The 'Macro-Micro' thing....again..

[lasthero]

I have a story of creationists rejected by peer review.

Creationism Slips Into a Peer-Reviewed Journal | NCSE

Though, to be fair, it might have something to do with them plagiarizing, too.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have a story of creationists rejected by peer review.

Which creationists? aren't there supposed to be some 38,000 different sects with their own story?

Or is it really God that is being rejected?

 

[bhsmte]

Which creationists? aren't there supposed to be some 38,000 different sects with their own story?

Or is it really God that is being rejected?

It would appear to be a lack of evidence that gets rejected.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Which creationists? aren't there supposed to be some 38,000 different sects with their own story?

Or is it really God that is being rejected?

Says the man that follows a system of beliefs that have about a half a dozen different interpretations of his own theory. So is it your theory that is being rejected, since so many different versions of it exist?

 

[AV1611VET]

Says the man that follows a system of beliefs that have about a half a dozen different interpretations of his own theory. So is it your theory that is being rejected, since so many different versions of it exist?

What are you talking about?

 

[HitchSlap]

Which creationists? aren't there supposed to be some 38,000 different sects with their own story?

Or is it really God that is being rejected?

I may have to go with the lack of evidence as to why they're rejected, chief.

 

[HitchSlap]

Which creationists? aren't there supposed to be some 38,000 different sects with their own story?

Or is it really God that is being rejected?

Exactly. See the problem now? Look what happens when every creationist has to make up their "own story." When a concept is actually based on real-life evidence, it pare's the stories down to just one.

 

[AV1611VET]

When a concept is actually based on real-life evidence, it pare's the stories down to just one.

Don't you mean seven?

Oh, wait! We're not talking about the moon ... are we?

 

[HitchSlap]

Don't you mean seven?

Oh, wait! We're not talking about the moon ... are we?

Yep, includes the moon, and all "seven" hypotheses. Seven's better than 38,000.

 

[Loudmouth]

Don't you mean seven?

Oh, wait! We're not talking about the moon ... are we?

You mean the seven scientific hypotheses that are based on scientific observations?

That seems a lot better than 38,000 versions based on stories in a book.

 

[Dizredux]

Which creationists? aren't there supposed to be some 38,000 different sects with their own story?

Or is it really God that is being rejected?

Perhaps Mohamad Warda and Jin Han who submitted the paper. You think?

Dizredux

 

[Riberra]

who told you NKJV used sinaiticus? or vaticanus? Thats blaitantly wrong. Yes it's a modern translation but not considered one because it used the AV manuscripts of the recieved text from the byzantine tradition.

Whose better to prove the -author claims- than those who have participated to the reform ...
textus receptus was used by original KJV (1611)
The " majority text" (also known as the Byzantine or Syrian text) was used by the reformists to be used in the new bibles versions.
Source:
Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus: Which is Superior?

By Douglas Kutilek
5/24/96


..."Furthermore, a careful distinction must be made between the textus receptus (even in its broadest collective sense) on the one hand, and the majority text (also known as the Byzantine or Syrian text) on the other. Though the terms textus receptus and majority text are frequently used as though they were synonymous, they by no means mean the same thing. (7) When the majority text was being compiled by Hodges and Farstad, their collaborator Pickering estimated that their resultant text would differ from the textus receptus in over 1,000 places (8); in fact, the differences amounted to 1,838. (9) In other words, the reading of the majority of Greek manuscripts differs from the textus receptus (Hodges and Farstad used an 1825 Oxford reprint of Stephanus' 1550 text for comparison purposes) in 1,838 places, and in many of these places, the text of Westcott and Hort agrees with the majority of manuscripts against the textus receptus. The majority of manuscripts and Westcott and Hort agree against the textus receptus in excluding Luke 17:36; Acts 8:37; and I John 5:7 from the New Testament, as well as concurring in numerous other readings (such as "tree of life" in Revelation 22:19). Except in a few rare cases, writers well-versed in textual criticism have abandoned the textus receptus as a standard text. (10)

 

[createdtoworship]

Whose better to prove the -author claims- than those who have participated to the reform ...
textus receptus was used by original KJV (1611)
The majority text (also known as the Byzantine or Syrian text) was used by the reformists to be used in the new bibles versions.
Source:
Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus: Which is Superior?

By Douglas Kutilek
5/24/96


..."Furthermore, a careful distinction must be made between the textus receptus (even in its broadest collective sense) on the one hand, and the majority text (also known as the Byzantine or Syrian text) on the other. Though the terms textus receptus and majority text are frequently used as though they were synonymous, they by no means mean the same thing. (7) When the majority text was being compiled by Hodges and Farstad, their collaborator Pickering estimated that their resultant text would differ from the textus receptus in over 1,000 places (8); in fact, the differences amounted to 1,838. (9) In other words, the reading of the majority of Greek manuscripts differs from the textus receptus (Hodges and Farstad used an 1825 Oxford reprint of Stephanus' 1550 text for comparison purposes) in 1,838 places, and in many of these places, the text of Westcott and Hort agrees with the majority of manuscripts against the textus receptus. The majority of manuscripts and Westcott and Hort agree against the textus receptus in excluding Luke 17:36; Acts 8:37; and I John 5:7 from the New Testament, as well as concurring in numerous other readings (such as "tree of life" in Revelation 22:19). Except in a few rare cases, writers well-versed in textual criticism have abandoned the textus receptus as a standard text. (10)

a thousand differences is nothing compared to the 700 thousand similiarities, I would say they are pretty synonomous. Thats less than 1 percent different. Also your source refutes you in the last line of the quote you gave,

you said:

Except in a few rare cases, writers well-versed in textual criticism have abandoned the textus receptus as a standard text.

I wouldn't trust a source like that.

 

[createdtoworship]

Review networks do not excommunicate. You are projecting again. Also, I asked for papers that were rejected, and you have yet to produce a single one.



That's a book, not a peer reviewable research paper. Do you even know what a scientific peer reviewed publication is? They differ quite a bit from books.



All overblown rantings of someone trying to play the fake martyr, as usual.

Again, I am asking for examples of papers that are turned away. You still have not shown me a single one.

Also, you still won't deal with the fossil evidence from hominids, which I posted.

said like a true evolutionist. To be fair, they were not peer review articles linked but it was a scientific work that was sensored by a scientific afiliation that was legitimate. Ever watched the movie Expelled? or watched the online film strips called speechless,

it's hardly a thing to joke about,

Speechless...Silencing the Christians - Part 1 of 7 - YouTube

 

[createdtoworship]

Are you really going to pretend that Lucy's pelvis does not look human like compared to other apes?

I can see you are just diverting where there is a lack of debatable material to answer. What about the orientation of the iliac bone?

 

[createdtoworship]

I have a story of creationists rejected by peer review.

Creationism Slips Into a Peer-Reviewed Journal | NCSE

Though, to be fair, it might have something to do with them plagiarizing, too.

this is exibit A for proving my point. It's not that Creationists don't have peer reviews it is that the peer review boards are censoring them simply because of the inclusion of such wording as "creator"

 

[Riberra]

a thousand differences is nothing compared to the 700 thousand similiarities, I would say they are pretty synonomous. Thats less than 1 percent different.

If the difference is in twisting God words in key passages like the Holy Trinity and the Divinity of Jesus Christ it matters.

Also your source refutes you in the last line of the quote you gave,

you said:
-Except in a few rare cases-, writers well-versed in textual criticism have abandoned the textus receptus as a standard text.

It rather confirm that textus receptus the text used in the translation of the original KJV is not used anymore for the new bible versions....but the original texts (textus receptus )is still in use by the Authorized (King James) Version Bible.

 

[Dizredux]

Ever watched the movie Expelled?

Yep, it was a hoot.

About the only one that could make any kind of case was Guillermo Gonzalez who did get tenure probably in part due to his book The Privileged Planet. Since tenure decision meetings are are not made public, we don't know but it may be possible.

When one looks at the large number of Christian colleges have fired, forced to resign those who do not adhere closely enough to the schools/denominations it is hard to become serious about the rather bogus claims of Expelled.

The movie was well roasted by a multitude of reviewers. Rotten Tomato gave it a rating of 20. If anyone wants to look further into it you can read Scientific American's article "Ben Stein's Expelled: No Integrity Displayed"

Ben Stein's Expelled: No Integrity Displayed - Scientific American

Have fun,

Dizredux

 

[createdtoworship]

Yep, it was a hoot.

About the only one that could make any kind of case was Guillermo Gonzalez who did get tenure probably in part due to his book The Privileged Planet. Since tenure decision meetings are are not made public, we don't know but it may be possible.

When one looks at the large number of Christian colleges have fired, forced to resign those who do not adhere closely enough to the schools/denominations it is hard to become serious about the rather bogus claims of Expelled.

The movie was well roasted by a multitude of reviewers. Rotten Tomato gave it a rating of 20. If anyone wants to look further into it you can read Scientific American's article "Ben Stein's Expelled: No Integrity Displayed"

Ben Stein's Expelled: No Integrity Displayed - Scientific American

Have fun,

Dizredux

well have you watched the other series on Christian persecution?

"Speechless, silencing the Christians"?

I know for a fact that creationism is sensored in the public classroom. Expelled is just a taste. Go into any anthropology class and mention "ID" or "creation" and you will have a go at it with the teacher. This is a fact. We all know this. In fact the censorship is so deep that many non christians venture to this forum to debate just that. Evolution over Creation. Or Athiesm over Christianity, or whatever you want.

As far as reading your link, I would feel much better reading if I knew you were actually in this conversation for the long haul, not just a drop off link.

You may want to start watching speechless.


note these videos that are not easily found, have been censored on tv networks. You tube still has some up here is one:




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4i__i83YZnw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ-5ZzJqv7I&list=PLD14B07A3334AA7B2

 

[createdtoworship]

It rather confirm that textus receptus the text used in the translation of the original KJV is not used anymore for the new bible versions....but the original texts (textus receptus )is still in use by the Authorized (King James) Version Bible.

well I would believe that if they didn't mention "standard text" at the end. This goes to show the scepticism they have for the textus receptus. And the fact that they mention "well versed" in "criticism". That too shows that they view criticism as supreme for one, which is wrong.