New Creation/Evolution Internet Radio Show Tonight 6pmPST/9pm EST

What makes you think it wouldn't be? Don't you think it's possible that creationists don't put their research in for peer review because they realise themselves that it is without merit? What barrier has there been to creationists putting their research in to the peer review process other than their own reluctance?Whether such research would pass peer review is another distinct question, but then a lot of perfectly mainstream research doesn't pass peer review for any number of reasons.You seem to be presupposing that there exists solid creationist research which has merit, despite their being no evidence for the same. Why not consider that in fact there may simply not be any substantive scientific basis to creationist claims.TTFN,WK

I don't know this and it would require some solid evidence to make me believe it. I do know that there are a lot of tenuous inflated claims of persecution and academic suppression from the creationist and ID camps, see for example the 'Expelled' film. Its easy to say so, why not open a new thread and give us your best shot at solid creationist research? The fact that the people are very bright doesn't mean that they have solid scientific evidence, even the most intelligent people can get things wrong. In the absence of you telling us what this compelling evidence is it also hard to tell if you are convinced because they have a strong scientific case or because their arguments are consonant with your own beliefs.I look forward to seeing what evidence you choose to share with us.TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : No reason given.