If there is "no evidence" for evolution...

[DogmaHunter]

Then my point stands. No contrary document to evolution is published in scientific journals.

Because there is no such thing as contrary documents.

It's not because journals for some conspiratory reason "refuse" to do so.
It's because there is nothing there to publish.

Just like why geology journals don't have any material published on the flat earth.

You implied I was in error or that I was believing in some kind of conspiracy. Since you cannot provide evidence that I am wrong, your argument is from silence.

Errr..... YOU are making the claim that there is such a conspiracy.
YOU have the burden of proof here.

YOU demonstrate that this conspiracy exists.

By the way, I don't think it is a "worldwide conspiracy".

If your argument is that "journals refuse to publish creationist papers" for some reason other then those papers being unscientific and just plain wrong, then yes it would necessarily have to be a GLOBAL conspiracy.

A conspiracy, by the way, which would also involve a boatload of christians, jews and muslims. And just about every university with a science program.

It is just man suppressing the truth due to his unrighteousness before the holy God.

Uhu, uhu.
Tell it to Francis Collins, devout christian and world reknown evolutionary biologist.
Or the pope, for that matter.

 

[JoeP222w]

You made the claim that no anti-evolution papers are being published, so you have to provide the evidence to back up that claim.

How does one prove a universal negative? That is not rational.

I'm not the one making the claim that 'science' about Creationism, one of the most unscientific ideas to ever be created, is being suppressed in a conspiracy.

As I mentioned, I never said it was a conspiracy, so that is a Straw Man fallacy.

Science means knowledge. There is clear and abundant evidence that we are not the product of meaningless random chance, because creation demonstrates a Creator. The Bible also demonstrates the evidence of the Creator. The fact that we have a conscience demonstrates that there is a Creator. Evolution has no way to account for conscience or meaning in life.

Recommended reading:
The Bible
The Biblical Basis for Modern Science by Henry M. Morris
Answers in Genesis

But I am fairly certain you will reject these.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

How does one prove a universal negative? That is not rational.

How do you know it's a universal negative? Have you looked?

As I mentioned, I never said it was a conspiracy, so that is a Straw Man fallacy.

Science means knowledge. There is clear and abundant evidence that we are not the product of meaningless random chance, because creation demonstrates a Creator. The Bible also demonstrates the evidence of the Creator. The fact that we have a conscience demonstrates that there is a Creator. Evolution has no way to account for conscience or meaning in life.

Recommended reading:
The Bible
The Biblical Basis for Modern Science by Henry M. Morris
Answers in Genesis

But I am fairly certain you will reject these.

Ah, Answers in Genesis. A website that states that Days mentioned in Genesis were Six literal days (despite the evidence to the contrary), states that the Noahic Flood was a real-world event (despite evidence to the contrary), claims that the Genesis account is a literal event (despite evidence to the contrary)... I could go on, but I think I've made my point clear.

 

[Jimmy D]

Ah, Answers in Genesis. A website that states that Days mentioned in Genesis were Six literal days (despite the evidence to the contrary), states that the Noahic Flood was a real-world event (despite evidence to the contrary), claims that the Genesis account is a literal event (despite evidence to the contrary)... I could go on, but I think I've made my point clear.

Answers in genesis has nothing to do with science.....

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."
Statement of Faith

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Answers in genesis has nothing to do with science.....

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."
Statement of Faith

I'm annoyed that I tried looking for that particular statement but I couldn't find it. Even though it was right at the bottom.

 

[Jimmy D]

I'm annoyed that I tried looking for that particular statement but I couldn't find it. Even though it was right at the bottom.

I'm annoyed that I had to click onto that festival of crap, increasing their traffic.

 

[DogmaHunter]

As I mentioned, I never said it was a conspiracy, so that is a Straw Man fallacy.

It was implied by what you said about scientific journals.
You didn't use the word "conspiracy", but what you described can't be understood as anything else.

Science means knowledge. There is clear and abundant evidence that we are not the product of meaningless random chance, because creation demonstrates a Creator. The Bible also demonstrates the evidence of the Creator. The fact that we have a conscience demonstrates that there is a Creator.

All of these, are just religious claims which can only be uttered by someone who already believes creation stories before even asking the questions.

Evolution has no way to account for conscience or meaning in life.

Conscience is the product of our brain.
Meaning of life, is what we ourselves impose on it.
We create our own meaning.

For some, the meaning of life is partying like there is no tomorrow.
For others, the meaning is to do something constructive and beneficial to contribute to the well being of future generations.
For some others, the meaning is to spend your days on your knees with your hands clasped in prayer giving thanks to whatever deity they happen to believe in .

Recommended reading:
The Bible
The Biblical Basis for Modern Science by Henry M. Morris
Answers in Genesis

But I am fairly certain you will reject these.

I do reject them, off course.

Take answers in genesis, for example....
The dishonesty and irrelevancy of their rethoric is crystal clear. They don't even try to hide it. They plainly say that "the bible is the truth and if science contradicts the bible, then science is wrong by default - no matter the subject"

That's really all you need to know about them.
Such statements exclude them right out the gates from ANY honest and intellectual discussion.

 

[pitabread]

Just because something is in a scientific journal does not mean it is truth. Peer review does not define truth.

Then what are they publishing?

 

[JoeP222w]

Then what are they publishing?

Sometimes truth, sometimes lies.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sometimes truth, sometimes lies.

And what 'truths' would those be?

 

[Astrophile]

Answers in genesis has nothing to do with science.....

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."
Statement of Faith

Presumably that Statement of Faith was composed and written by 'fallible people who do not possess all information.'

 

[pitabread]

Sometimes truth, sometimes lies.

Have you ever read a scientific journal?

 

[JoeP222w]

Have you ever read a scientific journal?

Yes.

 

[JoeP222w]

And what 'truths' would those be?

Depends on the article and the context of the article.

 

[tas8831]

Depends on the article and the context of the article.

Examples?

For instance, it is a relatively simple task to provide examples of creation science papers that have errors/lies in them.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Depends on the article and the context of the article.

Such as? Do you have an example?

 

[JoeP222w]

For instance, it is a relatively simple task to provide examples of creation science papers that have errors/lies in them.

I don't claim that Creationists papers are infallible.

 

[JoeP222w]

Such as? Do you have an example?

I am not the one claiming that scientific journals teach complete truth (especially about Evolution), just because it is "peer reviewed". The burden of proof is not on me.

Provide for me a scientific journal article proving evolution to be truth, based on peer review, and I will read it. But note, it will take me quite a while for a fair reading and examination. Will you give the Bible the same amount of fair reading and examination, using proper contextual understanding, and examining authorial intent? Lets find out.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I am not the one claiming that scientific journals teach complete truth (especially about Evolution), just because it is "peer reviewed". The burden of proof is not on me.

Provide for me a scientific journal article proving evolution to be truth, based on peer review, and I will read it. But note, it will take me quite a while for a fair reading and examination. Will you give the Bible the same amount of fair reading and examination, using proper contextual understanding, and examining authorial intent? Lets find out.

Nice avoiding the question. Sounds to me like what counts as a truth or a lie to you is whatever matches up with your religious notions. Nothing more.

 

[JoeP222w]

Nice avoiding the question. Sounds to me like what counts as a truth or a lie to you is whatever matches up with your religious notions. Nothing more.

Nope. Has nothing to do with religion, but rather the truth of God. Completely different things.

Are you willing to take up the challenge of reading and studying the Bible and I will read and study a scientific article about Evolution?
I am not giving a timeline in which to complete this, but are you willing to learn about the other side? I am.