If the Creationists never take the time to write an academic paper and submit it, how can we actually believe that an evolutionist bias (if there is such a thing) exist? Creationists are great at pretending to be persecuted when they don't even make an effort to prove it. Also, do chemistry, geology, physics, astronomy journals have "evolutionist" bias? How come evolutionists seem to control all the academic journals (including historical) as well as all the universities?
They have and did for a long time-- but were never reviewed or given a rejection for the premise. Once again as you guys have admitted-- evolution is considered a closed issue. It is considered irrefutable. So to submit a paper to academic reviewers that beleive this-- what do you think is going to happen? If the NAACP submitted a thesis to the KKK the same result would happen!
And no wwe don't "feel" persecuted (at least much) we just recognize what reality is and state and go from there.
No, you keep missing the point. We can examine the comments to determine why it was rejected. If there's a evolutionist biased, we can find it from the comments. However, if the comments read, "Moon dust measurements were shown to be inaccurate", then it shows that the methods Creationists use are flawed. I don't understand why this is so hard to get. If Creationists want to be taken seriously, why aren't they submitting to academic journals?
Well they do and many creationist papers get peer reviewed and published and man ygrants are given to YEC scientists and many awards have been given to YEC sc ientists-- as long as they do not attack the foundational principles fo evolution or long long ages.
You're telling me that ICR is just as good as NAS, the group with only 2000 members, 10% of which have Nobel prizes? ICR is as good as my school, the U of U, which has thousands of papers to it's name? Why is it the ICR spend more time on politics than first hand research? Ken Hamm has enough money to build a $25 million museum. Why isn't this money being funnelled into research instead of show?
So the number of papaers determine how adept someone is?? wow that is amazing.
I made no comparisons of ICR to anyone--you did. I just simply said that ICR is engaged in researh and if they got the funds funnelled to them that secular institutions got funnellled to them--they would be able to do far more resaearch and amazing research as well.
Ken Ham is buildiing a museum because museums help to teach people and the funds givewn are restricted funds.
Before anyone can win a Nobel prize, they need to do scientific research and they need to be able to publish scientific papers. I'll ask again, why is it that there's been no attempt in sending in Creationist papers to peer reviewed journals? If RATE was scientific, why aren't they trying to submit their work to geology papers?
Answered mnay times already oin this thread. Tell you what why don't you submit evolution based research papers to creationist review boards, do it for years, and then you will answewr your own question.
If they've been published, why not RATE?
Once again as you have not understood it mnay times before-- they are not callooing into question the very reliability of radio dating or evolution--they are evolutionists just debating certain ages of certain fossils. World of difference but you should know that.
LOL. based upon what? Most of them were sub-standard even in their unconnected fields so how are they going to be good in in the relevant fields?
Notice how most of them, even the engineer types are not at MIT or Imperial College and similar schools but at some much lower tier school. In other words they suck in the obscure fields they actually work in.
Well seeing as you make yourself omniscient-- for they certasinly have been given alot of grant money, and received many awards and asccolades for the work they do. Too bad you are such a snob! But then again what should we inferior life forms think from such a more superior being a syourself!!!
LOL. Which is it nolidad? Your goalposts are moving. First you claimed they were at major schools, even department chairs. Now it is a conspiracy they are kept out.
My bad, I forgot you are the emepror of detereming the "proper" schools to be called major or prestigious. Forgive me for such arrogance.
[QUOTEYou don't know whether you are coming or going in this debate do you?][/QUOTE]
No I do know quite well, I just won't fall for your word games of my words.
The Lady Kate writes:
Basic Christian teaching... God did not dictate the Scriptures verbatim, He inspired men to write. Every Christian knows this.
Well seeing as how I never suggested dictation I am wondering why you pulled this irrelavent statement out of left field?
it should be noted that you weren't there either... which means you have no idea, except Moses' account (if indeed the account was actually written by Moses) who Adam was, or where he walked.
Well maybe you were there (and just hiding your age well) which is why you think your opinion is correct!!!
I at least base my conclusion on actual history by Jewish historians.
Then you accept common ancestry. Good to know.
You would be amazed to learn what I beleive if you would ask me instead of being so presumptious of what I beleive.
Actually, it's nothing more than an assumption of "Goddidit" which has neither scientific nor Biblical support.
Well it doesn't have secular scientific support nor the altered "biblical" support modernists hold to but it is the best biblical explanation. And it is jsut as valid as saying some mutation somewhere sometime (long ago in a galaxy far away--key in star wars theme!)
Prove the "Well it must have been God, putting us together in His workshop just so..."
Prove fish to lizard to bird by speciation through mutation, selection and long time ages. I am not commisioned as an ambassador of Christ to "prove" HIm--He does that to honest hearts who really want to know Him. I just report the facts maam just the facts.
Where did those preexisting recessive genetics come from?
Oh, that's right, God put them there, right?
He did, but how well not even the crystal balls of evolution pretending to know what happened supposed "millions of years ago" can prove it. The only things science can prove is what can be seen, tested, reseen and retested, reseen and retested. The rest is all supposition based o ntheir bias. They beleive mutation caused everything to happen from nonlife to life to the present diversity. We beleive in the God we have a personal relationship with!
Well, it's a fact that mutations cause variously different traits to appear.
Well easy to say!!! Now cite me 12 examples of traits that appeared in a creature that were empirically shown to be traits that were not already present int he genetic code--then I will agree that it happens more than what has been determined in all the texts I ahve read from the evolutionary standpoint. Remember --traits that were not already encoded in the system or a simple combinig of two existing traits. New info added to the genome-- or a true mutation.
And it's a fact that different species, including those formed under laboratory conditions, often cannot breed with the original "parent" species.
I have no problem with that but so what?? Why is that germaine. There are many reasons as to the why of that staement and mutation is one of mnay plausible reasons. But you know that also.
That's speciation... the only person doubting that mutation is a critical factor in it is you.
False statement--there are many!! I have said it can be a factor. True mutation can and does alter genetic codes. But they are so few and far inbetween form what we ahve observed and proven as to be negligible. But you know that also.
If you could give a plausible working model, why haven't you already done so?
Spend all that time, energy, effort just so you, Kerr. mrwilliams, late cretaceous et al. can all say no? Besides you have probably read the most accepet ed hypothetical creationist models already. But you know that as well.
That's a hypothesis, but it still doesn't explain where such info came from in the first place. It didn't fall from the sky.
You say random chaotic mutation, selelction and time, I say God!!
And the "comment" is usually a laundry list of every scietific error and blunder committed in the paper.
So you are the librarian of all rejected creationist papers?? Thats good to know. But then do you honestly think an evolutionist is going to agree with a paper that trashes evolution even when it is right??? Are you that naive??? I know you aren't.
Objections? You mean refutations?
Semantics.
Well because he is a YEC th ethings whioch are wrong are refutations but if he were an evolutionist writing on evolution he probabl;y would not be treated so harshly unless it was from one of the opposing schools of though on evolutionary mechanisms.
But seeing as how you've made a basic theological blunder... mistaking inspiration for dictation... your use of the "were you there????" argument comes off as desperate.
No that is your false assumption and false accusation of what I said without bothering to check with me first. And you may call it desperate because it appears you wish to alter the Word of God so you can escape the coinviction of the Word to beleive what you want and call it godly.
Whcih means you have no legitimate schools to offer, so you, too, are crying "Conspiracy!"
No you are the ones who keep crying conspiracy. Kerr just sees through snobbish eyes that is all. He is a "superior intellect" and is this years chariman of putting down schools that dont pass his and his colleaugues "reasonable sniff test"
Try to argue that "nonexistence" in the Supreme Court.
WEll show me that teh constitution gives a woman a right to slaughter her baby in the womb!! But those liberal justices found that in the illuminations of the penumbra of the constitution!! But I do know in which constitution you can find speeled out the seperation of church and state--The OLD USSR constitution. Cause it does not appear in Americas one nor in the federalist pares. Just a passin g comment on it by Thomas Jefferson and even then no where near the context it is used today to isolate religiopn from public life.
Flat-Earthers could get similar research with similar funding
And I suppose they could even resuurect that old school of evolution that says phylogeny recapitulates ontology!! Good thing you weren't born at 22 weeks huh??
Now tell us, in your own words, what the research of Mt. St. Helens proved.
In a nutshell--it doesn't take millenia for thousands of sedimentary layers to be place ddown, it doesn't take long ages for peat bogs, coal beds to form, and it doesn't take long ages for fossilization to occur. those are some of the easier proven things of the research done at MT. St. Helens.
We know that certain Creationists, unable to support their ideas in the legitimate scientific arena, have taken to crying "Conspiracy" and formed their own pseudoscientific splinter groups.
tthats because we keep forgetting that we are the inferior beings ont he planet and we is all just plain ole stupid compared to you'uns!!! Well stupid to those who such as your self are guilty of this error :
2 Peter 3:
3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
But we are smart towards God though shamewfully inadequate of being HIs ambassadors too often. So I will take my chances with HIs Word over the Word of Men. Just remember He was there in ther beginning and knew what He did, and told Adam who wrote it down so that it would become Gods Word one day. What you hold about Gods Word is in actuality you ropinion of what you think His Word should say!
Ah yes, pity the poor Creationist... everyone says he's wrong, so he must be right.
I can hear the violins tuning up as we speak...
Yeahg they are playing of our favorite songs--Amazing grace. Remember we don't cry that you hat ethe truth, we cry cause you profess to know HIm but buy every reasonable argumetn against His sovereignty and thus allow yourself to be blinded from knowing HIm in His matchless glory--that is why we cry cause you are blinded by "science " falsely so called.
Kerr Metric writes:
No they are not researching. Where is the beef?
Nice backhanded segregationist comment. Funny how the real segregationists tended to be fundamentalist/literalist types.
Well don't tell that to their employers or to the scientists--they will look up at you shrug and get back to their rersearch work. Well the fundamentalists were runnign th eunderground railroads. And the slaves of most southern Christians went back to their plantation cause they were treated very well. That is what happened, no matter what teh revisionists would have you beleive.
Go teach children??? Hang them from the highest yard arms!!!
