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.
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
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.
hiding behind secular man's ways, that figures. God doesn't work through peer review.
Except your book of myths and fairy tales isn't fallible, huh Arch?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.
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?
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.
You didn't answer my question slimy eel. Quite wriggling and answer it
Whoopsies. Are ICR and AiG hiding behind secular man's ways, or is archie contradicting himself? You be the judge.
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.
Agreed.secular science and scientists do not own the world
nor the field of science
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.
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.
... i must be doing something right to have all these posters misrepresent what i say.
... ..
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.
Yeah actually we do.
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
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
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
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.i can say the same thing about evolutionary science
No there isn't. In fact the evidence falsifies the Flood.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.
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.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.
[/QUOTE][QUOTENo you can't since you are not a professional scientist]
No there isn't. In fact the evidence falsifies the Flood
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 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?
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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?