new member

[whatsit]

hello, i'm whatsit and i just joined 30 minutes ago.
i'm a male, 59 years old.
i'm not what you would call a "bible thumper" and don't go to church.
i'm undecided in regards to a god.
the major reasons i joined:
1. i have a lot of time on my hands.
2. i believe i have information that needs to be heard.

i also believe that evolution isn't the fact you might think it is.
i've uncovered stuff that i never knew existed.

so, if you like a good debate on evolution or would just like to hear what i have to say, then reply here and let me know.

peace

[whatsit]

Welcome, though you have been told where to post your views on specific topics, I think you will find that there are some here who word their responses to almost any topic such that they can ramble on about their pet peeves. Be careful not to copy them, or respond too bluntly, at least not in the beginning. Such tactics take a certain amount of nuance and are designed to elicit a negative response. Focus on your points and maybe search fallacies in wikipedia, so you can avoid using them and recognize them when they are used against you. Pointing out fallacies, or at least claiming others are using them, is a common past time around here.

where would i post if my topic was "fraud in evolution"?
yes, i honestly feel i have uncovered something quite like that.
i can hardly believe it myself, but the facts are undeniable.

[whatsit]

If they didn't accept your sources, then your sources don't have any scientific merit.

personally i'm not quite prepared to call science and nature liars.
besides, the rabbit hole runs very deep with this one.

But you obviously don't have any respected scientific sources remember? You already tried that and they rejected your sources.

i can't help that.
science and nature are 2 of the most respected names in science.

Is this some form of evangelism?

no, why would you even suggest otherwise before you have seen my argument?
referring to one of the above posts, is this called "poisoning the well"?
yes, i know all about logical fallacies and i try to avoid them like the plague.

"Spread the Word" sure sounds evangelical to me.

regardless of what it sounds like, that's my aim here.

Especially if you are attempting to 'spread the word' that even you confess has already been rejected by the scientific community as having questionable sources.

that isn't what i said.
referring to one of the above posts, this is what you call a "strawman"
i said they didn't like my sources.
you have to ask the site admins why they called it a "science site"

where do i start a thread about "fraud in evolution"?

[Divine Insight]

where do i start a thread about "fraud in evolution"?

If you're asking me I would suggest "Random Ramblings".

[Zzyzx]

.

If they didn't accept your sources, then your sources don't have any scientific merit.

personally i'm not quite prepared to call science and nature liars.

Where and how were your ideas presented to "science?"

Have your submitted articles to scientific periodicals and organizations describing your research, detailing your methods, supporting your conclusions?

Has your work been published anywhere by anyone?

But you obviously don't have any respected scientific sources remember? You already tried that and they rejected your sources.

i can't help that.
science and nature are 2 of the most respected names in science.

If you have competently explored scientific areas and have been rejected (or not accepted), exactly what audiences do you hope will accept your proposals?

"Spread the Word" sure sounds evangelical to me.

regardless of what it sounds like, that's my aim here.

Notice that this is a debate forum, not a podium from which to preach, spread the word, or promote personal opinions.

Especially if you are attempting to 'spread the word' that even you confess has already been rejected by the scientific community as having questionable sources.

that isn't what i said.
referring to one of the above posts, this is what you call a "strawman"
i said they didn't like my sources.
you have to ask the site admins why they called it a "science site"

To what "site admins" do you refer?

Did those "site admins" accept your submission for publication or did they not? If the latter, that is known as rejection.

where do i start a thread about "fraud in evolution"?

I have saved you the trouble by starting a thread on that topic

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 501#698501

[bluethread]

Welcome, though you have been told where to post your views on specific topics, I think you will find that there are some here who word their responses to almost any topic such that they can ramble on about their pet peeves. Be careful not to copy them, or respond too bluntly, at least not in the beginning. Such tactics take a certain amount of nuance and are designed to elicit a negative response. Focus on your points and maybe search fallacies in wikipedia, so you can avoid using them and recognize them when they are used against you. Pointing out fallacies, or at least claiming others are using them, is a common past time around here.

where would i post if my topic was "fraud in evolution"?
yes, i honestly feel i have uncovered something quite like that.
i can hardly believe it myself, but the facts are undeniable.

The science and religion forum. However, it appears that Zzyzx has already done it in the Christianity Apologetics forum.

[whatsit]

Where and how were your ideas presented to "science?"

where have i implied i did?

If you have competently explored scientific areas and have been rejected (or not accepted), . . .

i posted my conclusions along with the evidence i had on a science forum, a website that discusses science among other things.

. . . exactly what audiences do you hope will accept your proposals?

whoever is willing to see the truth of the matter.

Notice that this is a debate forum, not a podium from which to preach, spread the word, or promote personal opinions.

i've got valid respected science references.

To what "site admins" do you refer?

the site where i first posted this stuff, sorry, the site will NOT be divulged.

Did those "site admins" accept your submission for publication or did they not? If the latter, that is known as rejection.

it was a website that discusses science amongst other things.
they don't "accept" or "reject" anything.

I have saved you the trouble by starting a thread on that topic

sorry, i've already started the thread, titled "the truth about evolution"

[Zzyzx]

.

Where and how were your ideas presented to "science?"

where have i implied i did?

Perhaps you don't recall saying in post #6:

In fact, if you had anything that truly had any meat you'd be far better off presenting it to the scientific community rather than an Internet forum that debates religions.

been there, done that.
they didn't like my sources, you know science and nature?

Were you mistaken in post #6?

To what "site admins" do you refer?

the site where i first posted this stuff, sorry, the site will NOT be divulged.

It is not surprising that one might not wish to actually provide citation to where they claim to have presented their ideas, particularly if the site did not respond favorably.

If you have competently explored scientific areas and have been rejected (or not accepted), . . .

i posted my conclusions along with the evidence i had on a science forum, a website that discusses science among other things.

Posting something on a website ("scientific" or not) does NOT constitute presenting it to the scientific community – except by the wildest stretch of imagination and credulity.

[whatsit]

Perhaps you don't recall saying in post #6:

In fact, if you had anything that truly had any meat you'd be far better off presenting it to the scientific community rather than an Internet forum that debates religions.

been there, done that.
they didn't like my sources, you know science and nature?

Were you mistaken in post #6?

no, it appears you misunderstood.

note to site admins:
using the quote box isn't very, uh, user friendly.
for example, why is there numerous instances of URLS?
meh, something i gotta get used to i guess.

It is not surprising that one might not wish to actually provide citation to where they claim to have presented their ideas, particularly if the site did not respond favorably.

i've given the title and forum where i presented my arguement.
forum: science and religion
thread: the truth about evolution.
you are free to comment there.

Posting something on a website ("scientific" or not) does NOT constitute presenting it to the scientific community – except by the wildest stretch of imagination and credulity.

where are you getting "scientific community"?
it was a WEBSITE THAT DISCUSSES SCIENCE.

[Zzyzx]

.

Posting something on a website ("scientific" or not) does NOT constitute presenting it to the scientific community – except by the wildest stretch of imagination and credulity.

where are you getting "scientific community"?
it was a WEBSITE THAT DISCUSSES SCIENCE.

Divine Insight legitimately mentioned the Scientific Community in post #2:

In fact, if you had anything that truly had any meat you'd be far better off presenting it to the scientific community rather than an Internet forum that debates religions.

Perhaps you are unaware that the term "Scientific Community" has a specific meaning.

The scientific community is a diverse network of interacting scientists. It includes many "sub-communities" working on particular scientific fields, and within particular institutions; interdisciplinary and cross-institutional activities are also significant. Objectivity is expected to be achieved by the scientific method. Peer review, through discussion and debate within journals and conferences, assists in this objectivity by maintaining the quality of research methodology and interpretation of results

Membership of the community is generally, but not exclusively, a function of education, employment status, and institutional affiliation. Status within the community is highly correlated with publication record.[2] Scientists are usually trained in academia through universities. As such, degrees in the relevant scientific sub-disciplines are often considered prerequisites for membership in the relevant community. In particular, the PhD with its research requirements functions as a marker of being an important integrator into the community, though continued membership is dependent on maintaining connections to other researchers through publication, technical contributions, and conferences. After obtaining a PhD an academic scientist may continue through post-doctoral fellowships and onto professorships. Other scientists make contributions to the scientific community in alternate ways such as in industry, education, think tanks, or the government.

Members of the same community do not need to work together.[1] Communication between the members is established by disseminating research work and hypotheses through articles in peer reviewed journals, or by attending conferences where new research is presented and ideas exchanged and discussed. There are also many informal methods of communication of scientific work and results as well. And many in a coherent community may actually not communicate all of their work with one another, for various professional reasons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_community

Notice that the term means something very different from posting on a "scientific" website. Also, posting in S&R sub-forum does not insure that something is scientific or that it is valid.

[whatsit]

moderators, please close this thread.
if someone wants to try and answer to my sources they can do it in the thread i created in the science and religion forum.
thread title: the truth about evolution.
i will not discuss this matter any further in this thread