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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
More whacky ideas about peer review from ICR.
- Thread starter KerrMetric
- Start date
- Status
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.
No. It means that you have not demonstrated what you claim. It is an unsupported assertion.
The only peer review process that has preconceived bias would appear to be ICR. That is not integrity. That is dogma.
They are demonstratively guilty of what it is you claim (but cannot demonstrate) is wrong with traditional peer review.
Yet here you are defending them. You are a great creationist.
Upvote
0
It was demonstrated in the OP. Can you demonstrate preconceived bias in traditional peer review?
You have yet to do so. Why is that?
How does me pointing out that ICR openly admits bias prove your unsupported assertions about traditional peer review?
That doesn't make any sense. They only thing that is being demonstrated is your inability to support your claims and your unwillingness to do so while at the same time, you demand that others provide references and sources to support their claims.
Can you demonstrate that traditional peer review is bias?
If you can't, your repeated claims really don't mean much.
Upvote
0
archaeologist
Well-Known Member
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'
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'
Upvote
0
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.
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.
Upvote
0
archaeologist
Well-Known Member
think about it. read all the posts of those who have discussed with me and you will see that maybe 5% of the time they actually threw in a quote or a link just to look good. i have been asking for a long long time, it only shows that those people have something to hide so i stopped providing anything and you all can do the work from now on.
the original post isn't the final authority or any authority.
charges by someone who has no authority to complain or right to protest.
sure they are, there isno law that states they must practice science the way secular people want. they are free todo it the way they want.
even quacks know the truth when they see it but then again, i feel you have described evolutionists and all those who practice alternatives to creation as described in genesis.
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.
Upvote
0
You are the one making unsupported accusations and refusing to provide evidence that you demand of others.
You are the one casting the stones.
It seems that your closed mindedness has driven you to defend the bias of ICR while accusing others of bias without support.
If this thread is a reflection of anything, it is of your intellectual dishonesty.
You are a great creationist.
Upvote
0
Willtor
Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
- Apr 23, 2005
- 9,713
- 1,429
- 44
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Even when I was a creationist, I never saw a paper that was rejected from a normal journal for reasons of bias. If you have, share it around. Let us see one so that we can believe you.
Upvote
0
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? Would you agree they practice Christianity if they think they will become Gods? Or would you agree that their beliefs go against the practice of the majority of Christians?
The same applies to groups like ICR. What they say is science, just isn't science because they ignore evidence. Science has a rule that you cannot throw out evidence because it goes against your theories, but that's exactly what ICR and AiG does. Now, unless you agree that definitions are created by the majority of learned people on that topic, then Mormons are Christians, using the same logic you apply.
Upvote
0
archaeologist
Well-Known Member
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.
we know this by all sorts of rejections and it usually starts with the Bible first. where the Popol Vul is looked at as a vital resource even though it is a religious work, the Bible is automatically dismissed without consideration even though it is the only text which covers thousands of years of history.
and even though it has been proven accurate (in part) by scientists, geographers, archaeologists and so on.
(hittites, the fee for joseph when sold into slavery, various cities, the pool of siloam, and so on)
don't give me this song and dance about how all encompassing secular science is when in reality it is far from perfect.
Upvote
0
1) In which journal did he publish his work pointing to a global flood?
2) Which peer reviewed journals refused it based on that fact?
3) How was his work dismissed?
4) How do you know it is valid work?
5) What specific flood evidence has been ignored?
My guess is that the answers are:
1) None
2) None
3) It wasn't
4) You don't
5) None
Correct me where I'm wrong through a demonstration of your claim that this work has been ignored.
I'm willing to bet that if you give any specific that we will be able to show it has not been ignored and that it has been amply demonstrated to shoddy research or it has been taken out of context by a creationist or by somebody not qualified in the field of anthropology or geology.
Upvote
0
The tenets of science is the scientific method. Ignore no evidence, have only natural explanations, etc... It's science. Are you telling me that anyone can have their own definition of science and it's valid?
Mormons can have their own church services and publications. The only thing is, their beliefs just shouldn't be considered Christian. Just like AiG and IRC can do research, they shouldn't say it's scientific because they don't follow science.
I would like to see evidence of this. Can you tell me which journal he submitted his paper to? Which journal ignored his paper and rejected it without giving him a reason? My guess is you can't because he never tried to publish his work in a scientific setting because his work just isn't scientific.
Upvote
0
archaeologist
Well-Known Member
there you have it,i highlighted the words that make the secular journals just like ICR's criteria and makes the original post a hypocritical complaint.
i would say that those who complain about ICR's regulation, that it be creationist ,is not science have no leg to stand on as they themselves do not practice science as defined by their own people.
also, that highlighted phrase proves my point that the seculae journals omit data and shows why they will never get the answers they seek nor find the truth using their own way.
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.
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.
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.
Upvote
0
Divine standard= my piety is better than your piety.
"Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector...."
Upvote
0
archaeologist
Well-Known Member
there you go off in the wrong direction immediately. i did not say 'self-righteousness' was the standard, i said the divine standard.
science isn't built with a divine standard to guide it, it has an earthly one and that doesn't qualify it to be the ultimate guideline.
Upvote
0
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?
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.
That's the problem with your logic. If you think that only divine standards count, then everything goes out the window. Tell me, you said you were a teacher, right? If I wanted to start a class on how the Moon was made out of cheese, what's stopping me under your logic?
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.
Upvote
0
archaeologist
Well-Known Member
you don't?? you should, its fun. you lose a lot of beer but the enjoyment factor is worth it.-ha ha.
because science within its limits does do some things.
then don't apply its theories and conclusions to those events which are supernatural. i.e. creation, the flood, the fall of man, the ressurrection, the virgin birth and so on. also do not let its wayward conclusions influence you away from the supernatural workings of God.
once you have done so, you have used science to investigate the supernatural. so your statement again undermines your claims.
i have, i call your science 'secular science' i differentiate and i get flack for it as well. so when you make up your mind as to what you want , let me know.
science as you said is a tool. it is a limited tool and onceit has set its requirements then it has limited itself even further.
it is time for science to set rules toallow investigation of the supernatural for God is supernatural and you won't be able to find Him without using His requirements.
secular science is trying to do an end run around that divine standard and it won't work. it is leading people away from God and into destruction.
no not really for the divine standard that applies to spiritual beliefs apply to all fields of life. THE TRUTH-- which is Jesus not man's determinations. man has discovered 1 + 1 =2 because that is the truth. now we could say 1 + 1 =3 and still mean 2 for the simple reason we decided to change the names and the meaningof the names for numbers.
changing names doesn't change the truth. you keep bringing gravity up. we call it gravity but newton could have said 'the force' and the same job is still being done.
the truth isn't in the name we use to label something, it is in what it does . which is why icanreject evolution (the Truth is not in it0 and accept technology. evolution doesn't exist no matter what people say, truth is not in it; while a car has truth in it. you put certain parts together and they run. we see it, observe it, touch it and do not have to wait millions of years for the results.
there is a big difference in technology and evolution. the basic constructs should tell you that.
Upvote
0
archaeologist
Well-Known Member
p.s.-- remember iam defending AIg's or ICR's right to do peer review and science their way. you have to keep inmind that Christians are to include God in all things and their ways may not be the ways of secular science but thatis because they include the God factor.
the following passages gives another reason why we do not believe or follow secular science and that is because they do not acknowledge God nor let Him direct their paths:
proverbs 3
do you understand?
the following passages gives another reason why we do not believe or follow secular science and that is because they do not acknowledge God nor let Him direct their paths:
proverbs 3
do you understand?
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
