old universe from microwave background radiation, the constant speed of light, and other things.

[NUTCASE71733]

@Pendu068

this is all easilly found and available to see for yourself. The internet was invented as a free information exchange system.

[Cougar139tweak]

The Bible was peer reviewed - Council of Nicea.......Guess that makes it fact hey :) Jet fuel doesn't support molten metal.

[WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU]

I have to go and I am leaving town for the week . I will check on your post when I return .

Dont be dumb Its a sin

If you repeat the same ignorant anti theist bull crap i will make you look dumber than I did when you wanted peer review for GOD . 

[tranquility4all]

@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU You continue to look like a Brain Dead Willfully Ignorant Bat Shit Crazy theist.

Stop being a Coward & present Verifiable Evidence to support Your positive claim that a god exists.

All You're doing is making Unsupported Claims.

Either attempt to present evidence or admit You don't have any.

Either Put Up or Shut Up & Go Away !

[tranquility4all]

@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU You're the one who is IGNORANT & STUPID.

Until You attempt to present evidence You will continue to look like a an Irrational theist who bases his beliefs on Bronze Age Claims made by a few religious zealots.

Religion was designed by some people as means to control many people.

You have been INDOCTRINATED & accept unsupported claims which don't have any evidence to validate them.

Keep Your head up Your ASS & search for Your comatose Brain !

[WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU]

@tranquility4all

Well then by your own standards show me the scientific evidence that states that science could detect a transcendent being .

Show me the scientific evidence that states that science is the be akll tell all like you propose .

[tranquility4all]

@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU Didn't You say You were leaving for a Week ?

Apparently Time is a concept You don't understand.

You're supposed to present evidence to support Your claim.

So far You haven't.

I stated the Scientific Process is the best method We have for EXPLAINING Natural Phenomena.

Do You know a better method ?

Stop making claims & attempt to present Evidence to support Your claims.

Either You're too STUPID to understand this request or You don't have any evidence to present !

[WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU]

@tranquility4all

Plz provide the peer review that states that the scientific method is the only way to discover all there is . Plz provide a statement by the national academy that backs your idiotic statement .\

Since your own standards proves you could not conclude what you have then i am safe to declare that I win and I am much smarter than you.

IDIOT

[tranquility4all]

@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU I stated the Scientific Method is the BEST METHOD not the only method.

In addition to being an Idiot it appears You don't know how to read.

Your refusal to present verifiable evidence to support Your claim confirms

You have nothing to offer except Your Willful Ignorance & Pig Headed Stupidity.

Don't bother replying I've wasted enough time with You.

4Q & GET LOST ASS HOLE !

[JAMRAND]

@tranquility4all

"I stated the Scientific Method is the Best Method "

Yes we know, thats why we all laughed at you .

To give a naturalistic explanation is the best way to discover supernatural phenomena .

Whowastalking is right . You are a funny little man

[tranquility4all]

@JAMRAND If You believe in the existence of a Supernatural being without ANY verifiable evidence then You're willfully Ignorant person who bases her/his belief on NOTHING.

I asked her/him to Define god & present evidence.

If You believe a god exists then I will ask You to do the same.

Evidence supports claims. If Your belief is based faith, scripture & personal revelation then You're a STUPID person who does not know what is required for claims to be accepted !

[JAMRAND]

@tranquility4all

I can read what you and he/she said .

You cannot dictate what evidence and the way it is presented to decide if a God exist .

You are trying to build a strawman so you can debunk it.

If God is God then your opinion isnt significant .

Do you believe nature had a pathway to the hubble ?

[tranquility4all]

@JAMRAND I said a god may or may not exist.

Until sufficient evidence supports the claim I will choose not to believe.

What am I suppose to rely on to prove claims that a god exists ?

A god's existence has never been proven & for U 2 suggest evidence isn't required is an Argument from Ignorance !

I don't know what caused the Universe to come into existence.

But I will not accept an unproven supernatural creator as the cause.

That is an attempt to explain 1 mystery with another mystery.

[tranquility4all]

@JAMRAND Evidence is required to support ALL claims.

For You to suggest Evidence is not required for supernatural claims is nothing more than a case for Special Pleading.

In fact supernatural claims such as the existence of a god should require a higher standard of evidence because It's a Monumental claim.

[JAMRAND]

@tranquility4all

I apologize for not being clearer . What I am trying to say is that you cannot say .

If There was a God he would do XXXXXX Or he would do that XXXXXX.

That is what most atheist do when they create their strawman God.

There is plenty of evidence for God . You not being present at the time of supernatural phenomena or your lack of interest to search for evidence for the argument for God doesnt allow you to make a conclusion .

[tranquility4all]

@JAMRAND Atheists don't create a strawman god.

Theists claim to know there is a god & when asked to present evidence most theists state there is plenty of evidence of a god without presenting any.

Just saying there is evidence is not presenting evidence.

Instead of stating there's evidence You should present evidence !

[JAMRAND]

@tranquility4all

There are millions of cases for miracles , NDEs , There isnt a plausible reason Israel won the war of 1946 . If you desire to find out the truth it is you who must search . You cant count on me to do it for you .

I bet you were not aware that the shroud of turins carbon dating was proved to be wrong and that all textile historians dated it to first century palestine .

I bet you think that the image can be reproduced .

not a proof but evidence for the argument .

[tranquility4all]

@JAMRAND Are You suggesting NDE or Israel's victory in 1946 is evidence to support the existence of a god ?

Medical Science saves People's lives NOT Your delusion of miracles.

Scientific Theories are the Best Explanation we have for Natural Phenomena. They're arrived thru the Scientific Process & continually tested. What methodology supports religious claims ?

The Theory of Evolution is supported with facts & continual testing.

Creationism is supported with blind faith & willful ignorance.

[JAMRAND]

@tranquility4all

Most atheist when asking for evidence actually mean a proof .

Evidence for an argument is all we could possibly have of a supernatural being.

there is no evidence of evolution (Grand scheme) there is only evidence for its argument ..

oral tradition states that there is a God or Gods .

Just because you call them a liar or not as enlightened as yourself does not destroy their testimony for it may be you who is the liar and the indoctrinated .

evidence

[tranquility4all]

@JAMRAND I'm not asking You to prove a god exists.

I'm asking You to define god & present verifiable evidence (NOT scripture or personal revelation) which supports her/his existence.

Oral tradition is not verifiable evidence.

We have oral tradition which states the Loch Ness Monster & Big Foot exists.

Should WSe accept their existence based on Oral Evidence ?

If You think The Theory of Evolution is a scheme then I believe You're an Irrational religious zealot .

[tranquility4all]

@JAMRAND Don't bother replying because I've wasted enough time with You.

You're an indoctrinated Irrational zealot who dismisses Scientific Theories as schemes & accept religious dogma.

Wake Up & Get Real !

[JAMRAND]

@tranquility4all

Your persisitent lack of understanding that the scientific method is not the proper tool to be used with such a question as a transcendental being is quite upsetting especially since you pretend an intellectual superiority .

The scientific method and community as a whole both claim that your proposal that it could detect a God is foolishness. Since the method and spokesman NAS's disagree with you lets just conclude it is you who is the zealot, indoctrinated with anti-theism

[JAMRAND]

@JAMRAND

While evolutinary theory has evidences for its argument they do not have evidence of (GRAND SCHEME) I am merely pointing out your ill framed argument ( There is no evidence for God ) . Of course there is .

Tons of it .

You not understanding this basic framework for forming a firmly persuaded pro theistic position eludes to the fact that the argument was positioned in a way that you would naturally come to the wrong conclusion (PURPOSELY)

You were indoctrinated

[WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU]

@tranquility4all

HAHAHAHA what part of accumulated evidence points to a creator dont you get .

Do you think just because you can imagine a scenario which backs your bias this actually means you debunked reality.Science doesnt address the question so quit being an idiot by imposing your indoctrination on the poor scientist who hate you riding on their wagon..

LOL

[tranquility4all]

@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU Facts & the Scientific Process supports my position.

Your position is supported with blind faith & willful ignorance. I suggest You resume Your vacation & search for Your Comatose Brain.

Don't bother replying because I don't waste my time with an Moron whose head is buried deep in her or his ASS !

4Q !

[WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU]

@tranquility4all

The scientific process doesnt address nor do they claim to address the question.

You continual spouting that they do is the same as yelling nananana boo boo while holding your finger tips in your ears .

Science doesnt address the question . You stating that they do is mere fantasy on your part .

The National Academy calls you dumb for thinking it can answer the question of God .

Science is against you so get off their wagon idiot

[tranquility4all]

@JAMRAND Are You suggesting a god existence has been proven ?

Rational people laugh at irrational theists who worship a god whose existence has not been proven with evidence.

Don't avoid attempting to present evidence.

If You can't present evidence to support the claim that a god exists then don't bother replying.

I've read enough fiction for today.

[UnratedScience]

why is the caller so slow...i feel so bad for him...shut up...stop making an ass out of yourself !!!

[DragonGreenFire]

Can you provide a link to a site were I might be able to find peer reveiwed articles?

[seeqer66]

@DragonGreenFire sciencemag doott organization

[WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU]

WHOisTALKINGtoYOU ????? you dumbass

hahahahahahahah idiot exposed

stop and pretend you have an IQ imbecile

[Acorafication]

@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU Uh, before you try to act intelligent, I would like to point out that EVERYONE has an IQ. Some people just have higher IQs.

[WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU]

@Acorafication and you concluded that was worth mentioning.

[Acorafication]

@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU Yes, because you told him to pretend that he had an IQ. This made no sense, and therefore you're merely making yourself look unintelligible.

[WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU]

@Acorafication

has it ever occured to you that there are some who no longer have IQ's .

Still breating with no brain function .

That would make my statement valid and yours completely stupid .

Hows that sponge bob

yes you are stupid with a limted IQ. . dumber than a bucket of shrimp comes to mind

[Acorafication]

@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU Except that statement doesn't work here. People with no brain function would not be able to type, or even breath without the assistance of medical machinery. Therefore, your statement is not valid, and mine is not completely stupid.

Also, simply calling me stupid, or dumber then a bunch of shrimp, as you so eloquently put it, does not prove your point correctly. Quiet the contrary, actually.

[WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU]

@Acorafication shrimp I said boy

SHRIMP "dumber then a bunch of shrimp" than not then

hows that for eloquence spongeBOb

[Acorafication]

@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU Yes, your typing skills are the very definition of eloquence. With your lack of correct capitalization, your incorrect punctuation, and your general lack of a fluent vocabulary. Oh wait.

[WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU]

@Acorafication

Dumber than a bucket of shrimp. The difference between you and I is, you are attempting to portray an intellectual persona . I am merely mocking your attempts .

hahahahahah shrimp hahahahahah

[4me2cclearly]

@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU

Don’t you know that juicing will shrivel you penis? Here is an idea, try working out that muscle between your ears.

What argument are you trying to make here? It is clear, that forming rational thoughts into words is difficult for you.

Name calling?

Really? That is the best you can do here?

Shame you are so inept that you can’t even see how you hinder your own position of ignorance.

[WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU]

@4me2cclearly

Idiot you are out of your league. Let me help you out so you dont have to walk around an imbecile your entire life .

Not only would science be the last to know if a God exist but it could never know .

EVER. Then you ask for peer review . LOL

Hows that for an argument SpongeBob .

Retard !!!!!!

[4me2cclearly]

@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU

Religious apologists can never win. Belief in something without sufficient evidence is non-logical. They always wind up having to try to convince rational minded people they must prove the nonexistence of god. Well, it's impossible to prove a negative, and the apologists know this. That's why in all logical systems it's up to the proponents of a theory to prove it true, not posit it and expect everyone else to prove it false. SpongeBob? That really stuck it to me. lmao

[WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU]

@4me2cclearly

Idiot the evidence for the argument that he exist is overwheming .

asking science to search for it is like asking a one armed woman to fight Tyson .

It would not matter if I levitatted in front of the NAS's every thursday it would not be considered a miracle . There is nothing that could possibly happen that would be considered a miracle .

So you ask for evidence you retard ??

Your prepared response does not address my position.

WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING!!!

[tranquility4all]

@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU Please present the Overwhelming evidence (NOT scripture or personal revelation) which supports the Argument that a god exists.

[WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU]

@tranquility4all Israel . Israels defeat of its enemies . The bible existing Prophecies that cannot be explained away . Rationally Oral tradition God being desribed as transcendent. We know that eternity in the past is impossible A beginning to this space and time There is no observation of something coming from nothing . God being desribed as eternal who created matter space and time . Thats who he would have to be . Love being the greatest treasure . The fine tuning

[tranquility4all]

@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU Now You to present verifiable evidence to support scripture. Do You believe scripture is supported the Way Scientific Theories afre supported ?

WAKE UP !

[WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU]

@tranquility4all

hhahahahah To not use scripture and personal experience is retarded .

The collected text of encounters with God cannot be used neither can mine LOL

Your personal experience cannot be used in this argument. Neither can material you have obtained from a text . Do you feel like your hands are now tied .

You atheist are not exactly the sharpest blade in the drawer .

[tranquility4all]

@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU Scientific Theories are supported by the Scientific Process which gathers Facts & continually tests them to construct the Best Explanation We have for Natural Phenomena. They're submitted for Peer review which either confirms or rejects them. Religious claims are supported with the collective blind faith & willful ignorance of zealots who reject the Scientific Process or are too stupid to understand it.

creationists like U need to remove their heads from their ASS !

[WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU]

@tranquility4all

You dumb little turd . the scientific method demands a naturalistic explanation for what we observe . If God were to slap you in the face every morning the method would demand a naturalistic explanation for your bruising . So you see einstein the method is blind . Science would not only be the last to know if God exist but it would never know .

And your dumb ass thought you were teaching me something LOL

Peer review for God hahahahahahah You have to be an idiot .

[tranquility4all]

@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU Your cocksure belief that a god exists is NOT supported with Proof.

Define god & present Verifiable Evidence (NOT scripture or personal revelation) to support Your belief that a god exists.

Scientific Theories are supported with Facts & can be demonstrated for All to observe, religious beliefs are not supported with evidence & can't be demonstrated.

Science Explains, religion Indoctrinates !

Your Abundance of Willful Ignorance complements Your Excess of Stupidity !

[tranquility4all]

@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU You need to learn How to engage in Critical Thinking & Question claims before accepting them.

You accept the claim that a god exists because It's easier for a Moron like You to believe instead of Questioning.

The Scientific Process is the best method We have to determine Truth from fiction.

religious beliefs require faith. Faith is accepting something is true when there isn't any Verifiable Evidence to support it.

Wake Up ASS HOLE.

SCIENCE triumphs scripture !

[WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU]

@tranquility4all

You have no idea what evidence for the argument has convinced me that the Christian God exist . Claiming you do is simply imbecilic .

Science by its own tennants admits it would be blind to God . You repeating it can then shouting nanananan boo boo is cute but I must remain honest .

You are dumber than a bucket of rocks and it never occured to you that science and therefore peer review is irrelevant when it comes to God .

Stop and think before you repeat rhetoric

[tranquility4all]

@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU You're correct I have no idea of the evidence You claim to have. That's Why I asked You to Define god & present Your evidence.

You're retarded to think people should believe a god exists because of scripture or Your personal revelation.

You need to learn about what is required for claims to be accepted & You need to learn how to form a RATIONAL Argument.

You're a Stupid Brain Dead religious Moron who who chooses to remain Willfully Ignorant.

Get Your head out of Your Ass !

[WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU]

@tranquility4all

I listed some examples of evidence for the argument , You then posited that it would require scientific analysis . I then informed you that science remains blind to God .

It could never discover God . Ever . Even if you think it could .

The national academy has stated that we can learn about the world around us through art , philosophy and yes religiouis experience .

no matter how many times you shout nananana boo boo. The fact remains even if you are unaware

[tranquility4all]

@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU We learn from many sources.

What we choose to accept is up to individual choice.

We also learn from Science.

Are You suggesting religious claims are supported with the amount of evidence as Scientific Theories ?

Science doesn't try to prove. It Explains.

Scientists collect data, continually tests it to construct a Hypothesis in order to explain.

Peer Review determines its' validity.

[WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU]

@tranquility4all I am well aware of what science can and cannot do . It is you who does not understand that asking for peer review for an entity outside our space and time is STUPID

I understand its value and limitations..

You pretending to explain its attributes and techniques is another cute little atheist trick .

[tranquility4all]

@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU You have not presented ANY Evidence.

It's a theists trick to run & hide when asked to present evidence to support their belief.

[WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU]

@tranquility4all

OK why do 75% of MD's believe that medical miracles are happening daily .

[tranquility4all]

@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU Care to provide Documentation to support the claim that 75 % of M.D.'s believe in miracles.

Advances in Medical Science help people recover from Illness & Injuries NOT prayer & faith !

GET REAL !

[WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU]

@tranquility4all

The only thing that science can determine is its capability of discovering God .

Science proves it could never even look for nor discover God .

It may take time for you to realize that the argument that convinced you there isnt a God is an ill formed argument . It only works on the dumb people . Case in point . YOU

[tranquility4all]

@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU An argument didn't convince me that a god may or may not exist. A lack of verifiable evidence convinced me to question & reject the claim.

You still have not presented any verifiable evidence to support your claim that a god exists. Scripture & personal revelation are not demonstrable & are not accepted as verifiable evidence. Get that through Your thick skull !

Evidence supports claims.

Faith convinces Brain Dead Willfully Ignorant people like YOU that a god exists !

[WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU]

@tranquility4all

I asked you 3 simple questions .

They were meant to discover if you do have knowledge of the argument or you simply want to remain ignorant ( Willfully ignorant ) .

I bet you dont have any knowledge of the arguments for God other than what your catholic priest told you . LOL

because you refuse to search you become a pain in the butt for all of us who have .

[tranquility4all]

@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU Then Why don't You present Verifiable Evidence to support Your Claim.

Calling me a Pain in the Butt is nothing more than a feeble attempt to avoid presenting Evidence to support your claim !

[tranquility4all]

@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU Scientific Peer Review is the best method We have to determine if claims are valid.

What methodology validates that a god exists ?

If You want to be honest You should admit You don't know a god exists & You don't have any verifiable evidence to support your claim.

Faith & personal revelation are Irrelevant because they can't be demonstrated & therefore are not accepted as evidence.

[WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU]

@tranquility4all

There is a method where upon a person can become firmly persuaded (Faith)

That the christian God does exist .

It is a path that your arrogance has detracted you from taking.

example

What biblical prophecy seems to have been accurate ?

Why doesnt West point study the wars of israel?

Why do 75% of medical Doctors believe that medical miracles are happening daily ?

Learn to recognize cynicism in skepticisms clothing

[4me2cclearly]

To show that if it does not impact our existence at all and it cannot be observed in any controlled setting (which most theists will proudly claim of their gods) then it is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist.

Just because you can't disprove the existence of ghosts, aliens, or Bigfoot doesn't mean they exist. Until adequate evidence is provided, the logical position to take is one of disbelief.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

[jimbrown257]

HERE IS THE MESSAGE JARMAND ERASED (on this date). IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE FROM HIS WHOisTALKINGtoYOU ACCOUNT:

"no other evidence presented"

I dont need any other evidence idiot .

he didnt say it, you pretended he did and bitches like you thought it was a great comment which eludes to the fact you and them are imbeciles .

hows that for a science lesson bitch

[jimbrown257]

@jimbrown257

Cont:

Look how he talks about his other account in the third person. Notice how tough he is with this account: "Hows that for a science lesson bitch."

That is just the dumbest, most hypocritical, pathetic thing I have seen in a long time.

Are you proud of yourself JARMAND? Is this how Jesus wanted you to act?

[jimbrown257]

@jimbrown257

Cont:

In the above message, everything below the Capitalized first three lines is JARMAND/WHOisTALKINGtoYOU's message that he (they, lol) erased.

[JAMRAND]

Hows that for a science lesson bitch ?

Let me teach you about science you little queer .

Is this JAMRAND or not ?????

Prove it with your method you little piss ant .

Is this jamrand or do I know his password ?

You tell me fuck wit

[jimbrown257]

@JAMRAND

You are so stupid and pathetic it's actually kind of sad.

[WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU]

@jimbrown257

Oh dont be sad . I didnt know the rules . Lets see its ok for you to create strawmen but I shouldnt burn them and you will never admit to them .

If I use profanity you are intolerant and call them an ad hominem and my doing so is against the rules .

Are there any other rules that exist in the atheist handbook of bullshit that I am unaware of .

You're sad a christian uses profanity. hahahahaha Kinda Ironic isnt it .

Think about it turd.

[JAMRAND]

@jimbrown257

It isnt me. It is a demented Room mate . Dont feed the troll LOL

[JAMRAND]

yes yes thats intelligent .

You atheists are unbelievable .

science is the attempt to naturalistic explain what we observe and you take it that creation proponents need to have peer reviewed articles showing God did it .

hahahahahahah You are not serious , You cant be .

Science would not even be the last to know if God exist it would never know .

If you have a reply ,,, DONT .......... you will embarass yourself .

[jimbrown257]

@JAMRAND

"If you have a reply ,,, DONT .......... you will embarass yourself . "

...Like you just embarrassed yourself by mixing up your accounts.

Before you go around talking sh!t about atheists, you should make sure you are not a pathetic lying little weasel.

[jimbrown257]

@JAMRAND

And I love how you used your second account "WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU" to act like a tough guy and say I should get "Slapped for arguing like a bitch."

Really, what I did was bitch-like? I would have to say the quintessential example of "arguing like a bitch" would be using a second account and acting like you are two different people.

Anytime I ever hear a fundie talk about atheist immorality I am going to think of this thread so I can be assured what utter hypocrites they are.

[mhatlie]

Just as important as peer review is the fact of publication in a journal that gets looked at by people in the field. That exposes it to scrutiny by a much wider range of people and becomes part of the _permanent_ record which other people can cite. It can't be changed, only built upon or refuted. It becomes part of the discourse long term, with the authors, publishers and anyone who cites it invested in it. Websites almost never have these controls: stability, authorship, citability, etc.

[jimbrown257]

Jamrand, can you cite a single secular source that claims the Earth is roughly 6000 years old, or even less than 1 billion?

Can you cite a single secular source that says evolution does not happen?

[JAMRAND]

@jimbrown257

I never said the earth was 6000 years old nor did I pretend change over time does not happen .

So why would 14 people think you deserved a thumbs up .

You guys are really becoming a cult

[jimbrown257]

@JAMRAND

Do you even know the definition of a cult? The reason people gave me thumbs up is that they agreed with what I said; there's no big Darwinist conspiracy.

[WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU]

@jimbrown257

You"re a dumb ass.

Jamrand never said the earth was 6000 years old neither did he say there was a darwinist conspiracy so wtf ARE YOU TALIKING ABOUT .

YOU NEED TO BE SLAPPED FOR ARGUING LIKE A PUNK.

The reason they gave you a thumbs up is because they are a bunch of bitches like you . If they were not a bunch of idiots they would have seen that JAMRAND never said what you pretend he did .

Ass hole

[jimbrown257]

@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU

Wow, that's a pretty solid argument you've presented:

1) You say I argue like a punk and should be slapped.

and

2) People agree with me because they are idiots and bitches and (no other evidence presented).

You have what it takes to be a true fundie.

[jimbrown257]

@JAMRAND

You are truly pathetic. You erased your last comment made under your "JARMAND" account when you realized it was your "WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU" account you were supposed to use to reply. But it didn't get erased from my inbox so I saw what it actually said.

[jimbrown257]

@JAMRAND

TO ANYONE READING THIS:

What this JARMAND clown is doing is using two accounts (JARMAND and WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU) so it looks like someone is on his side. That is just truly patheitc and one of the lowest things I have ever seen, even on an internet board! And you have been insulting atheist!!

I have the proof because the message he deleted when he realized his mistake is in my inbox.

Unbelievable. Hey JARMAND: lying for Jesus is still lying!

[WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU]

@jimbrown257

Change over time doesnt happen . Cute trick but tricks are for kids.

Can you prove that the grand scheme you are trying to equate with change over time did happen . No of course not . You're a dumbass

JAMRAND doesnt believe the earth is 6000 years old so your pretending he posted that is called a fucking strawman you puke.

You actually got 16 thumbsup for creating a strawman argument. And you dont care . Neither do I, So piss off you little dweeb

[Theronguardaaah]

Well maybe we don't understand them.

Maybe if someone figures it out we will know.

If you know someone who has tell me. I am trying also.

It is a real phenomena but it is explainable.

But sure as hell hard to prove, it doesn't matter if you believe. They won't send you to hell for not knowing how to use them or if they exist that's what a frustrated mechanic does with a wrench when he fails to use it right then blames the wrench.

I would hire a new mechanic.

[JAMRAND]

The scientific method demands a natural expanation therefore.

You cannot use the laws of probability for a past event.

You cannot trust reason

You cannot trust personal experience.

That would make someone an imbecile.

the laws of probability are always used for past events.

It isnt probable that we would have all the documentation that George washington was our president, if he wasnt.

Thats why we believe it.

atheist continue to define how to think because their position is weak

[SOAS007]

"The scientific method demands a natural expanation therefore"

where as faith claims to KNOW the 'super' natural.!

[JAMRAND]

@soas007

" where as faith claims to KNOW the "super" natural ! "

Yes we do , We base our faith on the evidence for the argument.

[SOAS007]

"We base our faith on the evidence "

there has never been any 'evidence'.

[JAMRAND]

@ Soa

'There has never been any evidence"

There are volumes of evidence for the argument of a creator, Since you have believed anti theist propaganda that was meant to fool the less gifted i can safely assume you do not qualify to be in this discussion.

There is more evidence for the argument of creator than there is evidence for the argument of the darwinain hypothesis.

If you were intelligent you would know this.

Be gone little one

[SOAS007]

"There are volumes of evidence for the argument of a creator,"

in the same way there is evidence for the arguments that the earth is flat and the son orbits the earth.

There is no evidence for a creator , hence faith is required. There is evidence that mankind invents supernatural explanations when he cannot find a real natural one.

[jimbrown257]

@SOAS007

Hey, you have to come to this message board and see what this JARMAND clown, the guy who was bashing atheists, just did. It is just a classic case of lying for Jesus gone wrong and getting busted. He used a fake account so there could be someone agreeing with him but he mixed them up. After all the sh!t he was talking about atheists being pathetic and stupid it was just too funny. Some of the best fundie stupidity I have seen in a while.

[SOAS007]

"then there is evidence for the argument of the darwinain hypothesis.

"

All biology fits evolution. Evolution by domestic selection is a fact and demonstratable. Natural selection has now been seen also. Perhaps you need to read a book on it and then see it with you own eyes.

The distribution of animals is explained by evolution too. No mamals native to N Zealand, penquins all at the S Pole etc.

If you study animals you can see the inherited defects too. Its all there to see and study

[SOAS007]

"the laws of probability are always used for past events"

no good for future though or you would be a rich man.!

[justforflag2]

"the laws of probability are always used for past events."

-

Hey look! I won the lottery!

*your response*

You couldn't have gotten the money (which you now hold on your hand as a cheque) from the lottery because it is extremely improbable!

[JAMRAND]

@justforflag2

Oh Boy an atheist who still thinks a winning lottery ticket is equivalent to creation.

Since there were more tickets sold than the odds, a winner is guaranteed .

You atheists are not very bright

If there is a 1 in a million chanceof winning but you sell 20 million tickets then improbable becomes probable.

Hope this helps you see more clearly

[justforflag2]

That's not what I said and you know it.

[jimbrown257]

@justforflag2

You have to come to this message board and see what this JARMAND clown, the guy who was bashing atheists (he called you "not very bright"), just did. It is just a classic case of lying for Jesus gone wrong and getting busted. He used a fake account so there could be someone agreeing with him but he mixed them up. After all the sh!t he was talking about atheists being pathetic and stupid it was just too funny. Some of the best fundie stupidity I have seen in a while

[ambphysis]

brilliant explanation

[Theronguardaaah]

Um accept jesus? Then you feel better dude.

Or challenge what people say and deal with reality on its terms.

Jesus explains the parables and says people shouldn't know the secret to the kingdom of god lest they turn and be forgiven, that sounds like jesus being not so honest about himself. I am the truth the light and the way no one gets to the father but by me. or that secret, Daemon he is in hell for ever for lying to all of us, deceit at best.

[DrSchadenfreude]

out of interest: what are the chances that peer-review could be prejudiced against an idea without looking honestly at its reasoning? for instance an article or study thrown out on the premise that itis ridiculous, before being read e.t.c

[Macrochenia]

Possible, but remote. Typically, if you can put together a very strong, coherent article with plenty of evidence to back up your statements, it'll be peer-reviewed.

[AHPMB]

In some sense peer review is biased towards existing archetypal models. It takes a great deal of acumen and demonstrable testing to overturn an existing scientific theoretical model. However, as has been repeatedly demonstrated, these archetypes will change in the face of compelling, testable evidence. Hence the term, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."  So if you want to overturn the theory of gravity, you'd better have some damn compelling research.

[Havenfall]

The poor caller seemed like he was going to cry.

[ReductioAdAbsurdum]

I love these guys, but they often do a terrible job of explaining their position to callers (which often leads to the frustrated disconnects). Harping on about how it's required without saying WHY it's required, does nothing.

The process exists because PEOPLE ARE EASILY FOOLED, even the brightest and most well-trained scientists. Doing good since is HARD. Peer review doesn't automatically validate an claim, but it ensure that the claim is presented with a baseline of rigor.

[ReductioAdAbsurdum]

"a journal is not going to approve any of the numerous dissenting voice pertaining to 911"

Name a single documented example of a dissenting article published for peer review that was groundlessly rejected. Who was the scientist, to which journal did he submit for publication, and where can I review the rejected paper?

"Anyone who knows physics can tell you"

Clearly "anyone" doesn't include the publishing scientists who unanimously disagree with you.

[ReductioAdAbsurdum]

"There is no way to get building 7 to collapse the way it did without complete cataclysmic failure to produce a free falling symmetric collapse"

Oh, one thing I forgot in my previous response: if you can support this claim, why haven't YOU published? Are you saying you submitted a research article that was rejected for political reasons? Where is it?

Given that you claim to be a skeptic, I'm sure you'll understand why I don't accept hearsay.

[jrersinghaus]

wow!!!! wowowowow! been gone a while, i come back to this huge filtration campaign. I am really quite tired of the lack of explanation. See when i went and read the "peer reviewed" article on this subject. Or at least the one at the time, the one saved on my desktop, there didn't seem to be any additional insight, just more "speculation" forgive me for being stuck in the Iraqi desert transporting our wounded back but could you point out these empirical 911 truth breakers you speak of!?!?

[ReductioAdAbsurdum]

"See when i went and read the 'peer reviewed' article on this subject. Or at least the one at the time, the one saved on my desktop"

The fact that you put "peer review' in quotes, that you only know of one, and that you somehow found it on your desktop, pretty clearly demonstrates that you don't know what a peer reviewed science journal is.

[jrersinghaus]

wow really!??! this almost sounds like an affirming the consequent. Dude i saved the peer review article to my desktop this was a while ago, before i went to iraq. The reason i put peer review in quotes is because in all the peer review articles i have read (oh and i know you think im an idiot because i dont agree with you but i actually use many peer review articles in health care) this one seems to have been politically influence. now i cant get on youtube very often so please...email me

[Theronguardaaah]

If its on the net couldn't you save it?

I probably don't know tell me.

[ReductioAdAbsurdum]

"If its on the net couldn't you save it?"

Save what?

[AshillaBeige]

Ugh.... if you see the whole vid...

This guy's a Truther and an atheist.

[ATL45]

do people really not see how argument from authority fails?

ideas are valid once everyone who wants to has had the opportunity to rip that idea apart. when they look at it and say "i can't find a problem," THEN it has weight.

it wouldn't matter if stephen hawking made the claim. if he doesn't get it published and reviewed, it's not part of acceptable knowledge.

[LotusGreenX]

"it wouldn't matter if stephen hawking made the claim. if he doesn't get it published and reviewed, it's not part of acceptable knowledge."

And a minority of scientists have the opportunity to find mistakes in the evidence for evolution and point them out. Many times there is faulty evidence for evolution found by evolutionary biologists who would love for the evidence to be legitamite. That is why this process suceeds and the evidence for evolution isn't made up.

[YulieAna]

"Many times there is faulty evidence for evolution found by evolutionary biologists"

There is no "faulty" evidence for the FACT of evolution, but many scientists debate on the PROCESS of evolution. The FACT of evolution is not disputed because it was already observed and tested.

[LotusGreenX]

I know the distinction. I don't feel the need to point it out. It's not like they have been trying to prove evolution since 100 years ago. I'm not sure why I said many times, but sometimes would be better.

[LotusGreenX]

Good point you made there.

[Nietzsche68]

It is interesting when religious people call this show, they always get OWNED. One guy called and didn't even know the difference between an hypothesis and a theory. The religious people that call this show are DUMB!!!

[ReductioAdAbsurdum]

"religious people that call this show are DUMB!!!"

Many ARE dumb, but most are simply ignorant. They don't understand science or how it works, and that tend to have a profound lack critical thinking skills (i.e. bullshit detection kits), which is why they believe their bullshit to begin with.

It's important to understand the distinction, because the stupidity is not curable, but ignorance is.

The hosts need to try harder to relate to the caller's perspective so they can help them correct it.

[UnderlordZ]

@Nietzsche68 What else do you expect in the heart of Texas?

[Nietzsche68]

If it's not peer-reviewed, do not bother with the article!

[ClunkityClunk4Truth]

Peer-review is witchcraft!

[ssnatcherss]

scientific method for the win!

[winterstellar]

All creationists are very ignorant. Evolution is both proven, observed and even being used in practice now. To not know this, you have to be quite ignorant of science. :)

[biscoito1r]

are all creationists that stupid ?

I've seen them saying so much non-sense

[NJRJC]

"I'm a priest - therefore everything I say is true!" Religious people's stupidity never ceases to amaze me.

[Hopeful71]

I understood all this by about 4th grade; how are adults getting through our public school system and not understanding this very basic function by which we derive our knowledge?

[michtyme3]

This video deserves much wider attention. It perfectly describes the reason why those who make fantastic claims but run away from peer review* deserve such derision.

*ie religion, "truthers"

[madman0000004]

Now all the fucking theists know what we go through when watching Hannity and Colms!!!

[lanceawatt]

Matt is a Badass. Much respect :D

[talkingmonkeee]

Where can I find entire episodes of this show

[adeadlysniper]

Google video

[F1NGER]

Was the caller a 9/11 conspiracy nut? I've got to watch the whole episode.

[altargirl89]

^_^ matt is so awesome