I am not trying to say I doubt a person knows what they are talking about, but that if someone wants to bring in credentials then the credentials need to be brought up.

I've talked to you, read your stuff, and from your posts both on here and on atheistforums.com you obviously know what your talking about. You didn't need to say that your an authority because your an astrophysicist. We could tell by reading you discussing it.

I make no claim to credentials, as, well, I don't have any. I speak my peace from reading a decent bit and thats about it.

Originally posted by Sparko

ps. the truth is, Hellboy, that in 30 years, after you graduate High School, you will go on to go to college and become a great physicist who works on Quantum Entanglement and Teleportation. One day after church (yes you become a Christian), you will be working on your quantum teleportation device, and will accidentally activate it, creating a vortex that sucks you in. As you pass through the portal, you reach out to stop your fall and your hands get cut off. You travel back in time to the year 2009, where you find yourself on theology web again, and take the pseudonym "Shadowmaster" and have to use typists to write your posts, and so you speak in the third person. Meanwhile you wait around to watch your younger self, Hellboy make a fool of himself.

...You should totally publish that.

Originally posted by Sparko

funny that Hellboy is whining about someone else not wanting to produce their credentials when he won't either.

wuz up with that HB?

Huh?

I couldn't care less about anyone's credentials.... I'm just here for the free French-milled soap.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

Going simply by what people say, is lousy science to say the least. 'Throwing in SoR' does not help your case. The problem is you put SM up as an authority without proper support.

It is not science and I am not going by what people say for the science. I am going with their credentials. I still scrutinize what they say but I am more willing to trust an expert than a layman.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

I would not hide behind this problem if I were you. I did not portray SA and Discover as scientific journals, I portrayed them as reasonable accurate scientific magazines, written by scientists who back up these articles with peer review journal articles in their field.

You called them lay journals. No need to start backing up from your claims.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

We have difference as to how peer review applies here. In scientific journals, grants and publication process peer review varies. You are defining peer review narrowly. I am saying that the articles in these magazines are peer reviewed by the editorial staff of the magazines. This is a broader use of the terms, but not a real problem.

The difference is that I am correct and you are wrong. This shows that you are very ignorant of the scientific process.

Can another scientist please verify that peer review is not simply having an article cleared by an editor of a magazine?!?

I can explain the peer review process if you would like for both grants and publications.

Also, what are your credentials?

Originally posted by HELLBOY

Huh?

I couldn't care less about anyone's credentials....

oh_really.jpg

Originally posted by element771

It is not science and I am not going by what people say for the science. I am going with their credentials. I still scrutinize what they say but I am more willing to trust an expert than a layman.

What are SM's credentials that your going by.

You called them lay journals. No need to start backing up from your claims.

OK, Lay journals, I have never referred to them as scientific journals. What is wrong with referring to them as lay journals? Your picking frog hairs here.

The difference is that I am correct and you are wrong. This shows that you are very ignorant of the scientific process.

Considering your references in the past, you do not know the basics of the scientific process.

Can another scientist please verify that peer review is not simply having an article cleared by an editor of a magazine?!?

Submissions to these magazines are not simply cleared by one editor. Your ignorance is becoming more apparent.

I can explain the peer review process if you would like for both grants and publications.

No problem, I understand the peer review process as it is used in different situations. Your long standing misrepresentation of science in many threads is a problem.

Also, what are your credentials?

I have a Masters in Environmental Geology and Soils Science with an emphasis on math and computer modeling, and I have published articles in journals, and popular international magazines. As to these subjects I have referenced peered reviewed journals on the subject, and defer and refernce to cosmologists, physicists and mathematicians in these fields. You have failed to bring anything to cite in these discussions.

I do not put myself forward as na authority in these fields, but cite those that are, and not promot anonymous sources as authority.

Originally posted by element771

Can you cite a paper that says the Earth is round?

Or that the Earth revolves around the sun?

Your dodging the bullet her, and playing 'Air Ball' with Duck, Bob and Weave. You have failed to cite any Cosmology sources wher the concept that the universe is all there is is seriously considered as an option.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

Your dodging the bullet her, and playing 'Air Ball' with Duck, Bob and Weave. You have failed to cite any Cosmology sources wher the concept that the universe is all there is is seriously considered as an option.

You seem to be too dense to understand my point.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

What are SM's credentials that your going by.

Personal interaction and what he has said in past threads. I know that he is a scientist that works in the area of particle physics. Try reading his past posts and his profile.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

OK, Lay journals, I have never referred to them as scientific journals. What is wrong with referring to them as lay journals? Your picking frog hairs here.

Because they are magazines like people or newsweek. They just happen to cover science.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

Considering your references in the past, you do not know the basics of the scientific process.

Says the man that thinks an article in Discover is peer reviewed.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

Submissions to these magazines are not simply cleared by one editor. Your ignorance is becoming more apparent.

Then please enlighten me as to the process.

Also if these articles are peer reviewed, could I cite them in a paper submitted to a proper journal?

How fast will they reject the paper and laugh at the reference?

Originally posted by shunyadragon

No problem, I understand the peer review process as it is used in different situations. Your long standing misrepresentation of science in many threads is a problem.

Please explain how I am misrepresenting science. I am explaining how science really works at the academic level, not the layman level that you are basing your ideas upon.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

I do not put myself forward as na authority in these fields, but cite those that are, and not promot anonymous sources as authority.

Assume that they are telling the truth.......Is Shadowmaster or SoR more of an authority in this area than you are?

Originally posted by element771

Personal interaction and what he has said in past threads. I know that he is a scientist that works in the area of particle physics. Try reading his past posts and his profile.



Because they are magazines like people or newsweek. They just happen to cover science.




Says the man that thinks an article in Discover is peer reviewed.




Then please enlighten me as to the process.

Also if these articles are peer reviewed, could I cite them in a paper submitted to a proper journal?

How fast will they reject the paper and laugh at the reference?



Please explain how I am misrepresenting science. I am explaining how science really works at the academic level, not the layman level that you are basing your ideas upon.




Assume that they are telling the truth.......Is Shadowmaster or SoR more of an authority in this area than you are?

I hereby bequeath honorary PhD's to everyone participating in this thread.

Gentlemen... Choose your specialty.

Originally posted by element771

You seem to be too dense to understand my point.

You have failed to cite anything to support your case. In this thread and previous discussions.

Please cite me the article that states that the Earth is round or that the Earth revolves around the sun.

Since you can't, I assume that you must not believe these either.

Originally posted by element771

Personal interaction and what he has said in past threads. I know that he is a scientist that works in the area of particle physics. Try reading his past posts and his profile.

Iread his posts and profile. 'Air Ball,' nothing there. He is just another interesting and at times informative Twebber, nothing more.

Because they are magazines like people or newsweek. They just happen to cover science.

Disagree, but I do not find Newsweek a problem on what it covers, but People is a rag not worth comparing.

Then please enlighten me as to the process.

Educate yourself, I do not spoon feed.

Also if these articles are peer reviewed, could I cite them in a paper submitted to a proper journal?

I would cite the articles referenced by the article that the articles are based on, and despite your unsupported accusations the conclusions are generally the same, unless you are accusing these authors of this problem, and then you will have to be more specific. You have not cited anything so far to to back up what you said about these magazines.

Please explain how I am misrepresenting science. I am explaining how science really works at the academic level, not the layman level that you are basing your ideas upon.

I have not cited these magazines much at all if at all. Check my posts and citation I usually cite sources form academic journals on this subject. The pixie did foolishly cite Discover, and misrepresented it at the same time.

Your accusations do not reflect my previous posts. Please document these accusations.


[quote\ Assume that they are telling the truth.......Is Shadowmaster or SoR more of an authority in this area than you are?[/quote]

I do not Assume anything when it comes to science. It is bad science. SoR is another matter, but nonetheless I prefer to cite and rely on sources outside Tweb that are well accademically represented and documented.

Originally posted by element771

Please cite me the article that states that the Earth is round or that the Earth revolves around the sun.

Since you can't, I assume that you must not believe these either.

I do not assume anything, I will let you play that fools game.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

Iread his posts and profile. 'Air Ball,' nothing there. He is just another interesting and at times informative Twebber, nothing more.

that happens to be a particle physicist.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

Educate yourself, I do not spoon feed.

Translation:

I don't know. Nor do I understand peer review but I am backed into a corner and would rather not admit that I am wrong.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

You have not cited anything so far to to back up what you said about these magazines.

Citations are not necessary to state the fact that they are not peer reviewed.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

I have not cited these magazines much at all if at all. Check my posts and citation I usually cite sources form academic journals on this subject.

Fine. Then don't pretend like they are comparable to actual journals.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

I do not Assume anything when it comes to science. It is bad science. SoR is another matter, but nonetheless I prefer to cite and rely on sources outside Tweb that are well accademically represented and documented.

What are you talking about?

It is not science to believe that the SM is a particle physicist.

Am I citing the SM to disprove the eternal universe? NO!

Originally posted by shunyadragon

I do not assume anything, I will let you play that fools game.

Do you believe that the Earth is round?

Do you believe that the Earth revolves around the sun?

Please provide primary sources for you answer.