Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::Young Cosmos

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,15:46

Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 03 2008,15:07)

Quote

Are atheists immoral people and bad parents? Incest, Eugenics, and Nachman’s U-Paradox…

I wonder.

Ha! That's great!

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

Assassinator

Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,15:48

Do still NOT understand why Sal's point is complete and utter nonsense?

carlsonjok

Posts: 3326
Joined: May 2006

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,15:52

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,15:45)

You people are constantly saying that no one from our side defends themselves because they are undefendable. So, here I am, and here I'll stay.

Well, I hope Sal at least has the courtesy to send you a Mother's Day card after all this is over.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Darth Robo

Posts: 148
Joined: Aug. 2006

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,15:54

Quote

FtK, why are you more interested in bestiality than in answering this simple question?

Absolute Biblical morals and lack of common sense?

--------------
"Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."

Albatrossity2

Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,15:55

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,15:45)

Quote (csadams @ Jan. 03 2008,15:23)

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 03 2008,14:40)

Now, how about those peer reviewers who looked at Walt Brown's book? How many times can you skirt that question?

FtK, why are you more interested in bestiality than in answering this simple question?

Because it was posed in order to change the subject, which I am not going to do. That question has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation we have been having for the past 2 days. That question was brought from an entirely different thread. I am determined to stick to this subject as long as needed because I am not a liar, and I have relayed everything about this incident accurately.

You people are constantly saying that no one from our side defends themselves because they are undefendable. So, here I am, and here I'll stay. In fact, I think PZ owes me an apology. His name calling attack was completely uncalled for.

A suspicious person might start to think that you pulled that claim about peer review of Brown's book out of thin air and now you can't defend it. That is pretty much the definition of "undefendable". With every post that goes by it becomes more undefendable.

If you have the "facts", post them on the thread where the question originated. That seems pretty simple, quite tidy, and will stop the questions over here as well.

Thanks in advance

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
- Pattiann Rogers

csadams

Posts: 124
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,15:55

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,15:45)

Quote (csadams @ Jan. 03 2008,15:23)

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 03 2008,14:40)

Now, how about those peer reviewers who looked at Walt Brown's book? How many times can you skirt that question?

FtK, why are you more interested in bestiality than in answering this simple question?

Because it was posed in order to change the subject, which I am not going to do. That question has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation we have been having for the past 2 days. That question was brought from an entirely different thread. I am determined to stick to this subject as long as needed because I am not a liar, and I have relayed everything about this incident accurately.

You people are constantly saying that no one from our side defends themselves because they are undefendable. So, here I am, and here I'll stay. In fact, I think PZ owes me an apology. His name calling attack was completely uncalled for.

You, FtK? Not change a subject?

You claim such familiarity with and understanding of Brown's work, yet you can't be bothered to take the little time it should require to find his statement that his work has been peer-reviewed.

Perhaps if you'd come up with that reference, it would help show that you're "not a liar."

Or you could admit that you know darn good and well that Brown hasn't submitted his work for peer review, and regain some smidgen of credibility.

Simple, really.

--------------
Stand Up For REAL Science!

Kristine

Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,16:03

Well, Sal said it!

Quote

If Darwinists want to impale themselves on their pets like Darwinist Kenneth Pinyan or chop off their private parts like Darwinist John Roughgarden, the US Government should limit its intereference (unless of course medical malpractice is indicated or cruelty to animals is involved).

Now, was that so painful?

(Come to think of it, my first "date" with Rev. Barky was us in a skit with him dressed up as a bear and chasing me from the stage. For this he changed the song "God is Watching Us" to "Bears are Watching Us," and now it's our song. Wow, I'm really glad I can share this with you guys and that it's all out in the open. Do you think Sal may be reaching out too?

Whoa.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,16:03

Quote (Assassinator @ Jan. 03 2008,15:48)

Do still NOT understand why Sal's point is complete and utter nonsense?

In the sense of Sal's attempt at humor? Of course, it was nonsense and listed as humor. I assure you that he doesn't think that Skatje "advocates" "young ladies" to engage in intercourse with pigs and introduce them to their parents as their bethrothed.

As for the rest of our discussion, Skatje's comments, and my stance on atheist morality. I stand firm. What I've said is simply not "disgusting" or "wrong". Neither have I lied about anything.

The words I've been called at PZ's place are beyond the pale, and I'll await his apologize....probably until the day I die.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

incorygible

Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,16:09

For the biologists in the crowd, did anyone else's head explode just a little bit at seeing Sal call Joan Roughgarden a "Darwinist"? Having read her recent work, heard her speak, debated with her over pizza, and even had some work that I was briefly involved in appropriated (poorly) for her . . . rather unique . . . take on evolutionary mechanisms, I have to say: that one's a keeper.

Lou FCD

Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,16:15

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,17:03)

Quote (Assassinator @ Jan. 03 2008,15:48)

Do still NOT understand why Sal's point is complete and utter nonsense?

In the sense of Sal's attempt at humor? Of course, it was nonsense and listed as humor. I assure you that he doesn't think that Skatje "advocates" "young ladies" to engage in intercourse with pigs and introduce them to their parents as their bethrothed.

As for the rest of our discussion, Skatje's comments, and my stance on atheist morality. I stand firm. What I've said is simply not "disgusting" or "wrong". Neither have I lied about anything.

The words I've been called at PZ's place are beyond the pale, and I'll await his apologize....probably until the day I die.

Bull.

Start to finish.

--------------
â€œWhy do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linkyâ€œ. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Albatrossity2

Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,16:15

Quote (incorygible @ Jan. 03 2008,16:09)

For the biologists in the crowd, did anyone else's head explode just a little bit at seeing Sal call Joan Roughgarden a "Darwinist"? Having read her recent work, heard her speak, debated with her over pizza, and even had some work that I was briefly involved in appropriated (poorly) for her . . . rather unique . . . take on evolutionary mechanisms, I have to say: that one's a keeper.

Sal clearly hasn't read her book. I did notice that he is featuring Sanford's Genetic Entropy tome on his most recent post; maybe he can get to it when he finishes that opus...

I knew John when I was a graduate student and he was a brand-new faculty member. I've not had the pleasure of meeting Joan. But John was, well, prickly. I hear Joan is much happier. Is that true?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
- Pattiann Rogers

Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,16:29

Quote

Or you could admit that you know darn good and well that Brown hasn't submitted his work for peer review, and regain some smidgen of credibility.

OMG. csadams, I NEVER stated that he submitted his work for peer review if you mean in the sense of submitting to a mainstream science journal. You should know that I wouldn't say this because it had been discussed at kcfs several times. So, I hope that is not what you are indicating that I said.

I said his work was peer reviewed. That means *reviewed by his peers*. He told me about several of them in a phone conversations, and I certainly do not believe that he is lying since I know the man well enough to know that he would not put forth theories without having scientists within the fields of study he writes about reviewing his work.

I also know that he discussed his hydroplate theory with Dr. Robert S. Dietz, one of the founders of the Plate Tectonic Theory many times. They even became friends, so I can't imagine that he is the lying crank that you all believe him to be. In that case, it was not a formal peer review, but I can think of no one better to discuss his theory with. Granted, Dietz didn't agree with his theory, as he had his own. But neither would he debate him, even after stating that he would and helping Brown form the debate agreement.

You people need to quit trying to make a liar out of me. Because I have always been truthful about everything I've ever written about.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,16:31

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 03 2008,16:15)

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,17:03)

Quote (Assassinator @ Jan. 03 2008,15:48)

Do still NOT understand why Sal's point is complete and utter nonsense?

In the sense of Sal's attempt at humor? Of course, it was nonsense and listed as humor. I assure you that he doesn't think that Skatje "advocates" "young ladies" to engage in intercourse with pigs and introduce them to their parents as their bethrothed.

As for the rest of our discussion, Skatje's comments, and my stance on atheist morality. I stand firm. What I've said is simply not "disgusting" or "wrong". Neither have I lied about anything.

The words I've been called at PZ's place are beyond the pale, and I'll await his apologize....probably until the day I die.

Bull.

Start to finish.

How so. You never explain yourself.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

incorygible

Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,16:38

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 03 2008,16:15)

Sal clearly hasn't read her book. I did notice that he is featuring Sanford's Genetic Entropy tome on his most recent post; maybe he can get to it when he finishes that opus...

I knew John when I was a graduate student and he was a brand-new faculty member. I've not had the pleasure of meeting Joan. But John was, well, prickly. I hear Joan is much happier. Is that true?

Ah, well I never had the pleasure of meeting John. Read a few of his textbooks and more than a few of his papers, of course. As for 'prickly' . . . hard to say. I don't know if I'd call her pleasant, but happy might be a fair description, all told. And very, very sure of herself, to put it delicately. Of course, you'd have to be when walking into the jaws of a department that leaned heavily toward old-school adaptationists and surprisingly vocal population ecologists (to say nothing of what she must encounter and defend quite apart from her science, as evidenced by Sal's flippant . . .'humour'). It would certainly be entertaining to watch her mop the floor in a meeting of minds with the likes of Cordova, that's for damned sure.

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,16:38

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,16:29)

Quote

Or you could admit that you know darn good and well that Brown hasn't submitted his work for peer review, and regain some smidgen of credibility.

OMG. csadams, I NEVER stated that he submitted his work for peer review if you mean in the sense of submitting to a mainstream science journal. You should know that I wouldn't say this because it had been discussed at kcfs several times. So, I hope that is not what you are indicating that I said.

I said his work was peer reviewed. That means *reviewed by his peers*. He told me about several of them in a phone conversations, and I certainly do not believe that he is lying since I know the man well enough to know that he would not put forth theories without having scientists within the fields of study he writes about reviewing his work.

I also know that he discussed his hydroplate theory with Dr. Robert S. Dietz, one of the founders of the Plate Tectonic Theory many times. They even became friends, so I can't imagine that he is the lying crank that you all believe him to be. In that case, it was not a formal peer review, but I can think of no one better to discuss his theory with. Granted, Dietz didn't agree with his theory, as he had his own. But neither would he debate him, even after stating that he would and helping Brown form the debate agreement.

You people need to quit trying to make a liar out of me. Because I have always been truthful about everything I've ever written about.

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2007,22:00)

Quote (lkeithlu @ Oct. 04 2007,21:28)

I think I deserve an answer first here. Well, deserve isn't the appropriate word, but I have been patient. I want to know about the journals. Are "private" journals peer reviewed? Cuz, my interpretation of "private" includes most academic journals, which are. Unless I am misunderstanding the term "private" as applied to the ID journal?

Oh, and Feb 2008.
I am very curious. Do I need to sell all my stuff? What day in February? I hope it is before I have to submit 4th term grades.

Of course the private journals are peer-reviewed...many times even by Darwinists. I know Walt Brown's theories are peer reviewed by evolutionists, but obviously, he's never going to get them accepted in mainstream science journals...it's freaking creation science...you know -- the stuff those hideous, money thirsty "liars" theorize about....lol, that accusation would seriously get Walt Brown giggling. Believe me, he's not in it for the money...dig a little and you'll understand why I say that.

When I use the word "private", I mean Creationist or ID journals --- not mainstream science journals. Unless theories are published in "MAINSTREAM JOURNALS", they are assumed to be pseudoscience and completely ignored by scientists in general.

Where does Walt say his work has been peer reviewed?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,16:45

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 03 2008,16:38)

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,16:29)

Quote

Or you could admit that you know darn good and well that Brown hasn't submitted his work for peer review, and regain some smidgen of credibility.

OMG. csadams, I NEVER stated that he submitted his work for peer review if you mean in the sense of submitting to a mainstream science journal. You should know that I wouldn't say this because it had been discussed at kcfs several times. So, I hope that is not what you are indicating that I said.

I said his work was peer reviewed. That means *reviewed by his peers*. He told me about several of them in a phone conversations, and I certainly do not believe that he is lying since I know the man well enough to know that he would not put forth theories without having scientists within the fields of study he writes about reviewing his work.

I also know that he discussed his hydroplate theory with Dr. Robert S. Dietz, one of the founders of the Plate Tectonic Theory many times. They even became friends, so I can't imagine that he is the lying crank that you all believe him to be. In that case, it was not a formal peer review, but I can think of no one better to discuss his theory with. Granted, Dietz didn't agree with his theory, as he had his own. But neither would he debate him, even after stating that he would and helping Brown form the debate agreement.

You people need to quit trying to make a liar out of me. Because I have always been truthful about everything I've ever written about.

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2007,22:00)

Quote (lkeithlu @ Oct. 04 2007,21:28)

I think I deserve an answer first here. Well, deserve isn't the appropriate word, but I have been patient. I want to know about the journals. Are "private" journals peer reviewed? Cuz, my interpretation of "private" includes most academic journals, which are. Unless I am misunderstanding the term "private" as applied to the ID journal?

Oh, and Feb 2008.
I am very curious. Do I need to sell all my stuff? What day in February? I hope it is before I have to submit 4th term grades.

Of course the private journals are peer-reviewed...many times even by Darwinists. I know Walt Brown's theories are peer reviewed by evolutionists, but obviously, he's never going to get them accepted in mainstream science journals...it's freaking creation science...you know -- the stuff those hideous, money thirsty "liars" theorize about....lol, that accusation would seriously get Walt Brown giggling. Believe me, he's not in it for the money...dig a little and you'll understand why I say that.

When I use the word "private", I mean Creationist or ID journals --- not mainstream science journals. Unless theories are published in "MAINSTREAM JOURNALS", they are assumed to be pseudoscience and completely ignored by scientists in general.

Where does Walt say his work has been peer reviewed?

I thought I already told you that it's not in his book that I know of. Maybe it is....I don't know.

Call the man *yourself* to get your answers. I will certainly *NOT* contact him and tell him to give me a list of reviewers so that I can give that information to a bible bashing, Darwin pumping, hard core atheist (oldmanintheskydidn'tdoit) who is specifically out to bad mouth him at every *single* turn.

It doesn't matter who the reviewers were, you'd slam them endlessly regardless of their credentials or their work.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

Doc Bill

Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,16:48

Quote

You people need to quit trying to make a liar out of me.

This is a lie.

Quote

Because I have always been truthful about everything I've ever written about.

And this is a lie.

I'd call that a two-fer.

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,16:48

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,16:29)

I said his work was peer reviewed. That means *reviewed by his peers*. He told me about several of them in a phone conversations

Ah, took you long enough to think of a getout. Phone conversation so no URL or other supporting info. We have to take your word for it.

So, back to the jellyfish it would appear.

Were his *peers* creationists or "darwinists"?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

csadams

Posts: 124
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,16:49

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,16:29)

Quote

Or you could admit that you know darn good and well that Brown hasn't submitted his work for peer review, and regain some smidgen of credibility.

OMG. csadams, I NEVER stated that he submitted his work for peer review if you mean in the sense of submitting to a mainstream science journal. You should know that I wouldn't say this because it had been discussed at kcfs several times. So, I hope that is not what you are indicating that I said.

I said his work was peer reviewed. That means *reviewed by his peers*. He told me about several of them in a phone conversations, and I certainly do not believe that he is lying since I know the man well enough to know that he would not put forth theories without having scientists within the fields of study he writes about reviewing his work.

I also know that he discussed his hydroplate theory with Dr. Robert S. Dietz, one of the founders of the Plate Tectonic Theory many times. They even became friends, so I can't imagine that he is the lying crank that you all believe him to be. In that case, it was not a formal peer review, but I can think of no one better to discuss his theory with. Granted, Dietz didn't agree with his theory, as he had his own. But neither would he debate him, even after stating that he would and helping Brown form the debate agreement.

You people need to quit trying to make a liar out of me. Because I have always been truthful about everything I've ever written about.

FtK, pls check your post from 10/4/2007, 22:00, where you did indeed state that Brown claimed his work had been peer reviewed by evolutionists/Darwinists. (I tried going back allllll those pages, but got a Forbidden - 403 error. ???)

And please, don't tell me you're going to try to equivocate by shading the meaning of "peer review

FWIW, FtK, I am certainly not trying to make a liar out of you. Ye gads and little fishes, everyone makes mistakes! So just admit it, learn from it, and go on for crying out loud.

--------------
Stand Up For REAL Science!

argystokes

Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,16:49

Quote

I said his work was peer reviewed. That means *reviewed by his peers*. He told me about several of them in a phone conversations, and I certainly do not believe that he is lying since I know the man well enough to know that he would not put forth theories without having scientists within the fields of study he writes about reviewing his work.

This is about the silliest thing I've read all day. I suppose if I wrote a paper about how we inherited our genes from bananas (by eating them!), and showed it to one of the resident geneticists here (who would laugh her ass off and tell me it's crap), I would be justified in calling my paper peer reviewed? Really? Seriously, I'd like you to answer this question.

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

Richardthughes

Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,16:51

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 03 2008,16:48)

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,16:29)

I said his work was peer reviewed. That means *reviewed by his peers*. He told me about several of them in a phone conversations

Ah, took you long enough to think of a getout. Phone conversation so no URL or other supporting info. We have to take your word for it.

So, back to the jellyfish it would appear.

Were his *peers* creationists or "darwinists"?

This is of course how peer review works and how most people inderstand the concept of peer review.

"Hello, cwose freind? Can my buk has peers reviewed?"

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,16:52

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,16:45)

I thought I already told you that it's not in his book that I know of. Maybe it is....I don't know.

Call the man *yourself* to get your answers. I will certainly *NOT* contact him and tell him to give me a list of reviewers so that I can give that information to a bible bashing, Darwin pumping, hard core atheist (oldmanintheskydidn'tdoit) who is specifically out to bad mouth him at every *single* turn.

It doesn't matter who the reviewers were, you'd slam them endlessly regardless of their credentials or their work.

So why make the claim if not in order to add legitimacy to his work?
Legitimacy it certainly has not earned by any reasonable definition of peer review.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Albatrossity2

Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,16:56

Quote (incorygible @ Jan. 03 2008,16:38)

Ah, well I never had the pleasure of meeting John. Read a few of his textbooks and more than a few of his papers, of course. As for 'prickly' . . . hard to say. I don't know if I'd call her pleasant, but happy might be a fair description, all told. And very, very sure of herself, to put it delicately. Of course, you'd have to be when walking into the jaws of a department that leaned heavily toward old-school adaptationists and surprisingly vocal population ecologists (to say nothing of what she must encounter and defend quite apart from her science, as evidenced by Sal's flippant . . .'humour'). It would certainly be entertaining to watch her mop the floor in a meeting of minds with the likes of Cordova, that's for damned sure.

Yes, well John was also very very sure of himself as well.

And yes, what would be left of Sal after an encounter with an intellect like Roughgarden's would not be pretty at all...

thanks!

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
- Pattiann Rogers

Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,16:58

Quote (csadams @ Jan. 03 2008,16:49)

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,16:29)

Quote

Or you could admit that you know darn good and well that Brown hasn't submitted his work for peer review, and regain some smidgen of credibility.

OMG. csadams, I NEVER stated that he submitted his work for peer review if you mean in the sense of submitting to a mainstream science journal. You should know that I wouldn't say this because it had been discussed at kcfs several times. So, I hope that is not what you are indicating that I said.

I said his work was peer reviewed. That means *reviewed by his peers*. He told me about several of them in a phone conversations, and I certainly do not believe that he is lying since I know the man well enough to know that he would not put forth theories without having scientists within the fields of study he writes about reviewing his work.

I also know that he discussed his hydroplate theory with Dr. Robert S. Dietz, one of the founders of the Plate Tectonic Theory many times. They even became friends, so I can't imagine that he is the lying crank that you all believe him to be. In that case, it was not a formal peer review, but I can think of no one better to discuss his theory with. Granted, Dietz didn't agree with his theory, as he had his own. But neither would he debate him, even after stating that he would and helping Brown form the debate agreement.

You people need to quit trying to make a liar out of me. Because I have always been truthful about everything I've ever written about.

FtK, pls check your post from 10/4/2007, 22:00, where you did indeed state that Brown claimed his work had been peer reviewed by evolutionists/Darwinists. (I tried going back allllll those pages, but got a Forbidden - 403 error. ???)

And please, don't tell me you're going to try to equivocate by shading the meaning of "peer review

FWIW, FtK, I am certainly not trying to make a liar out of you. Ye gads and little fishes, everyone makes mistakes! So just admit it, learn from it, and go on for crying out loud.

I didn't go back and look at the post, because I will take your word for it. If I said "Darwinists", then that was my error because I do not know that *for sure*. I cannot remember *for sure* whether he told me that evolutionists had reviewed his work in a formal review. I know he's talked with Darwinists about the theory, specifically (because it is documented and verifiable) Dr. Dietz. But, he contacts scientists all the time about these issues. I'm simply not lying about that.

I apologize for suggesting that you were calling me a liar, but it really seemed that way to me at the time.

I promise you I have always been truthful about these issues. All of them.

So in conclusion...his work has been peer reviewed, and I would have to contact him to find out exactly who those reviewers where. I won't do that because I am not going to subject them to some of the people in this forum. I also know that he has had endless conversations with evolutionists about his theory as well.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

Richardthughes

Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,17:00

Quote

So in conclusion...his work has been peer reviewed, and I would have to contact him to find out exactly who those reviewers where. I won't do that because I am not going to subject them to some of the people in this forum. I also know that he has had endless conversations with evolutionists about his theory as well.

Plus, the statement "it's peer review" is looking shakier and shakier the more I think about at and given his propensity for making shit up I'm not sure I want to back that horse.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

JohnW

Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,17:00

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,14:29)

I also know that he discussed his hydroplate theory with Dr. Robert S. Dietz, one of the founders of the Plate Tectonic Theory many times. They even became friends, so I can't imagine that he is the lying crank that you all believe him to be. In that case, it was not a formal peer review, but I can think of no one better to discuss his theory with. Granted, Dietz didn't agree with his theory, as he had his own. But neither would he debate him, even after stating that he would and helping Brown form the debate agreement.

According to your link, Brown's interactions with Dietz were regarding the terms and conditions of a possible debate. Dietz was not part of a peer-review process, even an informal one. It's pretty clear, even from the creationist source you provided, that Dietz would have not been kind to Brown's work* if he had reviewed it.

*My contribution to International Understatement Week.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,17:01

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 03 2008,16:48)

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,16:29)

I said his work was peer reviewed. That means *reviewed by his peers*. He told me about several of them in a phone conversations

Ah, took you long enough to think of a getout. Phone conversation so no URL or other supporting info. We have to take your word for it.

So, back to the jellyfish it would appear.

Were his *peers* creationists or "darwinists"?

I simply cannot believe you would say something like this. I wasn't looking for an "out". I told you from the very start that I *wouldn't* give you a list of reviewers. You have have treated me like shit and done everything in your power to make me out to be a liar from the very start. I'm not going to watch you tear into people who actually consider creationist work. And, I am NOT A LIAR.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

Reciprocating Bill

Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,17:02

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,17:29)

I said his work was peer reviewed. That means *reviewed by his peers*.

When? Charles K. Johnson, Immanuel Velikovsky, L. Ron Hubbard and Wilhelm Reich all died a long time ago.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Jan. 03 2008,17:07

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 03 2008,17:00)

Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,14:29)

I also know that he discussed his hydroplate theory with Dr. Robert S. Dietz, one of the founders of the Plate Tectonic Theory many times. They even became friends, so I can't imagine that he is the lying crank that you all believe him to be. In that case, it was not a formal peer review, but I can think of no one better to discuss his theory with. Granted, Dietz didn't agree with his theory, as he had his own. But neither would he debate him, even after stating that he would and helping Brown form the debate agreement.

According to your link, Brown's interactions with Dietz were regarding the terms and conditions of a possible debate. Dietz was not part of a peer-review process, even an informal one. It's pretty clear, even from the creationist source you provided, that Dietz would have not been kind to Brown's work* if he had reviewed it.

*My contribution to International Understatement Week.

Hello? I already stated that Dietz did not provide a formal review. Are you not reading what I wrote? I wrote exactly what I meant. Don't put words in my mouth.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006