02 Aug 15
http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/creationism.php
No vast atheist conspiracy is out there stopping creation 'scientists' from submitting papers, anyone with a degree can do that. The truth is every bit of evidence like the so-called human footprints found in dinosaur tracks (which happen to be 16 to 22 inches long) and such, all such efforts by creationists have been refuted many times over.
The TRUE motivation for all these bogus so-called science video's is political in nature, pure and simple.
They care nothing for truth in science, true scientists, no matter what their degree, do not go into a subject with a pre-conceived notion of how things should come out, and any 'scientist' who does, no matter WHAT degree they earned, is not science and never will be.
True science comes into a subject with the idea to uncover the truth and let the chips fall where they may.
Creation 'scientists' have one goal and one goal only: The destruction of other sciences that refute creationism and the age of the Earth.
This is the antithesis of science.
It is politics pure and simple, a quest for votes to overcome the losses they have sustained in the court system.
They figure if they get enough votes, they can 1) have legislation passed allowing creation 'science' to be force fed along side evolution in a science classroom in their effort to force a religious stance on the education system and 2) if they can, destroy evolution as a science completely, which will never happen but they will never give up trying, the Ken Ham's of the world are relentless in their false science.
02 Aug 15
That's actually a unique point regard creationism/science. I've heard pretty much every other conceivable point and counter-point regarding creationism as a science, but this is a new one (to me, anyone). And it's a good point. If creationism was legitimate, there'd be scientific papers submitted for peer-review.
Although, aren't there some authorities who won't even look at a creationist paper? For example, Rich Dawkins said he doesn't debate creationists, because it would be like debating a geocentrist. Aren't there some like-minded scientific institutions who believe creationist papers aren't even worth reviewing? If so, then that would add to the belief from creationists that there's a conspiracy against them.
02 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonhouseThey can't prevent them from submitting papers, but they are not going to publish any, if they know it is from a creationists, unless it is by accident. Then whoever makes that mistake will lose their job. That is the way they protect the lie of evolution.
http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/creationism.php
No vast atheist conspiracy is out there stopping creation 'scientists' from submitting papers, anyone with a degree can do that. The truth is every bit of evidence like the so-called human footprints found in dinosaur tracks (which happen to be 16 to 22 inches long) and such, all such efforts ...[text shortened]... hey will never give up trying, the Ken Ham's of the world are relentless in their false science.
03 Aug 15
Originally posted by vivifyIf you want to have a paper published, bad or good, it has to be submitted. There are no submissions of creation science. So nothing is published.
That's actually a unique point regard creationism/science. I've heard pretty much every other conceivable point and counter-point regarding creationism as a science, but this is a new one (to me, anyone). And it's a good point. If creationism was legitimate, there'd be scientific papers submitted for peer-review.
Although, aren't there some authoritie ...[text shortened]... so, then that would add to the belief from creationists that there's a conspiracy against them.
It's like a friend of mine who was a tech on our electron microscope. A beautiful girl, she went to electron microscope school, passed with flying colors and does all the repairs on our instrument.
So one guy asked her how did you ever get into being an electron microscope technician, such a cool job.
Her answer: I APPLIED.
03 Aug 15
Originally posted by vivifyExactly how do you put together a paper on God did it?
That's actually a unique point regard creationism/science. I've heard pretty much every other conceivable point and counter-point regarding creationism as a science, but this is a new one (to me, anyone). And it's a good point. If creationism was legitimate, there'd be scientific papers submitted for peer-review.
Although, aren't there some authoritie ...[text shortened]... so, then that would add to the belief from creationists that there's a conspiracy against them.
Creationism is a matter of faith, if it were provable there would be no discussion on either
side. With respect I think demanding something that cannot be given to show it is valid is
not really looking at it properly.
Creation is a matter of faith, that does not mean it isn't true, only that science cannot
measure or mark out its truthfulness in any fashion.
If the universe were created around 10 years ago then looking at distance and rates
to check out how old things are in space would be useless, they would not be real
markers for time. They are assumed good markers now because people think they were
here that long ago when they use them as markers for time, the assumption being
they know how it got here to make them useful.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
03 Aug 15
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouse"There are no submissions of creation science. So nothing is published."
If you want to have a paper published, bad or good, it has to be submitted. There are no submissions of creation science. So nothing is published.
It's like a friend of mine who was a tech on our electron microscope. A beautiful girl, she went to electron microscope school, passed with flying colors and does all the repairs on our instrument.
So one ...[text shortened]... ver get into being an electron microscope technician, such a cool job.
Her answer: I APPLIED.
See
http://creation.com/journal-of-creation
From that page, quote:
Started in 1984, Journal of Creation brings you in-depth, peer-reviewed comment, reviews and the latest research findings that relate to origins and the biblical account of Creation, the Flood and the Fall.
The journal covers a wide spectrum of studies, not just science. Powerful articles have appeared on topics such as philosophy, theology, history, archaeology, social sciences and many more.
This is a great complement to Creation magazine, providing in-depth material from many experts in their field to satisfy the enquiring mind.
Presenting the latest in creation research, Journal of Creation keeps you up-to-date on creation/evolution controversies, pointing out the latest flaws in evolutionary arguments. Journal of Creation strives to publish papers that promote the development of rigorously logical biblically-consistent models in various areas.
This journal offers analytical and inclusive comments in well-referenced articles that will keep you powerfully informed on many topics. A one-year subscription includes three issues, each around 120+ pages.
Subscribe/Renew
Article Archive
Writing Guidelines
unquote
You can reach the archive from that page and there is an August 2015 issuance. Unfortunately it seems the papers aren't on line.
There is another journal mentioned in a Nature article from 2008:
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080123/full/451382b.html
quote:
Creationists launch 'science' journal
Research within a biblical framework to be peer reviewed.
Geoff Brumfiel
The organization that last year opened a US$27-million creation museum in Kentucky has started its own 'peer-reviewed' scientific research journal.
On 9 January, Answers in Genesis, a Christian ministry run by evangelical Ken Ham, launched Answers Research Journal (ARJ), a free, online publication devoted to research on “recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework”. Papers will be peer reviewed by those who “support the positions taken by the journal”, according to editor-in-chief Andrew Snelling, a geologist based in Brisbane, Australia.
“There have been these kinds of publications in the past,” says Keith Miller, a geologist at Kansas State University in Manhattan, who follows creationism. For the most part, he says, the work is ignored by the scientific community. But those without a science background, including some policy-makers, may not be able to judge the difference in value of a paper in ARJ and a genuine science journal.
Recent court rulings make it all but impossible for intelligent design, a belief that a higher being shaped evolution, to be taught in US public schools. Nevertheless, creationists still try to discourage the teaching of evolution and other scientific theories at the local level, according to Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, an education watchdog in Oakland, California. Publications such as ARJ are part of the continued battle to excise science from local curricula, she says. “Creation science is alive and well and appealing to a substantial minority of the American public.”
Miller, himself an evangelical Christian, says that scientists must be careful when responding to the launch of ARJ. Taking too strong a stand against the journal will fuel creationists' accusations of scientific 'bias' against religion, he argues. Researchers should instead try to educate non-scientists about the scientific process, he says.
unquote
03 Aug 15
We have often received feedback in the form of questions on the lines of, ‘If creation is scientific, then why don’t you publish in peer-reviewed secular journals?’ Andrew Kulikovsky answers this common question in detail. He points out the advantage of peer review but then documents its many shortcomings in practice, including rejecting top research while admitting fraud, as well as an all-too-common role in protecting the ruling paradigm. So it is folly for anticreationists to hide behind it instead of dealing with the arguments. This is why, to keep the advantages and overcome its drawbacks, creationists have started their own journals, e.g. CMI’s longstanding publication now titled Journal of Creation.
http://creation.com/creationism-science-and-peer-review
06 Aug 15
Originally posted by RJHindsI am talking about peer review but creationists simply don't submit to peer review because they know full well they have no scientific legs to stand on. They don't submit, that is 100% of the reason they don't get published. As much as I would love to see this vast anti-religious atheist conspiracy, you don't submit, you don't get published.We have often received feedback in the form of questions on the lines of, ‘If creation is scientific, then why don’t you publish in peer-reviewed secular journals?’ Andrew Kulikovsky answers this common question in detail. He points out the advantage of peer review but then documents its many shortcomings in practice, including rejecting top research ...[text shortened]... titled Journal of Creation.
http://creation.com/creationism-science-and-peer-review
06 Aug 15
Originally posted by KellyJaySo you agree that Creationism has nothing to do with science, and therefore that it should not be part of high school biology?
Exactly how do you put together a paper on God did it?
Creationism is a matter of faith, if it were provable there would be no discussion on either side. With respect I think demanding something that cannot be given to show it is valid is not really looking at it properly.
By extension, you recognize that RJHinds is a troll.
06 Aug 15
1 edit
Originally posted by WulebgrOf course I agree that Creation is faith and not science.
So you agree that Creationism has nothing to do with science, and therefore that it should not be part of high school biology?
By extension, you recognize that RJHinds is a troll.
I just went on and on about how science cannot measure something special that God
did.
I'm not going to call RJ names, so by extension I will not agree to that.
06 Aug 15
Originally posted by KellyJayBut RJ insists creation is a science and then posts bogus video's to 'prove' it.
Of course I agree that Creation is faith and not science.
I just went on and on about how science cannot measure something special that God
did.
I'm not going to call RJ names, so by extension I will not agree to that.
06 Aug 15
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseThe original creation can't be observed and reproducible by man any more than the theory of evolution. But obviously, creation is just as much science as the theory of evolution, and both are religious because they must both be believed by faith. However, the Biblical theory of creation has more true science supporting it than the theory of evolution that must be supported by fraud and lies, as I have given evidence before and you admitted as such. 😏
But RJ insists creation is a science and then posts bogus video's to 'prove' it.
A Special Creation; Exposing the Ape Man Evolution as a Lie
06 Aug 15
Originally posted by RJHindsEr, even 8 year old kids know we did not evolve from apes. Both lines evolved from a much earlier line millions of years ago. I know, that goes against your religion but that is your problem not ours.
The original creation can't be observed and reproducible by man any more than the theory of evolution. But obviously, creation is just as much science as the theory of evolution, and both are religious because they must both be believed by faith. However, the Biblical theory of creation has more true science supporting it than the theory of evolution that ...[text shortened]... pecial Creation; Exposing the Ape Man Evolution as a Lie
[youtube]wekWxCN6_Fc[/youtube][/b]