Never Good Enough...

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Time and time again I hear that Creation scientists are are not real scientists since they never get peer reviewed. Well, this is obviously false. The thing is when they do get preer reviewed evolutionists do things like this. I'm not saying every evolutionist is like this but it's a very common and it really upsets me and people need to know this.

 

[GodSaves]

On a good note, the darwinists are saying that peer-reviewed articles don't insure accuracy. I like what Dr. West says 'what are they afraid of?' If it wasn't good then why all the comotion instead of letting it die?

God Bless

 

[notto]

The Journal itself has stated that the article did not go through its normal peer review and was published by rouge editor that is sympathetic to creationism and ID. The article was not reviewed by the normal 'peers' of the journal and an editor took it upon himself to get it included (and won't disclose who actually reviewed the article - not typical of a peer review policy).

The original article does not cover all the facts.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2004/ZZ/608_bsw_repudiates_meyer_9_7_2004.asp

The Biological Society of Washington issued a statement on September 7, 2004:

The paper by Stephen C. Meyer in the Proceedings ("The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239) represents a significant departure from the nearly purely taxonomic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 124-year history. It was published without the prior knowledge of the Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, or the associate editors. We have met and determined that all of us would have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings.

 

[adam149]

The Journal itself has stated that the article did not go through its normal peer review and was published by rouge editor that is sympathetic to creationism and ID. The article was not reviewed by the normal 'peers' of the journal and an editor took it upon himself to get it included (and won't disclose who actually reviewed the article - not typical of a peer review policy).

The original article does not cover all the facts.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2004/ZZ/608_bsw_repudiates_meyer_9_7_2004.asp

The Biological Society of Washington issued a statement on September 7, 2004:

The paper by Stephen C. Meyer in the Proceedings ("The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239) represents a significant departure from the nearly purely taxonomic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 124-year history. It was published without the prior knowledge of the Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, or the associate editors. We have met and determined that all of us would have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings.

...and at this point, we know they are backpedaling because nothing gets published in a peer-review journal that is not approved by the reviewers, the editorial staff and all others involved. Simply the way the process works.

 

[mark kennedy]

They don't get published in peer reviewed journals because the moment they let someone know they are creationists their reputation is shot. Some of the Berkley professors like M. Behe are occasionally published with an irreducable complexty paper but a YEC paper on the Flood, don't hold your breath.

I just left the creation/evolution forum, what a snakepit. Apparently it doesn't matter how much I study genetics, geology, fossils and naturalistic methodology I am ignorant and dishonest for being openly creationist, shame on me. They act like its about science but personally I think its the Bible they have issues with. I wonder if a reformation like we had with the Roman Empire would be out of the question.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

To continue on with the discussion we are having also read here other ways some evolutionists will deny giving credit to creationists. With things like the peer review issue and the Nobel prize issue going on I bet there are many "in the closet" scientists out there that are really Creationists but won't admit it so that they don't lose their reputations and/or jobs.

 

[Micaiah]

It wouldn't surprise me if this was the case. When you have scientists claiming evolution is as well proven as gravity, those who dare to challenge the firmly held beliefs of the majority would be unpopular.

 

[TwinCrier]

Apparently it doesn't matter how much I study genetics, geology, fossils and naturalistic methodology I am ignorant and dishonest for being openly creationist, shame on me.

That seems to be the main mode of shutting down any creation debate. We are labled as either liars or fools because we see the evidence pointing to a different direction.

 

[Beowulf]

Job's friends saw the evidence of his suffering too and convicted him of sinning somewhere. Things aren't as they always appear.

My evidence is scripture. That's all I have and that's all I need. Evolution is mostly used by the unbeliever to prove there is no God. I see no value in a tool that can be used in such a manner by so many.

 

[adam149]

They don't get published in peer reviewed journals because the moment they let someone know they are creationists their reputation is shot. Some of the Berkley professors like M. Behe are occasionally published with an irreducable complexty paper but a YEC paper on the Flood, don't hold your breath.

Absolutely. There is a huge pile of evidence of evolutionary discrimination against creationists.

I just left the creation/evolution forum, what a snakepit. Apparently it doesn't matter how much I study genetics, geology, fossils and naturalistic methodology I am ignorant and dishonest for being openly creationist, shame on me.

I know. I don't bother with that forum anymore. They're not interested in intellectual discussion, only mocking creationists.

They act like its about science but personally I think its the Bible they have issues with. I wonder if a reformation like we had with the Roman Empire would be out of the question.

That, of course, is the heart of the issue. To unregenerate man, the Gospel is the "great offense" and because we (Christians) follow Christ, we are greatly offensive to them. As Christ says:

John 7:7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it, that its works are evil.

but there is some good news in all of this:
Luke 6:22 Blessed are you when men shall hate you, and when they shall cut you off, and when they shall reproach you and shall cast out your name as evil, for the sake of the Son of Man.

 

[SIXDAYCREATIONIST]

I know. I don't bother with that forum anymore. They're not interested in intellectual discussion, only mocking creationists.

the stories i could tell. that group of people have no respect for anyone at all. either way, they don't know much about science just how to use talk origin for their arguments; pathetic at best.

 

[evolutionisafairytale]

Allow me to explain:

1. Evolutionists in public debates look terrible. Creationists like Dr. Hovind or Dr. Gish come off as much more humorous and intelligent.

2. Evolutionists have one friend: the internet. They "debate" over the internet - thinking that this makes them better. The truth is debating over the internet is like winning the special olympics; if you win, you're still an idiot. If you can't publicly back up your statement, you lose.

3. In the Creation vs. Evolution forum they have what we call a "bully tactic" in which there are like 20 evolutionists per Creationist. What they do is wait for 1 Creationist to show up, and then ALL post and attack the person. They aren't intelligent, they are just bullying the opponent. Again, these people are too scared to publicly debate they can only do it on the internet and claim they look good. But of course, it's obvious that they just bully their opponent.

4. In an one on one setting, the evolutionists look like idiots, you can check out the websites of evolutionfairlytale and others where you see a One vs. One, and you will notice the evolutionists look pathetic. If they have a BUNCH of friends, they win only because of bullying.

5. The fact tat they won't actually publicly back up their statements really shows what they are about anyway.

This coming from an internet evolutionist "kil":

Comes down to this for me. I think public debates with creationists that are not in writing should not happen. What I mean is that "evolutionists" should stop accepting invitations to debate the subject. The acceptance of such a debate gives creation science a kind of respectability it does not deserve. What happened in the Shermer/Hovind debate is what usually happens. A very skilled debater (from an audience perspective) truancies the opposition. Gish and Hovind, as Filthy pointed out, have technique and the charisma to pull off a win and be completely wrong at the same time. Since most of these debates are in front of church groups, the science on the evolution side has little chance because the audience does not understand it.

Basically according to these evolutionists the average person is dumb and cannot understand what's going on. In reality, the Creationists win because they use science whereas the evolutionists want you to accept everything by "faith." Notice how much more empirical the presentation of the Creationists are compared to the evolutionists. The reason why evolutionists want a "written" debate is because they can make up information and don't have to use any empirical information.

The empirical defends Creation, not evolution. This is why evolutionists want to debate over the internet. Pathetic at best.

 

[notto]

.

 

[evolutionisafairytale]

Welcome back tkster. Why the change in name?

Well my last account was disabled. I was banned, so I am guessing my stay here will be short as I don't think they re-allow members. Maybe I am wrong, but anyways, I just wanted to clarify a few things.

 

[Amalthea]

Allow me to explain:

1. Evolutionists in public debates look terrible. Creationists like Dr. Hovind or Dr. Gish come off as much more humorous and intelligent.

2. Evolutionists have one friend: the internet. They "debate" over the internet - thinking that this makes them better. The truth is debating over the internet is like winning the special olympics; if you win, you're still an idiot. If you can't publicly back up your statement, you lose.

3. In the Creation vs. Evolution forum they have what we call a "bully tactic" in which there are like 20 evolutionists per Creationist. What they do is wait for 1 Creationist to show up, and then ALL post and attack the person. They aren't intelligent, they are just bullying the opponent. Again, these people are too scared to publicly debate they can only do it on the internet and claim they look good. But of course, it's obvious that they just bully their opponent.

4. In an one on one setting, the evolutionists look like idiots, you can check out the websites of evolutionfairlytale and others where you see a One vs. One, and you will notice the evolutionists look pathetic. If they have a BUNCH of friends, they win only because of bullying.

5. The fact tat they won't actually publicly back up their statements really shows what they are about anyway.

This coming from an internet evolutionist "kil":




Basically according to these evolutionists the average person is dumb and cannot understand what's going on. In reality, the Creationists win because they use science whereas the evolutionists want you to accept everything by "faith." Notice how much more empirical the presentation of the Creationists are compared to the evolutionists. The reason why evolutionists want a "written" debate is because they can make up information and don't have to use any empirical information.

The empirical defends Creation, not evolution. This is why evolutionists want to debate over the internet. Pathetic at best.

Is this post satire? Hovind intelligent????

 

[adam149]

Is this post satire? Hovind intelligent????

I've met and talked with the man in person. I can attest that he is a very intelligent man. His seminars aren't intended for Ph.D scientists. I disagree with a lot of his arguments and beliefs despite this. Just because people disagree with you doesn't make them less intelligent than you, and I would not recommend buying into the skeptical party-line on Hovind.

 

[Amalthea]

I too have met Hovind on several occasions (though not in the last 3 years) and found just the opposite. Certainly not very intelligent as attested to by his rotating Earth arguments and misunderstanding what a leap second is. A minute of research and some elementary school math would lead him to reject that argument as AIG and ICR have. That is not a sign of very intelligent.

 

[adam149]

I too have met Hovind on several occasions (though not in the last 3 years) and found just the opposite. Certainly not very intelligent as attested to by his rotating Earth arguments and misunderstanding what a leap second is. A minute of research and some elementary school math would lead him to reject that argument as AIG and ICR have. That is not a sign of very intelligent.

As I say, I disagree with him on several major points (e.g. Premillenialism/Conspiracy, Garden of Eden arguments, etc.), but again I emphasize that this doesn't make him stupid. We all believe some wrong (or stupid, or crazy) things at one time or another in our lives, but this doesn't make us any less intelligent than we are. As a man, a Christian, and a public speaker, I admire him greatly, as a researcher and a scientist, I generally prefer AiG or ICR.

 

[Amalthea]

How is he a scientist? He has never done any scientific research in his life? And his inability to follow the simple idea behind leap seconds attests to that inability. AIG really go after him and basically call him either incompetent or a liar.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

*** mod hat on ****
Creation Science
The subforum for young-earth and other creationist members.


A new subforum For Christians Only in the Theology category under the Origins Theology forum.

The old Creation Science & Evolution forum has been renamed Origins Theology.

Rules of this forum:

1. Only Creationist members may debate in this forum.

2. Non-creationist members may post fellowship posts in this forum but any debate posts will be removed.