ck1

There are limits to what can be uncovered by the peer review process. Outright fraud is unlikely to be detected, for example. Exclusion of data that is never mentioned. Seems to me in this case, sample selection is something that should have been discussed in the paper and would have been considered by the reviewers.

Sven

As always: You have no clue what you are talking about, nevertheless you have the guts to suggest fraud. Disgusting. Why is it that the atheists here obviously have much higher standards of integrity than fundies?

Dave, please answer one simple question: Is it OK to lie in order to convert people to Christianity?

Satisfactorily for whom? You? A guy who readily admits (and demonstrates again and again) that he has no clue what he's talking about?

Peer review ensures that these things are asked and answered to the satisfaction of experts working in the respective field. Which is more than enough for anyone who does not have an axe to grind.

Yup. BY citing literature from experts, he met this aim hands down.
You crying "fraud" does not change this in any way, it only makes look you worse (I've doubted that this is possible, but yet it happened!).

There is tiny difference, Dave: creationists have been exposed to lie and distort data that often (using evidence, not suggestions of fraud) that it's no longer necessary to repeat this evidence every time it'S pointed out that creationists lie.

Evidence for fraud vs. suggestion of fraud, Dave. Nothing about two-faced here.

Mike PSS

The purpose of my list was to indicate that the inclusion of peer review is a very small hurdle in the publication of a scientific paper. Dave's blubberring about peer reviewers not allowing creationist garbage just skips over the other 19 (or 12 or 25 or whatever) steps that a researcher go's through before peer review even comes into play. Yes, there exist bad papers and bad research but I'm not looking at exceptions here just generalities.

To ck1's point about inclusion of the fund supporters, I'm a chemical engineer working in agricultural processing plants (solvent extraction, starch and sweeteners, fertilizer manufacturing, vegetable oil refining, ethanol, biodiesel, etc...). Research projects in our business usually go through a stage gate mechanism for review. Not only for the projects reveiw but also as comparison with other projects that are underway. Since both monetary capital and human capital are finite resources then only those projects that stand up to the stage gate reveiw and have high potentials for returns will be continued and supported. Changing market conditions over time can also influence the support a project receives. Other projects that are languishing will be parked to either be taken up later or end up in the researchers memory hole.

The goals involved with much of this research is either patentable ideas or unique processes that confer some type of competative advantage.

So that is why I include the fund supporters in my listings. If capital dries up then the process stops pretty quickly where I work.

mitschlag

Hey, afdave, you want varves, you got varves:

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/varves.html
Check out the Web site, afdave. Indiana University is not too far from you, and you can drive over and take a course to learn all about old earth geology from the varve point of view.

That is, if you're really serious about learning the truth.

Silent Dave

All right then. In the Suigetsu paper, the other 165+ samples were mentioned, and if the reason for their exclusion isn't mentioned in the paper, then I'm sure the scientists themselves can give the reason -- almost certainly it was lack of funds to date more samples than they did, and if that's the case, then there's probably a paper trail that can be examined to confirm this. Either way, Dave can do his own work from this point on.

Faid

Wow. Dave has really jumped the shark, hasn't he?

Accusing scientists of all fields for downright fraud, without any evidence other than his usual "I bet"s:

"Here's a crapload of data that agrees with each other on the age of the earth, dave".

"Oh yeah? Well I BET there's even more data that disagrees with it, only we never see it because evilusionists hide them or throw them away! Prove me wrong"!

"Um dave, it's not our job to invalidate your unsupported assertions, it's..."

"Oh YES it is! I say there are hundreds of trees that dendrochronologists burn on sight, when they find they disagree with their atheist darwinist beliefs! I bet there are thousands of C14 dates that evos discard and never talk about or publish, because they show a young earth! In fact, here, let me draw a bunch of discordant dots on this isochron chart, and pretend they exist! See"?

"But dave..."

"Can you PROVE to me they don't exist"?

"Dave, seriously..."

"...Therefore they EXIST, and I WIN! Take that, evilutionists! Hah"!

"...Sure man, whatever. Bye now".

This is how pathetic your "arguments" have become, dave. You brought this upon yourself; but, then again, it was unavoidable. It would have happened eventually.


Bye now. Have fun living in your own little world.

Silent Dave

I note that Dave has accessed the forum at least twice since his last post (the one where he calls me uppity), so he's more than likely read the myriad responses to him, but has had nothing to say as yet.

Perhaps he needs to "research" more intensively than usual to answer the points raised.

Or perhaps . . . is it possible? Do you think maybe he's actually starting to listen?

Silent Dave

The sad part is, Dave probably won't even see anything wrong with this part of the exchange. Sigh.

ck1

Maybe Dave is not responding here because he is too busy preparing his response in his debate with BWE over at RD.net. His debate post is quite overdue at this point.

ck1

I do not think Dave has changed his mind on any of the issues he has been debating over the last year. It is more likely that he has, however, changed his mind about whether it is worth his while to continue to argue with the diehard "Darwinists" on these various atheist-friendly forums.