More whacky ideas about peer review from ICR.

[archaeologist]

So Holocaust denial museums would be fine in your book? Teachers teaching the Moon landing was a hoax is just an alternate view in the classroom?

How far do you expect reality to bend for the woos that want their pet ideology taught

seems it is being done anyways even with your 'peer' review systemin place. sorry but i do not need a secular system to tell me what is true or not, The Bible already has instructed us on how to find the truth and who leads us to it.

how do you expect to find the truth from those who do not believe in the Truth?

 

[shernren]

my whole contention has been to say that ICR or AIg have as much right to their own peer review system as the secular world has developed for themselves.

But ...

hiding behind secular man's ways, that figures. God doesn't work through peer review.

Whoopsies. Are ICR and AiG hiding behind secular man's ways, or is archie contradicting himself? You be the judge.

 

[notto]

Good point Shernren.

Arch seems to be condoning the activity of creationists who seek to legitimize their work by trying to make it look just like 'secular science' and at the same time he is condemning the very methodology creationists feel they need to portray because it doesn't provide value.

It's funny to watch.

 

[shernren]

To be fair, the exact quote of the second statement was found in a different thread.

But the contradiction is present even in this one.

 

[OnceUponAChristian]

the peer review system is as fallible as the science they practice. appealing to it, when some here deny the same avenues of constructive criticism to those who believe differently, is just hypocritical.

it is not hard to manipulate the system so please don't hold it aloft as if it is a new objective, honest god which is so pure that no fault can be found with the system.

the peer review system is not an independent body free from the pressures that come with the scientific world, it is as biased as some here charge the ICR or AIG of having.

my whole contention has been to say that ICR or AIg have as much right to their own peer review system as the secular world has developed for themselves.

you do not like their criteria or regulations, then open up the secular system to show that they can do it better, more objectively, more honestly with better character, integrity and so on

the bottom line really is, as evidenced by the criticism of the new creation museum, that the secular world only wants evolution taught and will not accept alternative thinking, competition or allow avenues of expression for such positions.

even though evolutionists are teaching a lie and distorting reality.

Except your book of myths and fairy tales isn't fallible, huh Arch?

 

[Willtor]

He doesn't think that AiG and ICR are legitimate. He thinks they're foolish to use the peer review system. He just thinks they have as much right to the peer review system as the "secular" journals.

 

[USincognito]

seems it is being done anyways even with your 'peer' review systemin place. sorry but i do not need a secular system to tell me what is true or not, The Bible already has instructed us on how to find the truth and who leads us to it.

how do you expect to find the truth from those who do not believe in the Truth?

You didn't answer my question slimy eel. Quite wriggling and answer it.

Can teachers teach that the Holocaust never happened or that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax or not in the interest of giving equal time to "alternative thinking"?

As you said:

the bottom line really is, as evidenced by the criticism of the new creation museum, that the secular world only wants evolution taught and will not accept alternative thinking, competition or allow avenues of expression for such positions.

Answer the question.

 

[archaeologist]

You didn't answer my question slimy eel. Quite wriggling and answer it

name calling and disrespect won't get you anywhere. and that is my answer.

Whoopsies. Are ICR and AiG hiding behind secular man's ways, or is archie contradicting himself? You be the judge.

i must be doing something right to have all these posters misrepresent what i say.

He just thinks they have as much right to the peer review system as the "secular" journals.

i also think that those who criticize them are being hypocritical when they do not allow for creationism to be published in their own journals. threy want creationists to publish in secular peer review magazines but these critics want creationists to do it their way.

which is impossible for the two systems are not compatible and anyone is allowed to set up their own system with their own rules. secular science and scientists do not own the world nor the field of science thus they have little say.

if those whosupport secular peer review want to criticize, thenthey must move to objectivity and allow all ideas to be submitted and subjected to scrutiny fairly, under rules that allow for alternative thinking to make discoveries and point to ideas other than evolution.

until that happens, they have no right to say anything at all.

 

[KerrMetric]

i also think that those who criticize them are being hypocritical when they do not allow for creationism to be published in their own journals.

Creationism is allowed in the mainstream journals. It's just there is no science behind it so it isn't there. There is no UFO's are piloted by demons in the journals either since that is also unevidenced crap.

secular science and scientists do not own the world

Agreed.

nor the field of science

Yeah actually we do.

if those whosupport secular peer review want to criticize, thenthey must move to objectivity and allow all ideas to be submitted and subjected to scrutiny fairly, under rules that allow for alternative thinking to make discoveries and point to ideas other than evolution.

We already have. It's just this creation science material is just crap. And it's crap from a junior high school level of analysis.

This is the problem - all you non-science trained followers of creationism just don't realise how infantile and amateurish the output of the creationist groups is. It's laughable upon even a 5 minute analysis. It's as big a joke as claiming aircraft fly because of invisible fairies attached to the wings or some other pure nonsense.

 

[notto]

if those whosupport secular peer review want to criticize, thenthey must move to objectivity and allow all ideas to be submitted and subjected to scrutiny fairly, under rules that allow for alternative thinking to make discoveries and point to ideas other than evolution.

The scientific method and peer review are objective and rejection of ideas is based on flaws in the methodology and holes in the conclusions or reasoning. It is not based on the nature of the conclusion.

Suggesting that it is without providing evidence shows that you are unfamiliar with the process and they type of criticism provided to researchers when they submit for peer review.

You are making unsupported accusations that you cannot support with evidence from the actual peer review process or scientific method.

You are a great creationist.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

... i must be doing something right to have all these posters misrepresent what i say.

... ..

Were your written English of a higher standard, you might have greater success in getting your point across.

 

[Willtor]

name calling and disrespect won't get you anywhere. and that is my answer.



i must be doing something right to have all these posters misrepresent what i say.



i also think that those who criticize them are being hypocritical when they do not allow for creationism to be published in their own journals. threy want creationists to publish in secular peer review magazines but these critics want creationists to do it their way.

which is impossible for the two systems are not compatible and anyone is allowed to set up their own system with their own rules. secular science and scientists do not own the world nor the field of science thus they have little say.

if those whosupport secular peer review want to criticize, thenthey must move to objectivity and allow all ideas to be submitted and subjected to scrutiny fairly, under rules that allow for alternative thinking to make discoveries and point to ideas other than evolution.

until that happens, they have no right to say anything at all.

But this is what the other posters are pointing to as the misunderstanding. If there were evidence for creationism, creationists could and would be posting in the real journals. There would be no need for them to make up their own. Again, it would be easy for you to make your point if you could provide an example of a creationist whose work wasn't published in a scientific journal because of bias.

 

[archaeologist]

Yeah actually we do.

bill of sale from God please.

We already have. It's just this creation science material is just crap. And it's crap from a junior high school level of analysis

though i can agree with you here, part of the problem is trying to fit what is beyond science's scope into a creation model that secular science will accept. remember God does not work according to secular science.

This is the problem - all you non-science trained followers of creationism just don't realise how infantile and amateurish the output of the creationist groups is. It's laughable upon even a 5 minute analysis

i can say the same thing about evolutionary science

But this is what the other posters are pointing to as the misunderstanding. If there were evidence for creationism, creationists could and would be posting in the real journals

but there is evidence for creation, it is just credited to evolution. this is where the problem lies. what we have is tons of evidence for creation, the flood, and so on but the accepted interpretation won't be changed until secular scientists turn their lives over to God.

Again, it would be easy for you to make your point if you could provide an example of a creationist whose work wasn't published in a scientific journal because of bias

i already asked your TE buddies toprovide such items which have been published or accepted for peer review. so far they have not come forth with any.

we know the bias is there, just review the posts made by Te's and you will get all the evidence you want.

 

[KerrMetric]

i can say the same thing about evolutionary science

No you can't since you are not a professional scientist. I was criticising the creation science rubbish from a position of being a professional in the sciences. So your statement, even though it is your opinion, has not the same weight of criticism. You are criticising based upon wishful thinking - I am criticisng from a professional analysis.

what we have is tons of evidence for creation, the flood, and so on but the accepted interpretation won't be changed until secular scientists turn their lives over to God.

No there isn't. In fact the evidence falsifies the Flood.

i already asked your TE buddies toprovide such items which have been published or accepted for peer review. so far they have not come forth with any.

This wasn't directed at a post of mine but I'll respond anyway. You wont find any because the few attempts were so stupid as to be laughable - and now most of the silly stuff they just keep in house and cry about a conspiracy instead of learn how to do science.

 

[archaeologist]

[QUOTENo you can't since you are not a professional scientist]

[/QUOTE]


tryig to maintain an air of superiority, are we? actually i can nor do i have to be a professional scientist to make such claims, you are not a theologian, you have no right to make any comments about creation, the flood or anything Biblical.

science is an interloper into a field it does not belong and it is laughable watching secular scientists determine what God can or cannot do or how He did or didn't do something.

i have said this before, LEARN YOUR PLACE. science and scientists do not have any say as to the validity of the Bible, its contents nor of the actions of God. Nor does it have any authoritative place in the world of theology, let alone any influence.

it is a too limited field, under non-believers, going in the wrong direction to even be considered credible enough to deal with theological issues.

No there isn't. In fact the evidence falsifies the Flood

science again shows its ignorance as it thinks it gets to determine what took place and when. are secular scientists, science, God? were they there at the time of the these events they think they can falsify?

sorry but the requirement is faith not science and science is trespassing in a world that is over its head and beyond its comprehension. secular science is 'the blind leading the blind' and it needs to remove its arrogant spirit and its false pride, its boasting and so on.

it can do nothing without God or His permission.

You wont find any because the few attempts were so stupid as to be laughable - and now most of the silly stuff they just keep in house and cry about a conspiracy instead of learn how to do science.

as far as i am concerned, secular science isn't science either for it omits, ignores data, eliminates God from the picture, relies on assumptions and conjecture and not real facts or evidence, preaches the interpretation and not the truth, refusestofind the truth and prove its theories and so on.

you are just fooling yourselves if you think secular science has any say or hope of finding the answers with its non-belieiving apparatus filtering any and all truth.

AS I SAID, if AIG or ICR want to build their own peer review system then they can do it. if the results are not of God everyone will know it and they will be in disgrace.

you don't like it--too bad, don't submit anything.

secular science has a longs ways to go before it can be considered an authority on spiritual and theological matters.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

... Archaeologist wrote ...


.... you are not a theologian, you have no right to make any comments about creation, the flood or anything Biblical.

...

Are you really, really saying that only theologians can comment about creation, the flood and anything Biblical?

 

[archaeologist]

i will answer hucker this once:

Are you really, really saying that only theologians can comment about creation, the flood and anything Biblical?

look at the facts:

1. many local floods have taken place since Noah's? which flood evidence are you going to use to credit the Biblical account?

2. many volcanoes have erupted since then, which evidence are you going to use to determine which ones erupted at the tim eo fthe flood/

3. wars have been fought over almost all the lands of the earth, how could the evidence remain pure?

4. we do not know the geography of the pre-flood world, how will we determine where the change took place?

5.all the waters did not recede, where do we start looking for old shorelines? lake shores? dry lake beds?(though the black sea and the coast of india have provided some indications)

6. how deep do we dig to find noah's flood evidence? what's his name dug very very deep in Ur but was forced to renounce his find. maybe he was right after all.

7. we would need to dig up the whole earth to find the exact same evidence to prove the flood, and again how deep will we have to go?

8. with what evidence we do have, secular science has credited the ice age, and other alternatives. what makes you think that they will accept any evidence that points to the biblical flood? i have already posted an article that shows they attribute it to something else.

so the answer to your question is YES. the flood, and all events pertaining to the bible, fall under the category of FAITH which is in the realm of theologians and not scientists.

scientists can only provide information and can do no more, all such events are outside its scope, comprehension and authority.

***one note don't go absurd as anyone can talk about such things, i restricted my answer to refer only to science and theology and re-established the bundary which leaves science out in the cold as only a supporting character. it is all about faith and that is God's turf.

 

[OnceUponAChristian]

i will answer hucker this once:



look at the facts:

1. many local floods have taken place since Noah's? which flood evidence are you going to use to credit the Biblical account?

2. many volcanoes have erupted since then, which evidence are you going to use to determine which ones erupted at the tim eo fthe flood/

3. wars have been fought over almost all the lands of the earth, how could the evidence remain pure?

4. we do not know the geography of the pre-flood world, how will we determine where the change took place?

5.all the waters did not recede, where do we start looking for old shorelines? lake shores? dry lake beds?(though the black sea and the coast of india have provided some indications)

6. how deep do we dig to find noah's flood evidence? what's his name dug very very deep in Ur but was forced to renounce his find. maybe he was right after all.

7. we would need to dig up the whole earth to find the exact same evidence to prove the flood, and again how deep will we have to go?

8. with what evidence we do have, secular science has credited the ice age, and other alternatives. what makes you think that they will accept any evidence that points to the biblical flood? i have already posted an article that shows they attribute it to something else.

so the answer to your question is YES. the flood, and all events pertaining to the bible, fall under the category of FAITH which is in the realm of theologians and not scientists.

scientists can only provide information and can do no more, all such events are outside its scope, comprehension and authority.

***one note don't go absurd as anyone can talk about such things, i restricted my answer to refer only to science and theology and re-established the bundary which leaves science out in the cold as only a supporting character. it is all about faith and that is God's turf.

Theology is a non-subject; the mental meandering of learned men learned in nothing at all save their own petulant sophistry, unreasoned asumptions and wishful musings on matters which themselves are not matters in even the loosest sense of the term; to speak of education in theology is to say one in well educated in Jack and the Bean Stalk, Haenzel and Gretel and all the other fairy tales our species has concocted over the millenia. Theology, if it is to continue as a something ought best be relegated to the realm of literature and even there to the darkest most dismal corners of those streets.

 

[Willtor]

i already asked your TE buddies toprovide such items which have been published or accepted for peer review. so far they have not come forth with any.

we know the bias is there, just review the posts made by Te's and you will get all the evidence you want.

You asked us to provide them? But we're the ones saying they don't exist. We can't provide them because we don't know for certain that any creationist has ever tried. The trouble is that if I knew of any I'd be singing a different tune. The onus really is on you to provide one. My argument hinges on there not being any 1. creationist paper with original research and 2. a corresponding rejection letter to demonstrate bias.

If you aren't understanding why I'm asking you for these things (and not my "TE buddies") then I think you haven't understood what I'm saying. I think that no such thing exists. It isn't that I've seen one and ignored it because I find it inconvenient. I really haven't ever even heard of one. How, then, could I provide one as you ask? If you have seen one please share the knowledge. But if you haven't either, how can you charge bias?

You say that the TE's are demonstrating bias in this thread but if they are it is on you to demonstrate it by showing an example of bias in a scientific journal. Otherwise, even if the TEs in this thread are rude, they are certainly not behaving in a biased way.

Theology is a non-subject; the mental meandering of learned men learned in nothing at all save their own petulant sophistry, unreasoned asumptions and wishful musings on matters which themselves are not matters in even the loosest sense of the term; to speak of education in theology is to say one in well educated in Jack and the Bean Stalk, Haenzel and Gretel and all the other fairy tales our species has concocted over the millenia. Theology, if it is to continue as a something ought best be relegated to the realm of literature and even there to the darkest most dismal corners of those streets.

Ouch. A little bitter?

 

[USincognito]

Archie, it's quite refreshing for you to include something tangible in your posts rather than bluster or whining.

look at the facts:

Interesting premise. Let's see where you take it...

1. many local floods have taken place since Noah's? which flood evidence are you going to use to credit the Biblical account?

None, since the Noachian Narrative says it was a single world-wide flood that occured within the course of about a year. We have no evidence from any of those local floods suggesting they were global in scale or nature and thus cannot be considered evidence supporting a literalist reading of Genesis (note how I phrased that, it will play a role in my future answers).

2. many volcanoes have erupted since then, which evidence are you going to use to determine which ones erupted at the tim eo fthe flood

None of them erupted during the Flood, since the Flood never occured. Geologists know what happens to the ash and phyroclastic flow that occurs during rainy periods and when the volcano is under water. We don't have any evidence of world-wide simultaneous events of those natures.

3. wars have been fought over almost all the lands of the earth, how could the evidence remain pure?

What does this have to do with geology? And up until the 19th Century, how do you suggest military technology effected topography to the point where it was rendered unknowable geologically?

4. we do not know the geography of the pre-flood world, how will we determine where the change took place?

Two problems here. One - we know the geography of 2 of the 4 pre-flood rivers around Eden since they still exist today and apparently little if any changes occured since then because they're still there: problematic for Flood advocates who claim the entire Earth's surface was scoured clean during the Flood.

Two - since there was no Flood, we don't have to determine when the change took place. We know through geology that the Atlantic ridge has been spreading for about 100 million years, that the Hawaiian Islands extend ever westward as the Pacific plate moves over the hot spot over 70+ million years, that India has been moving towards and slamming into Asia for 65 million years or so, that South America and Africa were once joined and that Australia once abutted North and South America.

5.all the waters did not recede, where do we start looking for old shorelines? lake shores? dry lake beds?(though the black sea and the coast of india have provided some indications)

Geologists have plenty of tools for finding old shorelines. We know that the shorelines seperating Africa and South America did not exist at one point, and that a shoreline between India and Asia existed at one point.

6. how deep do we dig to find noah's flood evidence? what's his name dug very very deep in Ur but was forced to renounce his find. maybe he was right after all.

We don't have to dig at all any more since the Christian Flood geologists in the 18th and 19th Centuries falsified Noah's Flood back then. Since that time we've discovered myriad lines of evidence showing that Noah's Flood never occured on a world-wide basis. The 65 million year old Iridium layer is, for those who know anything about, well anything, the stake through the heart for anyone suggesting current topography is due to the Flood 4,000 years ago.

7. we would need to dig up the whole earth to find the exact same evidence to prove the flood, and again how deep will we have to go?

I am going to formally protest your user ID, because a statement like this proves to me you are no Archaeologist.

8. with what evidence we do have, secular science has credited the ice age, and other alternatives. what makes you think that they will accept any evidence that points to the biblical flood? i have already posted an article that shows they attribute it to something else.

You mean your article showing a pair of megafloods 450,000 years ago cut off the British Isles from the European mainland and how it was 100 times older than the Flood is claimed to be and was regional in nature? And we have plenty of evidence for the last Ice Age (you do realize there have been more than one "Archaeologist"?) The Great Lakes are just the most blatant.

Looks like your list of "facts" was little more than leading questions and incorrect assertions.