More whacky ideas about peer review from ICR.

[archaeologist]

Yeah, but what good has it done

sets the record straight so people know the truth; gives glory and credit to God where it belongs; pointed people towards jesus, God and the Holy Spirit...

what theories have been applied

christians aren't supposed to be worried about theories but to find the truth and promote that. depending on the theory, they can be a waste of time.

I'll give you what secular science has done

right and praise secular science. if you are a christian that is wrong.

Type in malaria, cancer, etc... and you'll find thousands of articles on how science is helping to create new treatments for these diseases and many others. Let's see what non-secular science can do

add in the time frame it takes to find cures, the loss of life prior to finding a cure, the testing procedures, the approval procedures, the politics, the greed, the high cost of the medication...

i don't think you have anything to brag about but then again you and others always paint a partial picture.

 

[The Lady Kate]

sets the record straight so people know the truth; gives glory and credit to God where it belongs; pointed people towards jesus, God and the Holy Spirit...

I have never once seen an example of Creationism doing this... all too often it has the opposite effect.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.
The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?
Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]

 

[archaeologist]

I have never once seen an example of Creationism doing this... all too often it has the opposite effect.

please post examples.

i should start charging a fee every time someone quotes the same passage from augustine. i could retire early and devote my time to ...

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

please post examples.

i should start charging a fee every time someone quotes the same passage from augustine. i could retire early and devote my time to ...

...... "completing my research into the flaws in C-14 dating"

 

[random_guy]

right and praise secular science. if you are a christian that is wrong.

Says the person using a computer on the internet.

add in the time frame it takes to find cures, the loss of life prior to finding a cure, the testing procedures, the approval procedures, the politics, the greed, the high cost of the medication...

i don't think you have anything to brag about but then again you and others always paint a partial picture.

Wait what? You're against modern medicine, too? Wow, maybe we should have never eradicated small pox and left that in Jesus's hands, also. It hilarious to see a Creationist hate evolution so much, that they would brand science (and knowledge) as evil, as well as the great things that come from it. It's even more funny to see the same person also uses the same medicines and technological advances at the same time.

 

[archaeologist]

Wait what? You're against modern medicine, too

that is a big leap to a conclusion...you missed the point.

Says the person using a computer on the internet.

i am not amish. plus i am not praising secular science or giving it credit, that goes to God.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

... i am not praising secular science or giving it credit, that goes to God.

Well, if God did all, he also did "secular" science.

 

[theFijian]

it is so nice of you to focus on the unimportant, the information that is common knowledge and soon but fail to address what is important:

lol! Next time archie asks for a credible source for something just tell him it's common knowledge!

 

[Assyrian]

right and praise secular science. if you are a christian that is wrong.

Rom 13:7 Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

 

[random_guy]

lol! Next time archie asks for a credible source for something just tell him it's common knowledge!

Well, it doesn't matter what source we use because it's "secular science". You know, the same science that creates cures for all sorts of medicines (but that's also wrong).

 

[theFijian]

Well, it doesn't matter what source we use because it's "secular science". You know, the same science that creates cures for all sorts of medicines (but that's also wrong).

Yeah there was that question about God allowing secular/atheist doctors heal people when God could have done it himself, strangely archie couldn't/wouldn't answer it.

 

[juvenissun]

Assyrian said:

Rom 13:7 Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

Good quote. Allow me to elaborate it regards to this issue:

IJCR sets a rule for peer reviewing. That is what they should do. Even a rigorous science article, if it provided evidences (strong or weak) for an old earth, IJCR should NOT use it. Because that is the rule of the game.

On the other hand, a science article by a creationist does NOT have to have any label of creationism. For example, if I wrote an article which refutes some evidences of long-time process (old earth) and implies an alternative process which demands a much shorter-time (young earth), then it IS a science article of creationism. And it WILL be accepted by any peer reviewed science journal which thinks the topic fits.

A misconception in most of the discussions on this issue is the assumption that a science article of creationism MUST say something about creationism. It is not true. Creationism is not a science. But sciences do imply creationism.

 

[random_guy]

Assyrian said:

Good quote. Allow me to elaborate it regards to this issue:

IJCR sets a rule for peer reviewing. That is what they should do. Even a rigorous science article, if it provided evidences (strong or weak) for an old earth, IJCR should NOT use it. Because that is the rule of the game.

On the other hand, a science article by a creationist does NOT have to have any label of creationism. For example, if I wrote an article which refutes some evidences of long-time process (old earth) and implies an alternative process which demands a much shorter-time (young earth), then it IS a science article of creationism. And it WILL be accepted by any peer reviewed science journal which thinks the topic fits.

A misconception in most of the discussions on this issue is the assumption that a science article of creationism MUST say something about creationism. It is not true. Creationism is not a science. But sciences do imply creationism.

This is exactly right. If Creationists were performing real science, they would have no problem publishing in peer reviewed scientific journals. The sooner Creationists realize that there is no bias, and that if they do good scientific research then they will be published, the sooner Creationists will gain scientific acceptance. As of now, people like archaeologists yelling out, "Conspiracy!" does no good to the Creationist side.

 

[archaeologist]

were performing real science

translation--- only our way. sorry but God doesn't go according to man's rules and regulations.

The sooner Creationists realize that there is no bias

such naivity.

and that if they do good scientific research then they will be published, the sooner Creationists will gain scientific acceptance. As of now, people like archaeologists yelling out, "Conspiracy!" does no good to the Creationist side.

what a joke. i am not yelling out conspiracy but mis-representation is a favorite tactic of those here.

i am glad both ICR & AIG have established their own peer review system. maybe now secular science will be forced to be open-minded and stop rubber stamping a pre-supposition (evolution).

in fact, the competition will be good for them, for no longer can they just say---take our word for it but will have to come up with actual evidence and proof.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

........
in fact, the competition will be good for them, for no longer can they just say---take our word for it but will have to come up with actual evidence and proof.....

I for one will be delighted to read a non-secular scienctific proof of the creationists' position.

There is nothing that delights (secular) scientists more in their quest for knowledge than to see long held theories challenged and even overturned.

 

[random_guy]

translation--- only our way. sorry but God doesn't go according to man's rules and regulations.

such naivity.

If I'm so naive, why is it that no Creationist has ever submitted to a scientific journal and then showed the reject letter based solely on bias?

what a joke. i am not yelling out conspiracy but mis-representation is a favorite tactic of those here.

i am glad both ICR & AIG have established their own peer review system. maybe now secular science will be forced to be open-minded and stop rubber stamping a pre-supposition (evolution).

in fact, the competition will be good for them, for no longer can they just say---take our word for it but will have to come up with actual evidence and proof.

I'm sure competition will be better, the problem is, the contest is over. That's why billions of dollars are put into "secular science" and a few million in Creationism. Most of the money that goes into Creationism is then used to fund museums and public propaganda pieces. Very little is actually spent on equipment, RA's, and real research. The contest is so far over, we completely ignore Creationists in the real world, not even giving them the time of day because their position is about as absurd as Holocaust deniers in the scientific community.

 

[archaeologist]

If I'm so naive, why is it that no Creationist has ever submitted to a scientific journal and then showed the reject letter based solely on bias?

you posted the regulations fror the secular peer review system, that gives you your answer right there. As stated earlier, there is no way anyone will put bias as the reason for rejection and the fallout as been explained.

The contest is so far over, we completely ignore Creationists in the real world, not even giving them the time of day because their position is about as absurd as Holocaust deniers in the scientific community

there you go, sounds like bias to me.

I'm sure competition will be better, the problem is, the contest is over

right--God won a long time ago and secular scientists still haven't realized it yet.

Most of the money that goes into Creationism is then used to fund museums and public propaganda pieces

sounds exactly like what secular scientists have done---has anyone heard of the Smithsonian??? the Louvre?? and others?

again you take the hypocritcal stance, face it, your rejection of them is based upon bias and 'science' is used as the excuse.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

....
sounds exactly like what secular scientists have done---has anyone heard of ... the Louvre??
...

The Louvre was founded by secular scientists?

Do you have a credible link?

 

[USincognito]

sounds exactly like what secular scientists have done---has anyone heard of the Smithsonian??? the Louvre?? and others?

Johns Hopkins, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, MIT, Oak Ridge National Lab... oh, you meant more museums, not places where science is done. The Chicago Museum and the British Museum are amazing. Head and Shoulders above Dinosaur Adventure Land.

 

[random_guy]

you posted the regulations fror the secular peer review system, that gives you your answer right there. As stated earlier, there is no way anyone will put bias as the reason for rejection and the fallout as been explained.

But if they don't put bias as the reason for rejection, they must put something else. If Creationists think they are actually performing good science, why don't they submit to a journal to see what reason it's rejected for? It's because Creationists know they don't do science.

sounds exactly like what secular scientists have done---has anyone heard of the Smithsonian??? the Louvre?? and others?

again you take the hypocritcal stance, face it, your rejection of them is based upon bias and 'science' is used as the excuse.

Except the money that goes towards museums is just a drop in a bucket compared to how much is spent on research (also, a lot of museums also have a research group). My university spends ~$300 million on research per year. That's just one university in Utah. I'm guessing that's probably more than the combined research dollars of every single Creationist organization world wide per year.