Does a GLOBAL FLOOD truly seem like the BEST explanation for seashells on mountains? (2)

[createdtoworship]

Answers in Genesis as I already told you has no peer reviewal.

ARJ Call for Papers - Answers Research Journal

it's a the off shore site of AIG, that allows scientists to submit of peer review.

not to diminish the roles of the forum but due to time limitations....
and if you wish for more reply, you'll need to email.

 

[rikerjoe]

ARJ Call for Papers - Answers Research Journal

it's a the off shore site of AIG, that allows scientists to submit of peer review.

not to diminish the roles of the forum but due to time limitations....
and if you wish for more reply, you'll need to email.

Why don't they just submit to existing channels where scientists are already active?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why don't they just submit to existing channels where scientists are already active?

Because they know what the results would be.

ARJ is not a real peer reviewed journal. Normal peer reviewed journals have ratings. Part of that comes from how often they are referred to in other journals. You would be hard pressed to find one with a lower rating than ARJ amd that includes the lowest of pay to print journals.

 

[createdtoworship]

Why don't they just submit to existing channels where scientists are already active?

A valid question! And you guys are correct "the results would be devastating." But not in the way you would think. Robert Gentry formerly of oakridge labratories specializing in nuclear waste was excommunicated from the peer review network after being found a creationist. I believe this was one of his last works containing peer review (http://www.amazon.com/Creations-Tiny-Mystery-Robert-Gentry/dp/0961675330) but I am not sure. My source had lunch with him regarding the prejudices of the peer review networks. If you don't believe this account, this is fine... Email the webmaster of the AIG provided in my last post and I assure you they would provide dozens more of eye witness accounts of this with various creation scientists being rejected. Many creation scientists may get one or two works through, however when creation or ID intelligent design is mentioned they are rejected without further approval of ANY works. Again email the link for more. Here is why.... The reason is creationism puts the reputation of the peer review networks at risk, too much exposure. So in being fair, they are actually being unfair. See what I mean? Good question and it leads to the purpose of legitimate peer review by all definitions of the phrase being done at AIG. you can message me should you have more questions, this will probably be my last post as work is picking up and I need to finish my course studies as well. Good luck in your journey for truth!

 

[JamesKurtovich]

Why don't they just submit to existing channels where scientists are already active?

There's a conspiracy!

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no conspiracy to go after creationists. Prejudice by peer review would be too easily exposed. As part of the peer review process when an article is rejected the reasons for its rejection and possible routes to correction are usually given. If there was an actual conspiracy the rejections would show it.

I am not aware of any creation "scientist" bringing up any of their rejected papers along with the correspondences from professional journals as evidence.

There are creation "scientists" who have published peer reviewed science in their own specialty. Yet when it comes to trying to write an article that is reviewable they avoid the peer review process like the plague. Or like John C. Sanford tired to do, you go the the wrong department for peer review. He almost got his "genetic entropy" reviewed by submitting it to the mathematics and information science part of a journal and he almost managed to sneak it through. That is until biologists got hold of the idea and showed how his basic assumptions were incorrect.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Funny how there's a conspiracy against "creation science" but not against "new age science", "junk science" or any other kind of pseudoscience. It's perfectly reasonable to reject water memory, eugenics, astrology and lamarckism by examining them and showing how they are flawed. But the moment you subject "creation science" to the same scrutiny all objectivity is discarded and any apparent flaws are only projections of religious bias. It matters not if the reviewer is Christian, when the subject being reviewed is creation related they become ardently atheistic and anti-biblical.

Perhaps I should write a paper on this phenomenon - but I'm sure the conspirators would reject it out-of-hand during peer review, not because my hypothesis is flawed.

 

[StormanNorman]

A valid question! And you guys are correct "the results would be devastating." But not in the way you would think. Robert Gentry formerly of oakridge labratories specializing in nuclear waste was excommunicated from the peer review network after being found a creationist. I believe this was one of his last works containing peer review (Creation's Tiny Mystery: Robert V. Gentry: 9780961675332: Amazon.com: Books) but I am not sure. My source had lunch with him regarding the prejudices of the peer review networks. If you don't believe this account, this is fine... Email the webmaster of the AIG provided in my last post and I assure you they would provide dozens more of eye witness accounts of this with various creation scientists being rejected. Many creation scientists may get one or two works through, however when creation or ID intelligent design is mentioned they are rejected without further approval of ANY works. Again email the link for more. Here is why.... The reason is creationism puts the reputation of the peer review networks at risk, too much exposure. So in being fair, they are actually being unfair. See what I mean? Good question and it leads to the purpose of legitimate peer review by all definitions of the phrase being done at AIG. you can message me should you have more questions, this will probably be my last post as work is picking up and I need to finish my course studies as well. Good luck in your journey for truth!

If their work is legitimately good research (outside of creation and ID), then I doubt that it would have a problem being accepted in the appropriate journal. It does not matter what their religious beliefs are. But, if their research is based on creationism, ID, etc. and pushes or hints towards those conclusions, then it has no business being in a true scientific journal....as creationism and ID are based entirely on presupposed faith and not science.

 

[createdtoworship]

A valid question! And you guys are correct "the results would be devastating." But not in the way you would think. Robert Gentry formerly of oakridge labratories specializing in nuclear waste was excommunicated from the peer review network after being found a creationist. I believe this was one of his last works containing peer review (http://www.amazon.com/Creations-Tiny-Mystery-Robert-Gentry/dp/0961675330) but I am not sure. My source had lunch with him regarding the prejudices of the peer review networks. If you don't believe this account, this is fine... Email the webmaster of the AIG provided in my last post and I assure you they would provide dozens more of eye witness accounts of this with various creation scientists being rejected. Many creation scientists may get one or two works through, however when creation or ID intelligent design is mentioned they are rejected without further approval of ANY works. Again email the link for more. Here is why.... The reason is creationism puts the reputation of the peer review networks at risk, too much exposure. So in being fair, they are actually being unfair. See what I mean? Good question and it leads to the purpose of legitimate peer review by all definitions of the phrase being done at AIG. you can message me should you have more questions, this will probably be my last post as work is picking up and I need to finish my course studies as well. Good luck in your journey for truth!

hello, here again robert gentry (creationist) censored for posting these documents (Orion Foundation: Ten Censored Papers) which are legitimate science to a cornell university database, later suing for the removal (free speech of scientific theory- IF it is in fact science based).... In 2001 sued the los alamos @ cornell labratories for censorship of true scientific views. I mean this is rediculous, just because one isn't a uniformitarian, humanist, or evolutionist should they be silenced?

sad indeed, science is science regardless of race, ethnicity or religion.

more info here:
Dr. Robert V. Gentry, Nuclear Physicist Earth Science Associates (his web site)

 

[StormanNorman]

hello, here again robert gentry (creationist) censored for posting these documents (Orion Foundation: Ten Censored Papers) which are legitimate science to a cornell university database, later suing for the removal (free speech of scientific theory- IF it is in fact science based).... In 2001 sued the los alamos @ cornell labratories for censorship of true scientific views. I mean this is rediculous, just because one isn't a uniformitarian, humanist, or evolutionist should they be silenced?

sad indeed, science is science regardless of race, ethnicity or religion.

more info here:
Dr. Robert V. Gentry, Nuclear Physicist Earth Science Associates (his web site)

Several of these papers have the word "Genesis" in their titles. Evaluating and reading the evidence to support a pre-decided, faith-based conclusion is not science.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

hello, here again robert gentry (creationist) censored for posting these documents (Orion Foundation: Ten Censored Papers) which are legitimate science to a cornell university database, later suing for the removal (free speech of scientific theory- IF it is in fact science based).... In 2001 sued the los alamos @ cornell labratories for censorship of true scientific views. I mean this is rediculous, just because one isn't a uniformitarian, humanist, or evolutionist should they be silenced?

sad indeed, science is science regardless of race, ethnicity or religion.

more info here:
Dr. Robert V. Gentry, Nuclear Physicist Earth Science Associates (his web site)

arXiv is, if I'm not mistaken, not a peer reviewed publication and isn't really a "publication" at all. It is a preprint database. Ergo these have yet to be published in a peer reviewed journal.

This is not to say that all on arxiv are not peer reviewed....but seems to me if you want to take a stab at a coherently worded critique of science silencing anyone you might wish to go with a more robust metric.

 

[Loudmouth]

hello, here again robert gentry (creationist) censored for posting these documents (Orion Foundation: Ten Censored Papers) which are legitimate science to a cornell university database, later suing for the removal (free speech of scientific theory- IF it is in fact science based).... In 2001 sued the los alamos @ cornell labratories for censorship of true scientific views. I mean this is rediculous, just because one isn't a uniformitarian, humanist, or evolutionist should they be silenced?

sad indeed, science is science regardless of race, ethnicity or religion.

more info here:
Dr. Robert V. Gentry, Nuclear Physicist Earth Science Associates (his web site)

Robert Gentry can post whatever he wants to his own websites and at his own place of business. What he can't do is force others to print pseudoscience.

 

[createdtoworship]

Robert Gentry can post whatever he wants to his own websites and at his own place of business. What he can't do is force others to print pseudoscience.

again, science is science without regard to race, ethnicity, gender or religion. You prove my point when you made the self refuting statment regarding pseudoscience.

you would actually have to define pseudoscience and make a valid arguement with premises and a conclusion with actual,factual evidence to say soundly,

the mans science is "pseudo" science.

but is it worth it to you?

 

[Loudmouth]

again, science is science without regard to race, ethnicity, gender or religion.

Making bare assertions that are not backed by evidence is not science. It is pseudoscience, and that is what Gentry has.

 

[Split Rock]

A valid question! And you guys are correct "the results would be devastating." But not in the way you would think. Robert Gentry formerly of oakridge labratories specializing in nuclear waste was excommunicated from the peer review network after being found a creationist. I believe this was one of his last works containing peer review (Creation's Tiny Mystery: Robert V. Gentry: 9780961675332: Amazon.com: Books) but I am not sure. My source had lunch with him regarding the prejudices of the peer review networks. If you don't believe this account, this is fine... Email the webmaster of the AIG provided in my last post and I assure you they would provide dozens more of eye witness accounts of this with various creation scientists being rejected. Many creation scientists may get one or two works through, however when creation or ID intelligent design is mentioned they are rejected without further approval of ANY works. Again email the link for more. Here is why.... The reason is creationism puts the reputation of the peer review networks at risk, too much exposure. So in being fair, they are actually being unfair. See what I mean? Good question and it leads to the purpose of legitimate peer review by all definitions of the phrase being done at AIG. you can message me should you have more questions, this will probably be my last post as work is picking up and I need to finish my course studies as well. Good luck in your journey for truth!

Oh I'm sure that Gentry likes playing the "I'm being persecuted" card, but its all nonsense. If you submit a paper worthy of publishing, it will usually get published. If it isn't good enough, it is rejected. No one asks, "but are you a creationist?" Instead of offering us biased testimonials by creationists who want special treatment and cry when they don't get it, give us specific examples of good papers that were rejected just because the author was a creationist.

 

[createdtoworship]

Oh I'm sure that Gentry likes playing the "I'm being persecuted" card, but its all nonsense. If you submit a paper worthy of publishing, it will usually get published. If it isn't good enough, it is rejected. No one asks, "but are you a creationist?" Instead of offering us biased testimonials by creationists who want special treatment and cry when they don't get it, give us specific examples of good papers that were rejected just because the author was a creationist.

yes and no, yes there were some science papers that did not mention God or the Bible that were rejected simply because they provided an alternative to the Big Bang that the institution rejected. But as the other poster just said, it's blind faith in accepting an institutions motivations as correct without questioning it further. SEcondly, you are incorrect in saying that they did not ask "are you a creationist" because several of the lawsuits were in fact after he mentioned support of the creationist theory:

"After he presented scientific evidence for creation in a high-profile court case, his contract with Oak Ridge was not extended"

so the evidence is in the links I provided, yet unread I see.

I would suggest reading the links then discussing what you read.

 

[TLK Valentine]

yes and no, yes there were some science papers that did not mention God or the Bible that were rejected simply because they provided an alternative to the Big Bang that the institution rejected.

The Institution rejects lots of papers -- did they mention why?

But as the other poster just said, it's blind faith in accepting an institutions motivations as correct without questioning it further.

No less blind than rejecting it as biased without investigation.

SEcondly, you are incorrect in saying that they did not ask "are you a creationist" because several of the lawsuits were in fact after he mentioned support of the creationist theory:

"After he presented scientific evidence for creation in a high-profile court case, his contract with Oak Ridge was not extended"

There is no scientific evidence for creationism -- Gentry's "evidence" consists of so much whining that even other creationists are getting sick of him.

 

[Tomk80]

The Institution rejects lots of papers -- did they mention why?

No less blind than rejecting it as biased without investigation.

There is no scientific evidence for creationism -- Gentry's "evidence" consists of so much whining that even other creationists are getting sick of him.

I started reading the second of his 10 "censored" papers in my lunch break. Really couldn't get through it, gave up after the first two pages. The first two pages are basically self-congratulatory whine fests with no substance whatsoever. Really, if I dared to send something like that to my supervisor I'd get a strong reprimand from him. If I continued, I don't think I'd ever get my PhD, unless I'd find a different professor who revels in self-congratulatory whine fests.

edited to add: Seriously, read one of those articles, the writing is really, really, really crappy.

edited because I can't get over how crappy: yes, really, extremely, horribly crappy.

 

[createdtoworship]

I started reading the second of his 10 "censored" papers in my lunch break. Really couldn't get through it, gave up after the first two pages. The first two pages are basically self-congratulatory whine fests with no substance whatsoever. Really, if I dared to send something like that to my supervisor I'd get a strong reprimand from him. If I continued, I don't think I'd ever get my PhD, unless I'd find a different professor who revels in self-congratulatory whine fests.

edited to add: Seriously, read one of those articles, the writing is really, really, really crappy.

edited because I can't get over how crappy: yes, really, extremely, horribly crappy.

logical fallacies are in question in your reply, mainly a red herring. To avoid the topic of substance for grammer.

 

[createdtoworship]

No less blind than rejecting it as biased without investigation.

actually the burden of proof lies in the defence, now that an argument has been made. The jury awaits.

There is no scientific evidence for creationism -- Gentry's "evidence" consists of so much whining that even other creationists are getting sick of him.

that would be an ad hominem, attack on character and not the evidence of what was said.