Of course I did, because when it doesn't suit you, you run from it as fast as you can. The hypocrisy of the creo/ID side is astounding. You refuse to accept volumes of scientific data, that has been peer-reviewed and analyzed extensively and then get all huffy when you present something that is less than a paper and has nothing to attest for even it's authenticity and no one accepts it blindly.
And you got it backwards here: creationists refuse to accept volumes of published papers because they disagree with what is said in the paper (the interpretation of the data, etc.), not because it was peer-reviewed.
Conversely, they don't expect you to accept their analysis because it was peer-reviewed, but because you consider the analysis for what it is, and determine that it is correct.
You make a false claim of peer review, the whole thing stinks of fallacy of authority and a poor attempt at that. Lets look at this attempt. We have no idea who S.W. Hong, S. S. Na, B. S. Hyun, S. Y. Hong, D. S. Gong, K. J. Kang, S. H. Suh, K. H. Lee and Y. G. Je are. They could be janitors for all we know. They could not even exist. All we have is an assertion on the webpage you claim is authoritative. That claims.
First, the peer-review process for the TJ is the very same then for any other journal. Keep in mind that most creationist scientists have made careers in science and know the peer-review process very well, and so when they made that journal they just applied the very same peer-review process.
Now, you asked of me the reviews that particular paper obtained 17 years ago. It is without saying that such a task is practically impossible, since reviews are never published and made accessible only on demand (which would probably take at least 1 month to obtain from the TJ). The fact that you asked me something that is impossible in a short time, and that I was unable to do it in a short time, does not mean what I said was false (which implies I am a lier)
Now secondly, who cares if they are janitors ? It doesn't change the math and calculation. Once again, they should stand or fall on their merits, not on where it was published or who said it.
Bloody hell, they can't even get the name of the Institute correct. This is also the same website that has articles(yes, articles not papers) that states this.
You realize that was in '94 ? You realize the name could have changed since then, you know, like simply adding 'oceanic' before engineering ? Just saying ...
And you expect us to believe the crap they post without any analysis or backup? What the hell are you smoking?
No, I said you are free to accept their math or not. However, I maintain that it would be dishonest to claim from here on end that such a big seaworthy wooden boat is impossible to build, since if you cannot even analys the math when it is presented to you, then you shouldn't be talking out of your ass.
Expecting outside verification and validation is "second-rate"? I truly think your career in science is going to be very short lived.
That is not what I said, thanks for the misrepresentation though.
I said the argument ''such a big seaworthy wooden boat is impossible'' is second-rate.
Do you want to continue the personal attacks(childish)? Or do you want to provide something to back up your claims and the claims of the article?
My claim is: No one here can legimitaly say ''such a big seaworthy wooden boat is impossible''.
The support for my claim is the calculations shown in the paper that it is certainly possible. Either you understand the math, and in that case you would figure that the ark could have been seaworthy, or you don't understand the math, and in that case you jsut say so and accept that you shouldn't make grand claims about something you know nothing about.
AbE
Here is part of another paper published by three of the authors of the ark paper
http://www.isope.org/...01994/Abstract%20Pages/I94v4p603.pdf
So we at least know they are not janitors, and that they have done this kind of calculations before
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
