Yet you have failed to demonstrate any bias in conventional peer review while ICR up front admits they will only accept young earth creationist papers.
Just another of your unfounded and unsupported claim in a long list of them.
Upvote
0
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.
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.
Yet you have failed to demonstrate any bias in conventional peer review while ICR up front admits they will only accept young earth creationist papers
no, it just means that ICR is more honest and have more integrity.
The only peer review process that has preconceived bias would appear to be ICR.
that line right there proves i am right.
No. It is demonstrated in the OP.that is your opinion.
No. The charges are demonstrated in the OP. ICR is not allowed to practice science anywhay they want. At least not if they want to call it or defend it as science. Doctors can't perform science anyway they want. That is called quackery.the charges against ICR are false as they are allowed to practice science any way they want.
So why do you keep demanding evidence or references for support from others while you refuse to demonstrate your claims of bias against standard peer review? Why are you at the same time defending ICR who is blatantly bias?no one here has the right or the authority to say anything, they do have the freedom to choose not to submit any articles to ICR but beyond that-- 'ye who are without sin cast the first stone'
So why do you keep demanding evidence or references for support from others while you refuse to demonstrate your claims of bias against standard peer review? Why are you at the same time defending ICR who is blatantly bias?
Seems like you are casting an awful lot of stones
No. It is demonstrated in the OP.
No. The charges are demonstrated in the OP
ICR is not allowed to practice science anywhay they want. At least not if they want to call it or defend it as science. Doctors can't perform science anyway they want. That is called quackery
but this whole thread is just a reflection of the general attitude have found in science. believers are accused of being closed-minded but the accusers are far more extreme in that characteristic.
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.
that is your opinion. the charges against ICR are false as they are allowed to practice science any way they want.
no one here has the right or the authorityto say anything, they do have the freedom to choose not to submit any articles to ICR but beyond that-- 'ye who are without sin cast the first stone'
Wait, even if what they practice goes against the tenets of science?
If someone said they were Christian, and that some day, they could also become a God (Mormons), would you say that person was a Christian?
The same applies to groups like ICR. What they say is science, just isn't science because they ignore evidence
you have just undermined secular science as well and said that isn't science either. secular science ignores all sorts of evidence, data, information and we know this by the dismissal of Dr. Hapgood's work reporting the bones in south america which point to a global flood.
you have to prove and verify that the 'tenets' of science are divinely ordained before you can hold them up as the only standard one must adhere to.
that isn't the point, you don't here me saying they can't have their own church services or their own publications. i can say they are wrong because we have a divine truth which says what is right and wrong. secular science has no such entity. in fact secular science has the Bible speaking out about not following the world so the divine entity has spoken and set the rule.
you have just undermined secular science as well and said that isn't science either. secular science ignores all sorts of evidence, data, information and we know this by the dismissal of Dr. Hapgood's work reporting the bones in south america which point to a global flood.
Ignore no evidence, have only natural explanations, etc
The only thing is, their beliefs just shouldn't be considered Christian
I would like to see evidence of this
Correct me where I'm wrong through a demonstration of your claim that this work has been ignored.
there is a divine standard in place to inform us what is right or wrong.
Divine standard= my piety is better than your piety.
If this is the case, why does ICR and AiG even try to use science? Science is a tool, and you got to use the right tool for the right job. I don't use a gun to open a beer bottle and I don't use science to study the supernatural. So why does ICR and AiG need to use science if science only deals with natural explanations? Why not create a new term, supernatural studies?creation was a spiritual, supernatural act and there is no way given the above regulation that secular science can fathom what took place nor present the truth.
But then you're arguing that there's no such thing as any standard in any field. People could say that, 1+1=3 and just because mathematicians say it isn't, it doesn't matter because there's no divine standard in math. Likewise, quacks can say that their wares are "medicines" even though the FDA disagrees because the FDA has no divine standard. You're opening the door that standards don't exist, and astrologists can also be considered scientists, even though scientists all agree that astrology is pseudoscience.i do not consider them christian but many people do but again there is a divine standard in place to inform us what is right or wrong.
secular science's rgulations are not divine standard, tis is comparing apples and oranges.
Well, if you have no evidence of what you claim, why claim it? You said the scientific community ignores evidence all the time, I'd like to see it. At best, they may ignore evidence and theories early on because the community is resistant to change, but once the evidence mounts, they have no choice but to back the new theory and discard the old theory. This is very well documented through the history of science.actually this was a trick example, as the man died 30 years ago approx., i would not know what journals he submitted to and i was told that he was discredited with his pole shift theory. so i was fishing for verification.
i have 3 of his books and enjoyed them all.
I don't use a gun to open a beer bottle
If this is the case, why does ICR and AiG even try to use science
I don't use science to study the supernatural
So why does ICR and AiG need to use science if science only deals with natural explanations? Why not create a new term, supernatural studies
But then you're arguing that there's no such thing as any standard in any field.
5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
And lean not on your own understanding;
6 In all your ways acknowledge Him,
And He shall direct[a] your paths.
7 Do not be wise in your own eyes;
Fear the LORD and depart from evil.
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?