More whacky ideas about peer review from ICR.

archaeologist · Aug 2, 2007

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

you don't get it.

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.

wow!! 300 million while people starve, lose their homes, lose their kids and soon. creationists have other priorities which also cost money and we do not have the government sending any our way.

you paint a very biased, manipulative, and incomplete picture.

i wouldn't be proud if i were you...

theFijian · Aug 2, 2007

archaeologist said:
wow!! 300 million while people starve, lose their homes, lose their kids and soon. creationists have other priorities which also cost money and we do not have the government sending any our way.

Ha! Do you know how much AIG's 'museum' cost archie? If you did, I don't think you would be making such a ludicrous statement.

random_guy · Aug 2, 2007

archaeologist said:
you don't get it.

No, I get it. You're like the people that complain about how they won't ever get into good schools, but that's because they never apply.

wow!! 300 million while people starve, lose their homes, lose their kids and soon. creationists have other priorities which also cost money and we do not have the government sending any our way.

If that's the case, why did Creationists spend $25 million on a museum. I don't see you complaining about that. Why does ICR and AiG exist, which spend millions on anti-evolution material instead of using to fight poverty? In fact, does any of the research at ICR or AiG do anything to fight hunger? Research at the U does. Research at the U also goes towards fighting poverty and improving our daily lives.

Research also shows that for every $1 spent at the U on research, it nets Utah $1.50 back in our economy. If anything, it creates a whole lot more jobs. Can Creationist Research do that?

you paint a very biased, manipulative, and incomplete picture.

i wouldn't be proud if i were you...

In fact, if anyone is manipulative, it's you. Your arguments are so bad, you're forced into the most twisted positions. You argue that science is bad since it kills people, but it's saved billions, and at the same time religion kills people. You're forced into the position that Relativity is wrong, even though we use it all the time for our GPS system. And now you're forced into the position that Creationist research is wrong because that money should be spend on poverty. You'd make a great gymnast with all the mental contortions you're forced to make.

KerrMetric · Aug 2, 2007

AIG and ICR really don't perform any research.

Assyrian · Aug 2, 2007

archaeologist said:
wow!! 300 million while people starve, lose their homes, lose their kids and soon. creationists have other priorities which also cost money and we do not have the government sending any our way.

Hey archie's got a plan to end world hunger. Stop wasting money on scientific research. Perhaps we could spend even more money feeding the hungry if we stopped wasting it on tractors, combine harvesters, fertilisers and mechanised shipping, after all too much money has already been wasted on the science developing these technologies, no point in wasting any more. Go back to horse drawn ploughs and feed the world. wow.

Rudolph Hucker · Aug 2, 2007

archaeologist said:
.... wow!! 300 million while people starve, lose their homes, lose their kids and soon. creationists have other priorities which also cost money and we do not have the government sending any our way.

....

I am delighted to learn that the Korean government does not fund research into creationism. My taxes are not misappropraited for that.

Are you saying they should?

random_guy · Aug 2, 2007

Assyrian said:
Hey archie's got a plan to end world hunger. Stop wasting money on scientific research. Perhaps we could spend even more money feeding the hungry if we stopped wasting it on tractors, combine harvesters, fertilisers and mechanised shipping, after all too much money has already been wasted on the science developing these technologies, no point in wasting any more. Go back to horse drawn ploughs and feed the world. wow.

I already brought up this point. Without science, we wouldn't be able to sustain our current population without genetically modified plants, new fertilizer production methods, etc... His reply? It's science's fault that the world is over populated and that being able to feed all the new people being born is a bad thing. I guess nothing wins him over.

archaeologist · Aug 2, 2007

[Ha! Do you know how much AIG's 'museum' cost archie? If you did, I don't think you would be making such a ludicrous statement./QUOTE]

yes i do and i am aware of the $100 million sanctuary the chicago church wants to build, and i am aware of all the multi-million dollar church buildings that have been built. i do not agree with any of them

my own undergarduate alma matar is building a $40 million +/- campus and i fought that as well.

You're like the people that complain about how they won't ever get into good schools, but that's because they never apply.

Click to expand...

oh i doubt that, i attended a very well respected school when i was an undergraduate.

Hey archie's got a plan to end world hunger

Click to expand...

I already brought up this point.

Click to expand...

again the inane, absurd arguments surface. you forget, the amish and hitterites, the strict mennonites have shown what can be done without science.

when you people get honest, then maybe you will be addressed. as it stands, your posts are ignored.

random_guy · Aug 2, 2007

archaeologist said:
oh i doubt that, i attended a very well respected school when i was an undergraduate.

And did you spend money to go to school instead of donating it away? For shame. That money could've been used to help people. Why do you need an education when you can go into subsistence farming?

On a more serious note, you got into the school because you applied. Do you also complain about how schools won't accept you when you don't apply? I certainly don't complain about MIT for not accepting me since I didn't apply. However, this is exactly what Creationists do. They never submit to a journal and then they claim conspiracy or bias. Even juvenissun, a Creationist, said that as long as Creationist perform science, their papers won't get rejected.

again the inane, absurd arguments surface. you forget, the amish and hitterites, the strict mennonites have shown what can be done without science.

Again, says the person that uses a computer. All your decries against technology and science is pointless because you use the fruits of the labor. If the fruits are so bad, like you say, why not give it up? I have a lot more respect for the Amish and their arguments since they aren't hypocrites and actually practice what they preach.

Also, if you still plan on using computers in the next few years, be aware that quantum effects willsoon have to be accounted for, more work of Einstein. Pretty good for someone you think didn't get it right.

archaeologist · Aug 2, 2007

when you return to the rational then...

Do you also complain about how schools won't accept you when you don't apply

why would i?

However, this is exactly what Creationists do. They never submit to a journal and then they claim conspiracy or bias

i am sure you have overseen every submission and can talk about this as fact and not theory.

said that as long as Creationist perform science

this depends upon your definition of science. i find that secular science is not science at all but a restricted information gathering service which rejects anything that contradicts its pre-drawn and accepted conclusion

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

you cannot have it both ways.

juvenissun · Aug 2, 2007

KerrMetric said:
AIG and ICR really don't perform any research.

Please define "research".

Mavros · Aug 2, 2007

juvenissun said:
Please define "research".

Research is a human activity based on intellectual investigation and aimed at discovering, interpreting, and revising human knowledge on different aspects of the world. Research can use the scientific method, but need not do so.
Scientific research relies on the application of scientific methods based on scientific paradigm. This research provides scientific information and theories for the explanation of the nature and properties of humans and the whole Universe. It makes practical applications possible. Scientific research is funded by public authorities, by charitable organisations and by private groups, including many companies. Scientific research is the subject of different classifications.

juvenissun · Aug 2, 2007

Mavros said:
Research is a human activity based on intellectual investigation and aimed at discovering, interpreting, and revising human knowledge on different aspects of the world. Research can use the scientific method, but need not do so.
Scientific research relies on the application of scientific methods based on scientific paradigm. This research provides scientific information and theories for the explanation of the nature and properties of humans and the whole Universe. It makes practical applications possible. Scientific research is funded by public authorities, by charitable organisations and by private groups, including many companies. Scientific research is the subject of different classifications.

So, why are AiG and ICR people NOT doing "real" research? Please list specific lines in your definition that they (all) violated.

Mavros · Aug 2, 2007

juvenissun said:
So, why are AiG and ICR people NOT doing "real" research? Please list specific lines in your definition that they (all) violated.

All AIG do is make claims without evidence, scientfic research isnt making things up

"Scientific research relies on the application of scientific methods based on scientific paradigm."

AIG dont use scientific methods

"This research provides scientific information and theories for the explanation of the nature and properties of humans and the whole Universe."

They dont provide scientific information or theory. They even admit if evidence is against their beliefs then evidence is wrong, thats not how science work

archaeologist · Aug 2, 2007

All AIG do is make claims without evidence,

please provide links to your evidence. sorry but your word is not good enough.

Mavros · Aug 3, 2007

archaeologist said:
please provide links to your evidence. sorry but your word is not good enough.

for example they claim earth is 6000 years old, that claim was falsified almost 200 years ago

KerrMetric · Aug 3, 2007

juvenissun said:
So, why are AiG and ICR people NOT doing "real" research? Please list specific lines in your definition that they (all) violated.

Almost the entirety of Creationist output is taking established scientific work - reading it and then writing a critical book report on it. That's it. 99% or more of the time they never do any experiment or observation, no hypothesis testing, no writing up the work and submitting to peer review, no providing of a new theory to be tested. The list goes on. It's amateur nitpicking and appeals from incredulity with a Scriptural verse thrown in so as to get some donations to fund the next scam of a document.

theFijian · Aug 3, 2007

archaeologist said:
please provide links to your evidence. sorry but your word is not good enough.

lol it's common knowledge archie!

archaeologist · Aug 3, 2007

Almost the entirety of Creationist output is taking established scientific work - reading it and then writing a critical book report on it.

for example they claim earth is 6000 years old, that claim was falsified almost 200 years ago

i see people can't read and are still making unsubstantiated claims. something they are accusing the creationists of doing.

back up your accusations. you would be laughed out of a court of law with such statements.

KerrMetric · Aug 3, 2007

archaeologist said:
back up your accusations. you would be laughed out of a court of law with such statements.

Hey - if you actually took time to read my threads/posts on this topic you'll see I have backed up the statement about the Creationists not doing any science. I have started entire threads on this topic.

It's not my fault you are incapable of understanding science or even what science is. You have a truly appalling level of science knowledge and seemingly no ability to follow even simple arguments toward that end.

In my opinion (unless you truly are a parody poster) you just aren't capable enough to follow the science.

More whacky ideas about peer review from ICR.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

... and God saw that it was good.

Active Member

... and God saw that it was good.

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency