Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

evidence for ID. Please help for peer-review.

M.Dubreuil
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 1:35:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Hello everyone. I was concerned with a study about unconscious human decision processes for a few years. At the end it turned out to support intelligent design. We submitted it to Bio-Complexity, the only research journal that supports intelligent design as far as we know. But they told us, they only accept research papers about intelligent design with an emphasis on biology. That leaves virtually no place for us to let our paper be accepted for a peer-review. We had already asked some research journals if they publish papers about intelligent design some time ago, but they denied. We asked Janine Dixon for a recommendation, but she replied there would be currently no journal that would accept our paper (Quote within the URL below). ID has in science a bad reputation and we doubt a common research journal would accept a paper about intelligent design or creationism. But we believe Bio-Complexity could be convinced to accept all papers about intelligent design, that would be not accepted somewhere else. For this purpose we started a petition to convince Bio-Complexity to accept all important papers about intelligent design: http://www.ipetitions.com...

Debating in forums about religion and science can be interesting. But the real research is done for research journals, at which all research about a specific topic is published. Evidences for intelligent design are very important to develop this theory. Help us to convince Bio-Complexity to accept our paper for a peer-review. The peer-review should be a mere formality, we already asked other scientist to estimate our result. They were only slightly biased, because we know them in person.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 1:53:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/29/2014 1:35:23 PM, M.Dubreuil wrote:
Hello everyone. I was concerned with a study about unconscious human decision processes for a few years. At the end it turned out to support intelligent design. We submitted it to Bio-Complexity, the only research journal that supports intelligent design as far as we know. But they told us, they only accept research papers about intelligent design with an emphasis on biology. That leaves virtually no place for us to let our paper be accepted for a peer-review. We had already asked some research journals if they publish papers about intelligent design some time ago, but they denied. We asked Janine Dixon for a recommendation, but she replied there would be currently no journal that would accept our paper (Quote within the URL below). ID has in science a bad reputation and we doubt a common research journal would accept a paper about intelligent design or creationism. But we believe Bio-Complexity could be convinced to accept all papers about intelligent design, that would be not accepted somewhere else. For this purpose we started a petition to convince Bio-Complexity to accept all important papers about intelligent design: http://www.ipetitions.com...

Debating in forums about religion and science can be interesting. But the real research is done for research journals, at which all research about a specific topic is published. Evidences for intelligent design are very important to develop this theory. Help us to convince Bio-Complexity to accept our paper for a peer-review. The peer-review should be a mere formality, we already asked other scientist to estimate our result. They were only slightly biased, because we know them in person.

I'm rather surprised the Discovery Institute rejected your paper, they also create arguments from false premises and confirmation bias, as does your paper:

"The theory of intelligent design
gives answers to largely unanswered
questions, like the origin of first live. For the o
rigin of first life a force is missing that
drives polymerization [3]. Not only to largely unan
swered biological and chemical
questions an answer is given, even the fine-tuned u
niverse could be explained through
an intelligent cause. "
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 3:49:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I am actually interested in this study, and interested if it actually can be used to support ID. As it is, with the current evidence for evolution and the laughable "evidence" for ID, I highly doubt your study would be any more credible, but you never know.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 4:02:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I have not read the link but we see this evidence for ID within a scientific context alot aorund here so let me put a few things forth so you don't waste your time or anyone elses.

1) Ignorance is never, ever, ever an acceptable justification for ID.

Well we can't explain how such and such came about ? ergo intelligent design.

2) What observation would proven your theory wrong ?

If you can't answer that, you don't get to go into the scientific theory box.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 4:18:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/29/2014 1:35:23 PM, M.Dubreuil wrote:
Hello everyone. I was concerned with a study about unconscious human decision processes for a few years. At the end it turned out to support intelligent design. We submitted it to Bio-Complexity, the only research journal that supports intelligent design as far as we know. But they told us, they only accept research papers about intelligent design with an emphasis on biology. That leaves virtually no place for us to let our paper be accepted for a peer-review. We had already asked some research journals if they publish papers about intelligent design some time ago, but they denied. We asked Janine Dixon for a recommendation, but she replied there would be currently no journal that would accept our paper (Quote within the URL below). ID has in science a bad reputation and we doubt a common research journal would accept a paper about intelligent design or creationism. But we believe Bio-Complexity could be convinced to accept all papers about intelligent design, that would be not accepted somewhere else. For this purpose we started a petition to convince Bio-Complexity to accept all important papers about intelligent design: http://www.ipetitions.com...

Debating in forums about religion and science can be interesting. But the real research is done for research journals, at which all research about a specific topic is published. Evidences for intelligent design are very important to develop this theory. Help us to convince Bio-Complexity to accept our paper for a peer-review. The peer-review should be a mere formality, we already asked other scientist to estimate our result. They were only slightly biased, because we know them in person.

My field is not in information science, but that is your best avenue for getting your work published. As a chemist, I read your paper and I have the following concerns:

1. Poorly Citations (seven instances), mostly webpages and book pages, wtf. In science we build on previous work and keep our methods cited so that others may replicate our work and check our assumptions are valid. You have done *none* of this in your paper. Especially regarding statistical comparisons.

2. Sloppy formatting of figures & tables. Figures are labeled "Figures" and not "Graph". Not all figures are labelled.

3. Lack of professionalism in grammar and formatting of the article. Headers such as under introduction are lacking in content, and can be dropped. Wtf is "the pattern", when was it first observed, barely any citations regarding "the pattern", barely any works mentioned. A title of "XY Patterns" etc would be more professional.

4. Introduction

In the introduction you need to set the background of where your work builds upon. You talk about patterns but are verbose and lacking in substance. You normally write articles in post-tense. The work is already done, that's the point of a publication, but your second part of the introduction is in pre-tense.

5. Results
No comment here, not my field.

6. Methods
Seems to be something that was written by a ninth grader, Wtf is this sh*t doing here. I am 99.9% certain that these methods have names, just refer to the names.

I have (lots) more to say, but I will say it's a long way form being in publishable form. I haven't even gotten to the results and discussion yet. Get back to work.
slo1
Posts: 4,353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 10:51:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I am experiencing mirth of unbound quantities that an analysis of patterns in Star Trek The Next Generation proves God exists.

I don't even think creationists would take this study seriously.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 4:16:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/29/2014 1:35:23 PM, M.Dubreuil wrote:
Hello everyone. I was concerned with a study about unconscious human decision processes for a few years. At the end it turned out to support intelligent design. We submitted it to Bio-Complexity, the only research journal that supports intelligent design as far as we know. But they told us, they only accept research papers about intelligent design with an emphasis on biology. That leaves virtually no place for us to let our paper be accepted for a peer-review. We had already asked some research journals if they publish papers about intelligent design some time ago, but they denied. We asked Janine Dixon for a recommendation, but she replied there would be currently no journal that would accept our paper (Quote within the URL below). ID has in science a bad reputation and we doubt a common research journal would accept a paper about intelligent design or creationism. But we believe Bio-Complexity could be convinced to accept all papers about intelligent design, that would be not accepted somewhere else. For this purpose we started a petition to convince Bio-Complexity to accept all important papers about intelligent design: http://www.ipetitions.com...

Debating in forums about religion and science can be interesting. But the real research is done for research journals, at which all research about a specific topic is published. Evidences for intelligent design are very important to develop this theory. Help us to convince Bio-Complexity to accept our paper for a peer-review. The peer-review should be a mere formality, we already asked other scientist to estimate our result. They were only slightly biased, because we know them in person.

Is the paper posted somewhere, where can we read it?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Otokage
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2015 9:18:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/30/2014 4:16:56 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 12/29/2014 1:35:23 PM, M.Dubreuil wrote:
Hello everyone. I was concerned with a study about unconscious human decision processes for a few years. At the end it turned out to support intelligent design. We submitted it to Bio-Complexity, the only research journal that supports intelligent design as far as we know. But they told us, they only accept research papers about intelligent design with an emphasis on biology. That leaves virtually no place for us to let our paper be accepted for a peer-review. We had already asked some research journals if they publish papers about intelligent design some time ago, but they denied. We asked Janine Dixon for a recommendation, but she replied there would be currently no journal that would accept our paper (Quote within the URL below). ID has in science a bad reputation and we doubt a common research journal would accept a paper about intelligent design or creationism. But we believe Bio-Complexity could be convinced to accept all papers about intelligent design, that would be not accepted somewhere else. For this purpose we started a petition to convince Bio-Complexity to accept all important papers about intelligent design: http://www.ipetitions.com...

Debating in forums about religion and science can be interesting. But the real research is done for research journals, at which all research about a specific topic is published. Evidences for intelligent design are very important to develop this theory. Help us to convince Bio-Complexity to accept our paper for a peer-review. The peer-review should be a mere formality, we already asked other scientist to estimate our result. They were only slightly biased, because we know them in person.

Is the paper posted somewhere, where can we read it?

Here: http://koliada.co.nf...

Although it's 60 pages long and a bit chaotic. I don't think it would be published anywhere as for now, since it's full of speculation and formal errors as Envisage pointed out.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2015 6:15:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/1/2015 9:18:05 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 12/30/2014 4:16:56 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 12/29/2014 1:35:23 PM, M.Dubreuil wrote:
Hello everyone. I was concerned with a study about unconscious human decision processes for a few years. At the end it turned out to support intelligent design. We submitted it to Bio-Complexity, the only research journal that supports intelligent design as far as we know. But they told us, they only accept research papers about intelligent design with an emphasis on biology. That leaves virtually no place for us to let our paper be accepted for a peer-review. We had already asked some research journals if they publish papers about intelligent design some time ago, but they denied. We asked Janine Dixon for a recommendation, but she replied there would be currently no journal that would accept our paper (Quote within the URL below). ID has in science a bad reputation and we doubt a common research journal would accept a paper about intelligent design or creationism. But we believe Bio-Complexity could be convinced to accept all papers about intelligent design, that would be not accepted somewhere else. For this purpose we started a petition to convince Bio-Complexity to accept all important papers about intelligent design: http://www.ipetitions.com...

Debating in forums about religion and science can be interesting. But the real research is done for research journals, at which all research about a specific topic is published. Evidences for intelligent design are very important to develop this theory. Help us to convince Bio-Complexity to accept our paper for a peer-review. The peer-review should be a mere formality, we already asked other scientist to estimate our result. They were only slightly biased, because we know them in person.

Is the paper posted somewhere, where can we read it?

Here: http://koliada.co.nf...

Although it's 60 pages long and a bit chaotic. I don't think it would be published anywhere as for now, since it's full of speculation and formal errors as Envisage pointed out.

Thanks....I did go find it off the petition site after I did that post. Gotta agree with you guys, it's not ready for prime time anywhere, and even by Discovery Institute standards, the content is weak, if they ever get it ready I still doubt it will ever get published.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 12:20:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I would not recommend this paper. What I would recommend is the following:

1. Become more familiar with the English language; the wording is excruciatingly awkward and does not flow.

2. Be clear in the abstract what's going on; in particular, if you say something like a pattern found in human behavior points to the Trinity, briefly summarize what the pattern is, and how it supports the existence of the Trinity.

3. Make less spelling mistakes.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Paleophyte
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 10:39:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/29/2014 1:35:23 PM, M.Dubreuil wrote:
Hello everyone. I was concerned with a study about unconscious human decision processes for a few years. At the end it turned out to support intelligent design

I have just finished reading your paper and cannot determine if you are a troll or not. That you found a pattern in episodes of Star Trek:TNG is truly amazing. Your Nobel Prize is in the mail.

Incidentally, on the bottom of page 15 you have misspelled "Bibel".
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 1:41:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Your experiment makes little sense and shows nothing. All I can gather is that you came up with an arbitrary coding scheme for events in episodes of a tv show and you found a mildly interesting statistically significant correlation. Yes, there is some consistency in how certain interactions in seasons 5 and 6 of Star Trek: TNG were written by the producers (is this surprising?). You data mined some arbitrary data for a statistically significant result, and your conclusion is that this proves a creator of the universe programmed certain patterns in humans through their unconscious?

This is the work of a high school or early university student who is confused about how to conduct scientific experiments and is also susceptible to replacing logical reasoning with grandiose delusion.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 6:04:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/29/2014 1:35:23 PM, M.Dubreuil wrote:
Hello everyone. I was concerned with a study about unconscious human decision processes for a few years. At the end it turned out to support intelligent design. We submitted it to Bio-Complexity, the only research journal that supports intelligent design as far as we know. But they told us, they only accept research papers about intelligent design with an emphasis on biology. That leaves virtually no place for us to let our paper be accepted for a peer-review. We had already asked some research journals if they publish papers about intelligent design some time ago, but they denied. We asked Janine Dixon for a recommendation, but she replied there would be currently no journal that would accept our paper (Quote within the URL below). ID has in science a bad reputation and we doubt a common research journal would accept a paper about intelligent design or creationism. But we believe Bio-Complexity could be convinced to accept all papers about intelligent design, that would be not accepted somewhere else. For this purpose we started a petition to convince Bio-Complexity to accept all important papers about intelligent design: http://www.ipetitions.com...

Debating in forums about religion and science can be interesting. But the real research is done for research journals, at which all research about a specific topic is published. Evidences for intelligent design are very important to develop this theory. Help us to convince Bio-Complexity to accept our paper for a peer-review. The peer-review should be a mere formality, we already asked other scientist to estimate our result. They were only slightly biased, because we know them in person.

I want this submitted for peer review.

This way you will actually appreciate the reason for rejection is because your science and paper are shockingly terrible, rather than people are close minded.