More whacky ideas about peer review from ICR.

[Willtor]

Actually, I don't see why not. If you're going to interpret Genesis literally, then why not Revelations the same way?

Ironically, even though I'm going to come to similar conclusions as you: different authors, different literary genres, different traditional approaches... they don't necessarily accept the same form of interpretation. That said (and for those reasons), I don't think either of them are literal.

 

[archaeologist]

You do realise that the book of Revelation is full of allegory don't you? There isn't going to be an actual seven headed monster...

so you are saying that the reward is purely allegorical and God's promise is all smoke andmirrors?

depends on what definition you use for monster. we call serial killers monsters though they look and act human.

Interpreting Genesis allegorically is like interpreting Revelation allegorically? That sounds about right

again trying to justify ones disobedience.

That said (and for those reasons), I don't think either of them are literal.

there you have the reason why your salvation is challenged,you deny God and His Word.

 

[Assyrian]

so you are saying that the reward is purely allegorical and God's promise is all smoke andmirrors?

See, this is where you don't understand allegory. The reward is real, the description is metaphorical.

depends on what definition you use for monster. we call serial killers monsters though they look and act human.

How many have seven heads and ten horns?

again trying to justify ones disobedience.

How about coming up with an actual answer instead of accusing people of dishonest motives and sin?

 

[shernren]

How many have seven heads and ten horns?

Answer: the pygmy headhunter with five bulls.

 

[KokoTheGorilla2]

How many have seven heads and ten horns?

Three!

Uhm actually just after I made that post, I decided it was sily.
I just realized you can't delete your own posts.

Strange, I thought that a rather obvious function to have,

 

[archaeologist]

See, this is where you don't understand allegory. The reward is real, the description is metaphorical.

No not true. it is your haphazard application that needs work.

I find it the incoherent ravings of a madman and utterly without inspiration.

just a verse or two to kerrmatic, Rev. 22:18 & 19. God takes His word seriously.

How about coming up with an actual answer instead of accusing people of dishonest motives and sin?

we know that God has used allegory and metaphors in His word BUT we do not have permission to apply it to passages we do not like or it disproves one's pet theory.

evolution was not used by God nor a divine tool. that is darwin's (& wallace's) imaginative alternative because they lost faith in God and were deceived.

 

[metherion]

actually it does and we canbecause the Bible teaches us about being wary of htose who are false teachers, who are deceived and being deceived, to look at thier fruits and many other such verses wich are instructing believers who to listen to or not.

I had to come oout of lurking this thread for this.

I find it HIGHLY ironic that the NT letter that says this is the VERY SAME ONE that specifically tells us to ignore geneologies in the 3rd chapter of the letter (which is how the YEC age of the earth was found) and also to avoid Jewish myths in the first chapter.

Metherion

 

[archaeologist]

my question to those who are oppose to AIG or ICR starting their own peer review system is:

why does it bother you if they do it?

you are not affected by their actions, your work is not affected by their actions and surely, you won't be submitting any articles to them for review, so your problem is that they actually have an outlet and you can't stand anything but evolution being taught or studied.

which is more evidence that evolution isn't true. if it was, you wouldn't worry about what creationist do or say, their beliefs, once proven false, would be abandoned by all but the hardcore.

evolution sticks around because God said their would be an alternative believed in the last days--2 peter 3:3-5 read also 3:15-16.

find it HIGHLY ironic that the NT letter that says this is the VERY SAME ONE that specifically tells us to ignore geneologies in the 3rd chapter of the letter (which is how the YEC age of the earth was found) and also to avoid Jewish myths in the first chapter.

this makes absolutely no sense...does anyone else know what he is trying to say???

 

[notto]

my question to those who are oppose to AIG or ICR starting their own peer review system is:

why does it bother you if they do it?

They can do what ever they want to. Just don't call it science or try to legitimize what they are doing by comparing it to actual objective and open peer review.

It isn't.

 

[archaeologist]

They can do what ever they want to. Just don't call it science or try to legitimize what they are doing by comparing it to actual objective and open peer review.

please read th bold sentence (bold mine) then re-read the rest of your post. thenanswer the question:

which is it, they can do what ever they want or they can only do what you want them to do?

nice to know the peer review police are on the job to stop people who are hurting no one.

 

[notto]

please read th bold sentence (bold mine) then re-read the rest of your post. thenanswer the question:

which is it, they can do what ever they want or they can only do what you want them to do?

nice to know the peer review police are on the job to stop people who are hurting no one.

The directive to not call it science was directed to you, not them.

They can do whatever they want but if people defend it by trying to call it science they will be told why it is not science.

They are free start their own process but if people compare it to actual scientific peer review they (and you) should not expect people to stand by and not object.

I guess if you consider dishonesty as not harmful you can continue to support their falsehoods.

As for me, I will continue to voice opposition to their lies.

Spreading ignorance is not a harmless act.

 

[Assyrian]

See, this is where you don't understand allegory. The reward is real, the description is metaphorical.

No not true. it is your haphazard application that needs work.

Again you don't have an answer.

How about coming up with an actual answer instead of accusing people of dishonest motives and sin?

we know that God has used allegory and metaphors in His word

This is real progress Archie.

Now you just have to realise you don't actually know where all the metaphors are, and you may be accusing people of sin for interpreting a passage metaphorically that really is a metaphor.

BUT we do not have permission to apply it to passages we do not like or it disproves one's pet theory.

No one has permission to be dishonest with scripture.

But does that mean we need some sort of 'permission' to interpret a passage metaphorically? Do we need permission to interpret 'this is my body' figuratively? Is it dishonest to interpret 'the pillars of the earth', 'the corners of the earth' or 'the sun... hurries to the place it rises' metaphorically because the plain literal meaning contradicts our understanding of scripture? Or is it simply responsible 'rightly handling the word of truth'?

evolution was not used by God nor a divine tool. that is darwin's (& wallace's) imaginative alternative because they lost faith in God and were deceived.

We just have your claim that evolution was not used by God. The Darwin's lack of faith no more tell us that, than the atheism of Watson and Crick says God did not create the DNA double helix, or the paganism of Eratosthenes means God did not make a round earth.

 

[ExpatChristian]

Peer review is fine and necessary, but obviously functions only as well as the quality of your peers allows. There are famous journals where the peers are as tough as hell to get through, and there are weak journals where practically anything gets through. That's why if you get into a journal like Nature, you have a job for life - it's just so tough to get in. But with reference to the case at hand, if your peers are people who go home at the weekend and sing "the animals from the zoo went in two by two, the lion the pig and the kangaroo" - and not just to entertain their kids - well then, you know what you can expect. If you are planning on contributing, better get out and buy a pack of crayons.

 

[Willtor]

there you have the reason why your salvation is challenged,you deny God and His Word.

Ouch. Where does this accusation come from? I hardly think this is your shining moment of charity.

 

[USincognito]

which is more evidence that evolution isn't true. if it was, you wouldn't worry about what creationist do or say, their beliefs, once proven false, would be abandoned by all but the hardcore.

It's obvious that logic isn't your forte, but you've never studied any psychology either have you?

 

[ExpatChristian]

t's obvious that logic isn't your forte, but you've never studied any psychology either have you?

archaeologist is actually double agent. His real aim is to alienate people from the faith. The world is but a stage.

 

[archaeologist]

Where does this accusation come from?

it wasn't written as an accusation but as an explanation, big difference.

Now you just have to realise you don't actually know where all the metaphors are, and you may be accusing people of sin for interpreting a passage metaphorically that really is a metaphor.

i do know where they are and it isn't the first 11 chapters of genesis.

No one has permission to be dishonest with scripture

i am not dishonest with scriptures but i know many here who are...

We just have your claim that evolution was not used by God.

same old tired arguments. if you cannot discern then you have problems. evolution is not of God and it isn't just my claims but God's as well since it is clearly stated throughout the Bible that God created, made, etc., and at no time was a natural process used.

The directive to not call it science was directed to you, not them

don't know why...evolution isn't science either but that hasn't stopped anyone from studying it.

They can do whatever they want but if people defend it by trying to call it science they will be told why it is not science

i haven't said if it was science or not, i am just defending their right to do their own peer review their own way.

you all are the ones who are acting like crybabies and complaining tha someone isn't playing by your rules. so grow up and don't worry about them.

As for me, I will continue to voice opposition to their lies.

you lve in a glasas house, as do all TE's, P.C.'s and alternative holders; one would think you all would be more understanding than antagonistic but that is par for the course ...

 

[notto]

you all are the ones who are acting like crybabies and complaining tha someone isn't playing by your rules. so grow up and don't worry about them.

They aren't 'our rule'. It is science. It is a framework for investigation that has been accepted for over a hundred years.

It is a process that works to accurately describe reality and make predictions in medicine, weather, astronomy, biology, physics, electronics, etc.

Without it you would not live past 35 or be using a computer.

Another demonstration of your lack of knowledge about science.

You are a great creationist.

You are a great creationist.

 

[archaeologist]

They aren't 'our rule'. It is science. It is a framework for investigation that has been accepted for over a hundred years.

God has a framework also and it is been around for over 2000 years, yet you throw it out for something that has been practicing for 100?

It is a process that works to accurately describe reality and make predictions in medicine, weather, astronomy, biology, physics, electronics, etc.

so did the ancients, this is no biggie.

Without it you would not live past 35 or be using a computer.

then why are babies still dying? why are people under the age of 35 still dying? for that matter why are eople still dying?

just proves once again that God trumps science and what He does science still cannot conquer or figure out.

as for the computer, who cares. it just means that all you annonomous TE's would be insulting people to their faces instead of hiding .

[QUOTEAnother demonstration of your lack of knowledge about science.][/QUOTE]

not at all. like i said, if i say one thing you would say the same thing; if i said another, yowould say the same thing. you are not after the truth but justification to pursue that which is not of God.

You are a great creationist.

You are a great creationist

obviously that can be taken 2 ways but here is an invitation for all you TE's , come to Korea and say these insults to me face.

if you don't, then don't say them here.

 

[notto]

so did the ancients, this is no biggie.

So praying to the sun god and rain God really worked and predicted the weather?

Boring holes in peoples heads really helped cure disease?

You really are reaching here arch.

Suggesting that the scientific method hasn't drastically increases our understanding of reality and our ability to predict it is demonstratively false.

You basically admit that you want to go back to the thoughts of a time of untreated or mistreated disease, witch burnings, killing of animals to try to make it rain.

You are a great creationist.