Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   why creation "science" isn't science
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 167 of 365 (2929)
01-26-2002 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by LudvanB
01-26-2002 5:15 PM


"I meant that for you...as far as i'm concerned,the Noachian world wide flood never happened so it cant have any cause. And this
will be my position until someone presents me with undeniable proof that it did...and by that I mean proof than can only be explained by a world wide flood."
--The first thing I would say is, proof, you will not find, evidence you will find, evidence that can only be explained by a world wide flood is plausable, as I have found throughout the ToE its always a matter of it could have happend this way too. Give me a specific aspect for the Flood to explain and I will attempt an explination.
-------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by LudvanB, posted 01-26-2002 5:15 PM LudvanB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by LudvanB, posted 01-27-2002 2:26 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 365 (2949)
01-27-2002 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by TrueCreation
01-26-2002 6:37 PM


I'll give you three.
1- There are trees which have been identidied as being about 8000 years old through their rings. If there had been a world wide flood 4450 years ago,then the oldest living tree could only by 4449 years old.
2- The some glacier formation in the poles have been identified as being nearly 40 000 years in age. That kinda messes up the entire biblical time table,including the flood.
3- There are civilisations,such as the Egyptians,the Babylonian/Sumerians,the Mayans and the Chinese which presents us with compelling historical evidence that their beginings date back AT LEAST well before 3000 BC...with no mention of any world wide flood in their historical records...which would mean that either the flood occured WELL BEFORE 2455 BC or it didn't happen at all. In fact,the Mayan calender represents very precisely that in 2012,we we be at the end of a mayan cycle...which lasts 26 000 years!
[This message has been edited by LudvanB, 01-27-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by TrueCreation, posted 01-26-2002 6:37 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by TrueCreation, posted 01-27-2002 2:04 PM LudvanB has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 169 of 365 (2955)
01-27-2002 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by LudvanB
01-27-2002 2:26 AM


"I'll give you three."
--Great
"1- There are trees which have been identidied as being about 8000 years old through their rings. If there had been a world wide flood 4450 years ago,then the oldest living tree could only by 4449 years old."
--I have encountered this problem before, I wrote this short article a couple months back using many quotes.
quote:
Don Batten, Ph.D. :
'Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) has been used in an attempt to extend the calibration of carbon-14 dating earlier than historical records allow, but this depends on temporal placement of fragments d (from long-dead trees) using carbon-14 dating.'
Dendrochronology has been used in an attempts to extend the calibration of carbon-14 dating earlier than historical records allow. The oldest living trees, such as the Bristlecone Pines (Pinus longaeva) of the White Mountains of Eastern California, have been dated by counting tree rings at 4,900 years old. This would mean they pre-dated the Flood which occurred around 4,350 years ago, taking a straight-forward approach to Biblical chronology.
Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has shown that variation of up to five rings per year can be produced and extra rings are often indistinguishable, even under the microscope, from annual rings.
Don Batten :
'...evidence of false rings in any woody tree species would cast doubt on claims that any particular species has never in the past produced false rings. Evidence from within the same genus surely counts much more strongly against such a notion.'
Creationists have shown that the Biblical kind is usually larger than the ‘species’ and in many cases even larger than the 'genus'.
If you considering that the immediate post-Flood world, it would have been much wetter with less contrasting seasons until the Ice Age retreated, large quantities of extra growth rings would have been produced in the Bristlecone pines. Though extra rings are not produced today often because of the seasonal extremes. Taking this into account it is no wonder this would bring the age of the oldest living Bristlecone Pine into the post-Flood era.
Claimed older tree ring chronologies are dependent on the cross-matching of tree ring patterns of pieces of dead wood found near living trees. This procedure depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood using carbon14 dating, assuming straight-line extrapolation backwards of the carbon dating. Having placed the fragment of wood approximately using the 14C data, a matching tree-ring pattern is sought with wood that has a part with overlapping 14C age and that also extends to a younger age. A tree ring pattern that matches is found close to where the carbon ‘dates’ are the same. And so the tree-ring sequence is extended from the living trees backwards.
Though this may sound fairly reasonable, it is a circular reasoning process. It assumes that the approximately correct to linearly extimate the carbon ‘clock’ backwards. There are very good reasons to doubt this. The closer one gets back to the Flood the more inaccurate the linear estimation of te carbon clock will become, perhapsradically so. Conventional carbon-14 dating assumes that the system has been in equilibrium for tens or hundreds of thousands of years, and that 14C is thoroughly mixed in the atmosphere.
Now superficially this sounds fairly reasonable. However, it is a circular process. It assumes that it is approximately correct to linearly extrapolate the carbon ‘clock’ backwards. There are good reasons for doubting this. The closer one gets back to the Flood the more inaccurate the linear extrapolation of the carbon clock would become, perhaps radically so. Conventional carbon-14 dating assumes that the system has been in equilibrium for tens or hundreds of thousands of years, and that 14C is thoroughly mixed in the atmosphere. However, the Flood buried large quantities of organic matter containing the common carbon isotope, 12C, so the 14C/12C ratio would rise after the Flood, because 14C is produced from nitrogen, not carbon. These factors mean that early post-Flood wood would look older than it really is and the ‘carbon clock’ is not linear in this period (see The Answers Book, chapter 4).
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp

"2- The some glacier formation in the poles have been identified as being nearly 40 000 years in age. That kinda messes up the entire biblical time table,including the flood."
--I agree, this would mess it up, so to start, how did they date these glacier formations anyway?
"There are civilisations,such as the Egyptians,the Babylonian/Sumerians,the Mayans and the Chinese which presents us with compelling historical evidence that their beginings date back AT LEAST well before 3000 BC...with no mention of any world wide flood in their historical records...which would mean that either the flood occured WELL BEFORE 2455 BC or it didn't happen at all. In fact,the Mayan calender represents very precisely that in 2012,we we be at the end of a mayan cycle...which lasts 26 000 years!"
--Mind if I can see this evidence? And possibly a reference to how they depict the relevance of the Mayan callender?
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by LudvanB, posted 01-27-2002 2:26 AM LudvanB has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by edge, posted 01-27-2002 2:17 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 170 of 365 (2956)
01-27-2002 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by TrueCreation
01-27-2002 2:04 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"1- There are trees which have been identidied as being about 8000 years old through their rings. If there had been a world wide flood 4450 years ago,then the oldest living tree could only by 4449 years old."
--I have encountered this problem before, I wrote this short article a couple months back using many quotes.
Umm, TC? Why do you go to such lengths regarding carbon dating when the example Ludvan gave you has nothing to do with it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by TrueCreation, posted 01-27-2002 2:04 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by TrueCreation, posted 01-27-2002 2:27 PM edge has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 171 of 365 (2958)
01-27-2002 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by edge
01-27-2002 2:17 PM


"Umm, TC? Why do you go to such lengths regarding carbon dating when the example Ludvan gave you has nothing to do with it?"
--Well really, I didn't go to much of a lenth, it was a disk, a click, and a copy paste away, with ofcourse a quick refinition of the material. Besides--->
'Claimed older tree ring chronologies are dependent on the cross-matching of tree ring patterns of pieces of dead wood found near living trees. This procedure depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood using carbon14 dating, assuming straight-line extrapolation backwards of the carbon dating. Having placed the fragment of wood approximately using the 14C data, a matching tree-ring pattern is sought with wood that has a part with overlapping 14C age and that also extends to a younger age. A tree ring pattern that matches is found close to where the carbon ‘dates’ are the same. And so the tree-ring sequence is extended from the living trees backwards.'
-------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by edge, posted 01-27-2002 2:17 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by LudvanB, posted 01-27-2002 2:46 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 172 of 365 (2961)
01-27-2002 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by TrueCreation
01-27-2002 2:27 PM


The tree ring argument is considered to be valid by most scientists. Thas all i can say about it. The age of the glaciers were mesured by the amount of layers that form them. As for the ancient civilisations,they all have historical records that goes back 3000 BC and since the Mayan cycle will end in 2012 and is 26000 long. so it stands to reason that this cycle began 25992 years ago...well before the stated date for the creation of earth according to the book of Genesis. And there is good reason to believe this to be accurate,since the mayan calender is the most precise calender know to man..even more precise than the ones we use today,which are given a 1-5% error margin by historians. No historian has been able so far to find ANY fault with the mayan calender. I'm not saying that this automaticaly means that the Bible is wrong mind you but there is strong evidence to suggest that it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by TrueCreation, posted 01-27-2002 2:27 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by TrueCreation, posted 01-27-2002 2:58 PM LudvanB has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 173 of 365 (2962)
01-27-2002 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by LudvanB
01-27-2002 2:46 PM


"The tree ring argument is considered to be valid by most scientists. Thas all i can say about it."
--So we withdraw Dendrochronological argument, once again this is the strenght of science, not its weakness, and doesn't give a fatal blow to any theory, though it is evident for the Dating of the Flood.
"The age of the glaciers were mesured by the amount of layers that form them."
--I understand what you are getting at now, well actually these aren't annual layers, I'm not sure whether they are seasonal/ cold,warm,cold,warm or whatnot of them, but I think cold/warm,cold/warm is a good one. There was a plane that went down called the 'lost squadron' in I believe in the 1940 in Greenland. When they went there to go get it, they found it was burried in hundreds of feet of ice, and when they went down there to get it they found numerous of these 'annual' ice layers, many hundreds of them, so they cannot be annual layers, I always wondered why they never tested this, ie plant some sort of device in the ice and come back a couple years later or something of that nature.
"As for the ancient civilisations,they all have historical records that goes back 3000 BC and since the Mayan cycle will end in 2012 and is 26000 long. so it stands to reason that this cycle began 25992 years ago...well before the stated date for the creation of earth according to the book of Genesis."
--I even remember reading of these records in my World History class, pretty much the same thing you are telling me now, though they never discussed these historical records accept that they go back to these dates or how they dated them.
"And there is good reason to believe this to be accurate,since the mayan calender is the most precise calender know to man..even more precise than the ones we use today,which are given a 1-5% error margin by historians. No historian has been able so far to find ANY fault with the mayan calender."
--What is this mayan calender? Is there a good article on it somewhere or a place it is discussed? I always get this and always wonder how they know that it shows events that took place in these times.
"I'm not saying that this automaticaly means that the Bible is wrong mind you but there is strong evidence to suggest that it is."
--I have yet to find it.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by LudvanB, posted 01-27-2002 2:46 PM LudvanB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by LudvanB, posted 01-27-2002 3:38 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 174 of 365 (2964)
01-27-2002 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by TrueCreation
01-27-2002 2:58 PM


http://www.crawford2000.co.uk/maya.htm
here a short article about the end of the mayan calender.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by TrueCreation, posted 01-27-2002 2:58 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by TrueCreation, posted 01-27-2002 8:09 PM LudvanB has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 175 of 365 (2977)
01-27-2002 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by LudvanB
01-27-2002 3:38 PM


"here a short article about the end of the mayan calender."
--I read it, its great and all, but it does not at all answr my question. My question is how do we know that say the mayans began 3115 BC is it by oral tradition? Historical documents? Radiometric Dating? What is it? They even themselves make reference to my question but never discuss how they got this date:
quote:
...and thereafter the National Cycle began (3115 BC) when the first nations were formed, we started writing and the first pyramids were built...
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by LudvanB, posted 01-27-2002 3:38 PM LudvanB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by LudvanB, posted 01-27-2002 9:33 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 176 of 365 (2984)
01-27-2002 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by TrueCreation
01-27-2002 8:09 PM


We know that according to Mayan writings,their calender lasts for 26000 years,divided into 5 cycles of equal lengh. From that,we can only infer that there is a reason why the mayan Calender is build that way and the obvious logical conclusion is that it began 25990 years ago. And if in fact it did begin 25990 years ago,then the world is at least 25990 years old and not merely 6000 like the Bible says. Of course,it could be that the Mayan just picked that number out of the clear blue sky for some obscure reason but the fact that their calender is otherwise incredibly precise does lend some credence to their claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by TrueCreation, posted 01-27-2002 8:09 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by TrueCreation, posted 01-27-2002 10:24 PM LudvanB has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 177 of 365 (2989)
01-27-2002 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by LudvanB
01-27-2002 9:33 PM


"We know that according to Mayan writings,their calender lasts for 26000 years,divided into 5 cycles of equal lengh. From that,we can only infer that there is a reason why the mayan Calender is build that way and the obvious logical conclusion is that it began 25990 years ago."
--Seems logical, though incorrect if you look at what it is based on such as is evident by this very quote in the link you gave me:
quote:
The Sun has not conjoined the Milky Way and the plane of the ecliptic since some 25,800 years ago, long before the Mayans arrived on the scene...
"And if in fact it did begin 25990 years ago,then the world is at least 25990 years old and not merely 6000 like the Bible says."
--Not the best conclusion to lean towards.
"Of course,it could be that the Mayan just picked that number out of the clear blue sky for some obscure reason but the fact that their calender is otherwise incredibly precise does lend some credence to their claims."
--So far, I can agree, their callender is quite amazing, though it does not at all seem to be based on a 'number out of the clear blue sky for some obscure reason'.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-27-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by LudvanB, posted 01-27-2002 9:33 PM LudvanB has not replied

  
RetroCrono
Inactive Member


Message 178 of 365 (2995)
01-27-2002 11:06 PM


I haven't read through this whole topic but anyway, here's my two cents.
My grade 8 science teacher told me that science is the study of everything. This is the best definition I've ever had of science.
However, when taking part in science, this, as you all probably know do. You conceive a hypothesis (it doesn't have to be testable, the big bang is not testable, only on computer screens where by the results are designed, not tested. This isn't a real big bang!) You then get evidence to support your hypothesis then it becomes a theory. Simple! If the evidence contradicts the theory, get a new hypothesis. Creationist propose the Bible as there hypothesis, they then go out and gain evidence to make it a valid theory. Creation and ToE are the two best theories, if you dissaprove of one, jump ship and take on the other theory. Don't sit back and claim one of them isn't science.
I don't see how creation isn't science. It follows the best definition I've ever been given of science and also abides with the workings of a scientific model. What is so hard to undertand? Everything in science starts of with a belief, no matter how straight forward (such as gravity) it seems, it is still just a belief.

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Quetzal, posted 01-28-2002 5:39 AM RetroCrono has not replied
 Message 184 by nator, posted 01-29-2002 12:47 AM RetroCrono has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 179 of 365 (3000)
01-28-2002 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by RetroCrono
01-27-2002 11:06 PM


TrueCreation, Retrochrono:
Since cobra hasn't seen fit to respond, I hereby challenge either of you to provide an operationalized theory of Creationism. I refer you to my post #154 in this thread. In that post I provided a succinct, operational definition and explanation for evolution. The explanation provides falsifiable statements, testable hypotheses, a mechanism, even a graphic representation. It also provides a basis for developing predictions.
If Creationism can not approach this level of debate, then your contention that it is "scientific" is specious.
In other words, time to "put up or shut up".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by RetroCrono, posted 01-27-2002 11:06 PM RetroCrono has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 180 of 365 (3049)
01-28-2002 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by TrueCreation
01-26-2002 2:23 AM


quote:
I have already explained that this is exactly what we see, speciation! My word for speciation being variation.
Variation is not the same as speciation. "Variation" is the word biologists use to describe the differences between individuals, not species. You cannot use them interchangeably, because they mean different things.
quote:
This is what we do see, and THIS is the Fact of evolution, this is the only implication that we can 'directly' observe and thus claim it as Fact.
No, wrong, incorrect.
There are MANY, MANY, MANY things which are considered fact in science which have never been directly observed. I have already pointed these out to you, but you seen to want to ignore them, so I'll try again Some are:
We have never directly observed electrons, yet their existence is considered fact.
We have never directly obseved black holes, yet their existence is considered fact.
We have never directly observed the structure of a water molecule, yet it is considered a fact that the molecular structure is H2O.
We have never directly observed the center of the Earth, yet it is considered a fact that it is hot.
Etcetera.
quote:
We do not see bacteria becomeing, anything but bacteria, we do not see dogs becomeing non-dogs, or cats producing non-cats,
All science is inference. See above.
What is the barrier between micro and macro evolution. Be specific.
Also, can you explain to me how to tell one "kind" from another?
quote:
this is what we cannot observe, and is why a Heliocentric solar system ismore suportive by 'observation'.
Did Copernicus directly observe a heliocentric solar system, or was he just fooling himself?
quote:
WHAT'S MORE, we cannot observe a heliocentric solar system, either. We infer it from the evidence."
--Now what is that evidence Schrafinator?
Huh? My point was that you are claiming that we have to be able to DIRECTLY observe a phenomena to consider it a fact, and I provided an example which clearly shows this notion to be wrong.
quote:
Creationists do a fine job of making themselves look bad all by their lonesomes."
--By what means? This would be an often portrayed assertion that is in great need of back-up, what is it creationist do 'a fine job of making themselves look bad'?
Uh, remember our discussion about Kent Hovind, and the whacked-out ideas he has? Let's not forget that he got his "PhD" from a diploma
mill housed in a suburban split-level.
Here's some other nifty things creationists have done to make themselves look silly, or worse; dishonest:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-whoppers.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-exposed.html
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/gish.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html
quote:
A: Young Earth Creationism HAS been refuted about 200 years ago."
--You mean back in the day when they would claim as evidence for evolution that there were hundreds of vastiges in your body?
No, I mean YEC; the idea that the Earth is 6,000-10,000 years old, and that everything was specially-created by God, Noah's Flood etc. etc.
The idea that the Earth was 6-10K years old was rejected about 200 years ago, by Creationists, BTW, Before Origin of Species was published.
quote:
"Second, my husband and friends ARE biased against Creationism because they are biased IN FAVOR OF positive evidence."
--Then they don't know the chain that Creationism and positive evidence have. And you have been unable to show me that this is true.
I think, as others have said to you, that you don't even know enoug about what you have already rejected to know what it is you are talking about. This is clear.
Did I read somewhere on this forum that you are a teenager?
quote:
-How am I misusing the word? Bias should not be involved in the way scientists portray their ideas, evidence, and conclusions.
OK, now try hard to understand here.
If we did not develop bias TOWARDS the evidence, then we could never make any conclusions AT ALL.
You are using only the common, perjorative definition of "bias", and you are not making any effort to learn that there are other definitions, even though it has been explained several times.
Here is an example:
When I woke up this morning, the sun had risen. In fact, the sun has risen every single morning for as long as I can remember, and as long as any human can remember. Therefore, I am BIASED towards the idea that it will rise again tomorrow morning. There is nothing BAD about having this bias. In fact, it would be silly and rather stupid to not hold it; to wonder, every night, if the sun would rise the next morning. We ALL have lots of biases which are perfectly logical and based upon past experience. This is also what science does.
In contrast, I am biased AGAINST the idea that the moon is made of cheese. If someone proposed that idea to me, I would be likely to dismiss it out of hand. It is not BAD that I hold this bias against this notion. I reject an unlikely or unsupported idea in favor of a well-supported and logical idea; that the moon is rocky.
Get it now?
quote:
--Would you propose a feasable theory that evolution would be able to cooperate with 50,000 years from nothing to explain today's phenomena? Just the basic main Idea is what I would need.
This is irrelevant, and was my point the first time.
Like I have said over and over again, if the ToE was found to be completely falsified tomorrow, it doesn not mean that Creationism is correct. A true scientific theory does not live or die by the life or death of a different theory.
What you are proposing is replacing a falsified scientific theory with an unscientific religious notion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by TrueCreation, posted 01-26-2002 2:23 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 181 of 365 (3051)
01-28-2002 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by TrueCreation
01-26-2002 2:29 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]"You still don't understand what peer review is all about.
Peer review is part of the refutation process. "
--I didn't make relevance toward peer reviewed literature?[/QUOTE]
Sorry, what does the phrase "make relevance toward peer-reviewed literature" mean?
quote:
"There are certain basic standards of competancy that a paper must possess before it is deemed worthy of publication in a professional journal. Some journals have very high standards, so getting your work into the more prestigious ones, like Nature and Science, which cover all fields, is a serious boost to a scientist's career, even if they only get in once."
--Science magazine refuses to higher Creationists, this is simmilar to the question I am asking you.
First of all, scientific peer-review isn't done by any "employees" of the journal, so I don't know why you are talking about a professional scientific journal "hiring" anyone. It is done by other scientists who do work in the same field that you do; if I am a Bacteriologist studying Anthrax, when I submit my paper to a peer-reviewed jounal, it would be sent to several other Bacteriologists who also study Anthrax.
They would critically review the paper for logical, mathematical, statistical, and methodological errors, and they would also critique any conclusions made in the paper and then they would reccomend revisions, further work or experiments that were needed, point out weaknesses or inconsistencies with other research, etc. Then, if I have done solid research, It is sent back with a note saying that they are interested in the paper after the revisions are completed.
This is what happens to the GOOD papers.
Most scientists do their turn at peer-review. It is unpaid and usually anonymous. The editors of the journals are paid, but not the "peers" that do the reviewing.
The journal, "Science", rejects most papers, not just Creationist papers. The work has to be truly exceptional and the subject matter rather new or exciting to get into "Science."
As far as I know, no Creationist has ever gotten their creationist work published in a legitimate (meaning non-religiously-based) scientific journal. They may do other work that doesn not mention Creationist stuff and have published.
The thing is, very few Creationists even submit to the lowliest, least-read, least prestigious journals. If it was good quality work, surely one of the hundreds of professional journals would publish it.
Hardly any creationists actually DO any research on creation.
quote:
Letting in all papers, regardless of how poor the quality, would be like a publisher of a professional culinary journal letting anybody who wanted to submit recipes and techniques for publication without ever testing them to see if the recipes or techniques were any good or made sense."
--Ok, what makes this relevant to this discussion?
What makes this relevant?! YOU said that all work should be let in to a jounal regardless of quality, and THAT is why it is relevant!
quote:
You said: There should be no bias, period, especially against bad work,
quote:
"Do you think, for example, that the Theory of the Galactic Goat should be published in a scientific journal?"
--Ofcourse not.
Excellent! Then you agree that one should be biased against poor work being published in journals.
[QUOTE]"They may have something the call peer review, but it certainly isn't scientific peer review."
--So your one of the peer reviewers? You would have to be or know one of them to have this claim be true.[/b]
*sigh*
Look, I have just explained to you all about the process of peer-review. It can't be scientific peer review because Creationism isn't scientific.
And please, do not go off now about how I can't use the ICR or CRS as examples of what Creation "science" is. If you are willing to say that they are doing scientific peer-review journals, then you should accept them as defining what Creation "science" is.
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-29-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by TrueCreation, posted 01-26-2002 2:29 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024