Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
Why don't they just submit to existing channels where scientists are already active?
Why don't they just submit to existing channels where scientists are already active?
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 (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!
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)
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)
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.
again, science is science without regard to race, ethnicity, gender or religion.
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.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.
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"
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.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.
actually the burden of proof lies in the defence, now that an argument has been made. The jury awaits.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?