More whacky ideas about peer review from ICR.

[KerrMetric]

actually i can nor do i have to be a professional scientist to make such claims,

Oh you can make the claims - but they carry no weight and it is obvious they are incorrect.

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

Since when was theology a hard science? Theology is like literature studies in general - everyone who can read and think has an opinion and there little in the way of tests to separate the options. And when it comes to the science side it is meaningless and many things in the Bible are not theological points but pertain to scientific ones. Anyway - I thought all the literalists keep whining about how plain to understand the Word is?

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's not what God can or cannot do - it is about what occurred not what your interpretation of the Bible allows to have occurred.

i have said this before, LEARN YOUR PLACE. science and scientists do not have any say as to the validity of the Bible,

Er...there is some say as to what is obviously not real.

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.

This is not theology. We are talking the nuts and bolts of science and history. The Exodus did not happen in any sense of the Biblical story and this is not theology either.

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?

Aha - the usual appeal to "you weren't there so how do you know". Well, for one thing eyewitness testimony is not the most trustworthy to begin with and in many things we have evidence as strong if not stronger.

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.

But those goat herders and peasants who wrote the Bible often put things in it that are just nonsense. It is the Bible that is often the trespasser in areas it plainly is wrong about.

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, refuses tofind the truth and prove its theories and so on.

Well by your claim here then there is no such thing as science. Your claims make it sound like your religion is more Biblianity than Christianity.

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

Theology has a long way to go as well since there is no concordance in the topic. But at least science has concrete results in many areas - ones which I might add you use yourself.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

Just to be 100% clear, I asked:

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

You answered:

.... YES. the flood, and all events pertaining to the bible, fall under the category of FAITH which is in the realm of theologians ...

If that is so, and I do not agree, what are your theological qualifications?

 

[archaeologist]

Oh you can make the claims - but they carry no weight and it is obvious they are incorrect.

no, as i have used a book written by a non-believing scientist which shows that creation is beyond secular science's scope. no one has been able torefute the points i made backed up by the quotes published 5 different times and ignored each time.

Since when was theology a hard science

again, you define everything according to science, doesn't work that way. theology deals with those areas far beyond the comprehension of science.

i have yet to hear a doctor explain scientifically a true healing from God.

it is about what occurred not what your interpretation of the Bible allows to have occurred.

isn't that what you are doing with science? how do you know that science got it right? all you have is interpretation and conjecture nothing concrete. i have 10,000 years +/- of everything taking place according to what the Genesis account says, it is more than my interpretation.

there is some say as to what is obviously not real

makes no sense.

science is not above the Bible or the miraculous. at best it is a supporting character actor who has gone beyond its role.

the usual appeal to "you weren't there so how do you know". Well, for one thing eyewitness testimony is not the most trustworthy to begin with and in many things we have evidence as strong if not stronger

another excuse. as the latter is based upon interpretation which can make many mistakes, which it does as evidenced by all the innocent people accused and jailed.

without eye witness testimony all you have ia a best guess. besides are you questioning God's ability to relate to His creation what took place?

But those goat herders and peasants who wrote the Bible often put things in it that are just nonsense. It is the Bible that is often the trespasser in areas it plainly is wrong about.

again you demote the Bible to being a human book authored by human understanding. wrong. God used humbled, obedient people, who wouldn't stray from God's leading, and provided the words so basically you are saying that science can call God wrong.

what you lack is an understanding of God and His words.

Well by your claim here then there is no such thing as science

didn't say that but since you only accept secular science it is easy to see how you came to misrepresent what i said.

But at least science has concrete results in many areas - ones which I might add you use yourself.

the continual appeal to technology is annoying as you misapply its purpose. your dismissal of theology simply means that you refuse to hear the truth and look to secular science when you should be looking to God.

secular science is going in the wrong direction and as it has been pointed out so often in this forum--how can you get God in the test tube? you can't; which means secular science is going about it all wrong and headed in the wrong direction.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

....
secular science is going in the wrong direction and as it has been pointed out so often in this forum--how can you get God in the test tube? you can't; which means secular science is going about it all wrong and headed in the wrong direction.

Again, what do you want us to understand by "secular science"?

 

[archaeologist]

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

not at all. you have just proven that science is incapable of diagnosing biblical events andi s so limited that it cannot find the proper evidence.

also you have proven that science is very limited in its scope, comprehension , evidence gathering and so on.

you have also proven that science does not belong in theological issues as it has no ability to ascertain what too place or when it took place.

you have also shown that science when looking at evidence cannot determine which belongs to which event.

you are also saying that science can call God a liar even though God does not lie.which means you think science is infallible, incorruptible, omniscient, omnipresent and so on and God the exact opposite.

i think you need to re-think your position.

the mere words of God: "the just shall live by faith"; has relegated science to a role it does not want and the the same attitude that caused the devil to sin and rebel against God is its motivating factor.

None of them erupted during the Flood, since the Flood never occured

denial does not disprove the event. i can't find the verse i want right now and besides how would they recognze it when they saw it? how can we be sure they haven't attributed the evidence to someting else, which is a proven action?

What does this have to do with geology

are you really that dumb? it alters the evidence...

we know the geography of 2 of the 4 pre-flood rivers around Eden since they still exist today

problem--we do not know if those are the two original rivers, after the flood the world changed and we know this through satellite photography.

We know through geology

you don't know, you assume.

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.

which only proves the Bible 'he was called Peleg for the world was divided in his time' (slight paraphrase) plus it proves that all the waters did not go away. the world was changed at thhe flood and shortly thereafter.

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

you would have to dig to verify their accounts. please post links to these 'christian' geologists to prove your point.

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

i can use any i.d. i want, you have no knowledge of me and your continual attempts to state i do not know anything just shows you have no answer.

this is par for the course, attack the poster when shown wrong.

you do not know what the evidence would look like; you do not know how deep to dig to find that evidence; you cannot distinguish between the evidence and attribute it to the right sources;

{i could go on} it should be i who formerly protests you because you know nothing and claim you do.

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

your thinly disguised insults only undermine your own credibility and make me treat you like a child. you do not know anything, nor are you open-minded to learn. s

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

....
problem--we do not know if those are the two original rivers, after the flood the world changed and we know this through satellite photography.

...

You have some links for that Arch? I'd love to see 'em.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

.... it should be i who formerly protests you because you know nothing and claim you do.
...

Have you "formerly" protested before?

 

[USincognito]

it should be i who formerly protests you because you know nothing and claim you do.

My irony meter explodeth!!!

 

[archaeologist]

My irony meter explodeth!!!

means nothing except you can't respond constructively nor form a good & credible rebuttal.

just type in archaeological satellite photos and go from there

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

Links would be really nice Arch.

Please.

 

[archaeologist]

that is the best way as you can search and choose what you want

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

that is the best way as you can search and choose what you want

Well, in that case can I be forgiven for thinking that they do not exist?

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

A link, please, for what you saw.

Thanks in advance.

 

[notto]

problem--we do not know if those are the two original rivers, after the flood the world changed and we know this through satellite photography.

No doubt taken with 'secular' satellites.

You are such a cherry picker.

 

[archaeologist]

again resorting to the absurd.

but to get back to the original topic, the original poster is complaining about a group of people who want to have their own protected peer review.

i see nothing wrong with that as itreflects what we see in religion today and throughout history. we have many cults who cannot enter a church due to certain belief differences and they set up their own shop.

we do not like it but we are powerless to stop it. and complaining about such practices is about as useful as the original poster complaining about the new peer review system.

it won't work and makes you look like a spoiled child forcing everyone to follow his/her rules or they will take their ball and go home.

we as believers can't stop the deception (cults, evolution) from being placed out there but we can warn others about it. at best we can only warn, not complain, since all people have their own freedom of choice and they get to choose what they want to believe and practice.

 

[KerrMetric]

Just don't call the crap that comes out science. That's all I ask. ICR can call it Creationist BS, they can call it Poems of Nonsense but don't call it science and sure as heck don't call it peer reviewed science.

Why can't they really be honest and call it "pseudoscientific nonsense and a few out of context drive by criticisms put together by a bunch of people who already have the conclusion first - data be damned."

 

[archaeologist]

Just don't call the crap that comes out science

but then can we call how the secular world conducts the field 'science'?

maybe some links and posts on the history of science will clear the issue as we see the foundation on which the secular world built their view of the field

Why can't they really be honest and call it "pseudoscientific nonsense and a few out of context drive by criticisms put together by a bunch of people who already have the conclusion first - data be damned."

to them it is science.

i have my problems with them as well is I.D. as i do not think you can put creation in a scientific mold no matter who is doing it.

 

[notto]

protected peer review

Thank you for demonstrating exactly what is wrong with ICR peer review.

 

[archaeologist]

Thank you for demonstrating exactly what is wrong with ICR peer review.

it is exactly the same problem the secular peer review system has.

the secular system is even worse as they sort of form 'the club' mentality and lose sight of why they do science in the first place.

 

[theFijian]

No doubt taken with 'secular' satellites.

You are such a cherry picker.

Absolutely. It's irony bordering on utter hypocrisy. Supposedly we can't believe evolution of nuclear physics because it disagrees with his nonsense thesis, but when he finds a use for geometric satellite photography then all that secular science is valid all of a sudden.