What would happen if we find Noah's ark?

[Uphill Battle]

If you could find the remnants of an ancient civilization in mesozoic rock in an area near Mexico City, this would indeed turn the current paradigm on its head. I am not talking about a single sparkplug that went down a fissure and got covered by lime. A true archeological find in sediment layed down during the Mesozoic would be what you are looking for. Find any lately?

How about out of place fossils? Find the fossilized remains of a recent ecosystem in Mesozoic sedimentary rock, and yes, you would have evidence that would seriously question stratigraphy. Or, find the equivalent of the Burgess Shale in Paleozoic sediment. Find any lately?

there have been some finds. Nothing that the scientific community accepts, but enough to raise questions. Don't have my resources with me to post anything. (At work.)

 

[nvxplorer]

so who exactly decided those principles?

Scientists.

Therein lies my point. Go with Geology. If somebody wrote something on Geology, but did not ascribe to the Geological column, it couldn't possibly pass peer review, could it? The Geological community has already accepted the Geological column in total. So, going back to the point, if it doesn't ascribe to already held opinions and assumptions (The bias to which I refer) then it isn't going to pass muster, no matter what it is written on, how it is written, or even if sound scientific principles are used. That doesn't even have to go as far as the creation/evolution debate, somebody could agree with the billion year age, but not with the Geological column, and still not pass the peer review. It is not an unbiased review, as much as you'd like to believe it.

Sound science does not equate to bias. Unsound papers are not rejected because of bias, but because they are unsound. This is true with any discipline. If someone wants to submit an article on baseball to Sports Illustrated, he must adhere to the principle of three strikes and you’re out. Science, though not a sport, is just as well defined. Your claim that a paper will be rejected, even if scientifically sound, is fallacious. Scientists are not a college fraternity. They are highly competitive, and if a scientist finds evidence that refutes another’s findings, he will take great joy in proving him wrong.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

there have been some finds. Nothing that the scientific community accepts, but enough to raise questions. Don't have my resources with me to post anything. (At work.)

Sure, there are always a few small anomalies, but so what? Science can never explain everything. That's what the error term is all about. NASA can put a spacecraft within a meter or two of a target on the other side of Jupiter, but seldom hit the target exactly. A darn impressive skill but there's almost always a tiny amount of variation which can't be explained. It doesn't mean the physics which gave them 99.99999999% accuracy is junk.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Sure, there are always a few small anomalies, but so what? Science can never explain everything. That's what the error term is all about. NASA can put a spacecraft within a meter or two of a target on the other side of Jupiter, but seldom hit the target exactly. A darn impressive skill but there's almost always a tiny amount of variation which can't be explained. It doesn't mean the physics which gave them 99.99999999% accuracy is junk.

granted. But you can't equate finding homo sapiens remains in strata far far "older" with missing the mark by a metre or two. you just exhibit the attitude that is prevelant... There isn't anything that will falsify evolution. We could likely find a fossilized T-rex in the process of eating a human next to a rock with "Adam wuz here" chisled into it, and it would either end up on some pratt list, or it would be catagorized as :anomalous:

 

[caravelair]

1) I didn't say anything about a creationist, in fact, I specifically said someone who believes in the old earth theory, just someone who disagrees with the Geological column.

2) What does any of what you wrote have to do with the Geological column?

it has to do with your claim that no one will challenge the geological column because it is the dominant view. my example proves you wrong.

 

[Uphill Battle]

it has to do with your claim that no one will challenge the geological column because it is the dominant view. my example proves you wrong.

I didn't claim that nobody would challange it. I claimed that such a person could not get by a peer review BECAUSE it's the dominant view.

 

[caravelair]

I didn't claim that nobody would challange it. I claimed that such a person could not get by a peer review BECAUSE it's the dominant view.

and my example proves that wrong as well. newtonian physics were once the dominant theory, and yet general relativity and quantum mechanics papers certainly do pass peer-review all the time. how is that possible if your claims about peer-review are true?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I didn't claim that nobody would challange it. I claimed that such a person could not get by a peer review BECAUSE it's the dominant view.

As someone who has published in peer reviewed literature, referred peer reviewed journals and served as the editor of a peer reviewed journal I say your claim is false. This is a common creationist complaint but never substantiated. If you published data that challenge an accepted interpretation you must of course provide solid substantiation for your challenge. If what you claim were true science would never progress.

You should understand that what creationists publish is mostly intended to convince the faithful that there is some science behind their claims. They often know full well that there are far too many holes in the work to allow publication in mainstream literature. The reason that their work on "flood geology" or "bariminology" or other creationist nonsense is generally not publishable in mainstream peer reviewed journals is not because of "bias" but because it is generally very shoddy work. A good case in point would be "flood geologists" Austin and Snelling and their Absurd Claims About the Coconino Sandstones. The reason their work can't be published in mainstream literature is not because of bias but because it is totally absurd and so far from real science as to hardly even deserve that title of pseudoscience.

FB

 

[Uphill Battle]

Given that this has derailed the thread, I'm willing to drop the issue about peer reviews. I don't think I will ever convince you of my point, and likewise, I will never beleive it is what it is claimed to be.

 

[Loudmouth]

Given that this has derailed the thread, I'm willing to drop the issue about peer reviews. I don't think I will ever convince you of my point, and likewise, I will never beleive it is what it is claimed to be.

Start a new thread outlining the papers that have been rejected by peer review. I have had papers rejected, so I know the process (as does Dr. GH I would guess). When a paper is rejected you are given the reasons why, and possible ways of fixing the paper.

The problem is that creationist claim persecution but are never persecuted. How is that they are being censored when they don't even submit papers for review? Perhaps these creationists realize that the only people they can fool with their shoddy science is non-scientists.

 

[Donkeytron]

Start a new thread outlining the papers that have been rejected by peer review. I have had papers rejected, so I know the process (as does Dr. GH I would guess). When a paper is rejected you are given the reasons why, and possible ways of fixing the paper.
.

It'll never happen. I've seen threads on other forums ask for the same evidence of rejection, and it never gets posted. The persecution mewl is too effective a tool to use on the creationist base of evangelical christians.

 

[Split Rock]

there have been some finds. Nothing that the scientific community accepts, but enough to raise questions. Don't have my resources with me to post anything. (At work.)

What finds? Any that cannot be explained by known geological processes? If it raises questions as you say, the scientific community would look into it. If it is an anomaly explainable by upthrusting or folding, then there is no question raised.

This is just more conspiracy propaganda, where the evolutionist coalition of atheism hides or ignores vital evidence that would prove Genesis is literally true.

 

[Beastt]

What would happen if we find Noah's ark?

Pieces would be available on eBay within 23.4 minutes.

 

[Edx]

Pieces would be available on eBay within 23.4 minutes.

Just start now. Find some old piece of wood and sell it. Someone will buy it if you pretend its real enough.

Ed

 

[UberLutheran]

What would happen if we found pieces of Noah's Ark buried under 1000 feet of sand in the Sahara Desert?

Hmmm. Nowhere near a mountain.

Middle of the desert.

Then we'd have to look at the possibility of [gasp!] plate tectonics and [shudder!] geological time just might be true and God actually did use evolution as His primary tool to create!

 

[Guywiththehead]

Just start now. Find some old piece of wood and sell it. Someone will buy it if you pretend its real enough.

Ed

I'm certain they would. It's the same site where people bought a grilled cheese sandwich with the vague likeness of a woman on it for $28,000.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

I didn't claim that nobody would challange it. I claimed that such a person could not get by a peer review BECAUSE it's the dominant view.

And you've been demonstrated to be wrong, by several posters. I suggest you give up this line of argument, because you don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[Beastt]

I'm certain they would. It's the same site where people bought a grilled cheese sandwich with the vague likeness of a woman on it for $28,000.

I bet I can guess who they thought the woman was supposed to be.

 

[SH89]

I bet I can guess who they thought the woman was supposed to be.

Was it supposed to be Mary?

 

[TheNewAge]

This is just more conspiracy propaganda, where the evolutionist coalition of atheism hides or ignores vital evidence that would prove Genesis is literally true.

So where is YOUR evidence of this claim??
Part of the problem is that there is little or no evidence that would prove Genesis to be true.