Announcement

Collapse

Creation Science Rules

This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective.
Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed.
1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team
2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
See more
See less

Why don't creationists publish?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why don't creationists publish?


    You guys who believe in evolution are always saying: "Why don't you Christians publish in science journals?" If a science journal is dumb enough to publish something that says everything came from nothing for no reason, I'm not too impressed. I'm not sure I want to be associated with that kind of stupidity. You have to go to college for years to be that dumb.


    source.

    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  • #2
    Moses published and that is sufficient.
    I know Him, correctly, as Messiah whom you call Christ. Yah Shua whom you call Jesus. Messianists who you call Christians.

    "Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm".

    I refuse, point blank, to speak peace to the unregenerate, hypocrites, religious dogma lovers and those that oppose the following statement:
    A regenerate man trusts in the evangelism of salvation conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed justness of Messiah alone.
    If you are fully persuaded, by experience, of this delightful, beautiful and life giving doctrine then I love you as a brother.

    Anyone who thinks that salvation is conditioned on anything a man thinks, does or says is atheist. I cannot and will not speak peace to him or her.

    I don't make statements online that I wouldn't repeat in front of my Maker, my grandmother or a judge.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Truster View Post
      Moses published and that is sufficient.
      Perhaps. But there's nothing wrong with publishing more. Right?
      Where is the evidence for a global flood?
      E≈mc2
      "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

      "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
      -Bob B.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Stripe View Post
        You guys who believe in evolution are always saying: "Why don't you Christians publish in science journals?" If a science journal is dumb enough to publish something that says everything came from nothing for no reason, I'm not too impressed. I'm not sure I want to be associated with that kind of stupidity. You have to go to college for years to be that dumb.


        source.

        Interesting
        "And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers." Acts 2:42

        "Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind" Philippians 2:2

        Pro scripture = Protestant

        Comment


        • #5
          If that's the "calibre" of the argument then it's no wonder there's little to none in the way of articles submitted for peer review that have been given any credence? You do realize that peer review isn't just a bunch of atheists hanging around a lab ready to dismiss anything that doesn't fit with their preconceptions? That it's a very stringent process that's ongoing etc?

          Ya know, just making sure...

          Well this is fun isn't it?

          Comment


          • #6
            Go away, Brain, you senseless twerp. You know nothing about science or the scientific method.

            http://www.icr.org/article/biblical-...r-peer-review/

            Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
            Where is the evidence for a global flood?
            E≈mc2
            "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

            "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
            -Bob B.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Arthur Brain
              ...then it's no wonder there's little to none in the way of articles submitted for peer review that have been given any credence.
              It's pretty simple Arthur. Journals are private enterprises that cater to a specific audience. An atheist should not expect to get published in peer reviewed Christian journals... Nor does a Christian expect to get published in secular journals if they attack the the ruling paradigm / belief system of the subscribers.
              Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by 6days View Post
                It's pretty simple Arthur. Journals are private enterprises that cater to a specific audience. An atheist should not expect to get published in peer reviewed Christian journals... Nor does a Christian expect to get published in secular journals if they attack the the ruling paradigm / belief system of the subscribers.
                Peer review is not a necessary part of the scientific process.

                Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
                Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                E≈mc2
                "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                -Bob B.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                  Peer review is not a necessary part of the scientific process.

                  Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
                  They are a key part of the scientific process. One of the key principles of the scientific process is repeatability. If you publish something that others cannot reproduce/independently verify then you have a problem.

                  There is no reason that a "creation scientist" would not be published in a mainstream scientific journal if their work rises to the level required for publication.
                  Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)

                  But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

                  What are my fruits today?

                  Cityboy With Horses A blog about what happens when you say, "I Promise"

                  "Moral standards" are a lot like lighthouses: they exist to help us stay on course as we sail through life. But we have to steer BY them, but not directly AT them. Lest we end up marooned on the shoals of perpetual self-righteousness.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by CabinetMaker View Post
                    They are a key part of the scientific process. One of the key principles of the scientific process is repeatability. If you publish something that others cannot reproduce/independently verify then you have a problem.
                    Cabinethead thinks peer review is necessary for an experiment to be repeatable.

                    Nope. Peer review is not a necessary part of the scientific approach. Experiments can be repeated on ideas that have not gone through peer review.

                    It's bizarre that you would suggest otherwise.

                    There is no reason that a creation scientist would not be published in a mainstream scientific journal if their work rises to the level required for publication.
                    And they are.

                    Yay, Cabinethead is here to contribute absolutely nothing again.


                    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
                    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                    E≈mc2
                    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                    -Bob B.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                      Cabinethead thinks peer review is necessary for an experiment to be repeatable.
                      Well there is a complete lie from Stripe. What I said was, "One of the key principles of the scientific process is repeatability. " Note that I said nothing anywhere near to what Stripe is saying.

                      Nope. Peer review is not a necessary part of the scientific approach. Experiments can be repeated on ideas that have not gone through peer review.
                      Sure they can. But when you publish in a peer reviewed journal, it initiates a much more formal process. Your peers look at your work and will scrutinize it. If they find an error or an inconstancy or have a question, they will send a formal response that to you and you have to address those comments and republish. The peer review keeps everybody honest.

                      It's bizarre that you would suggest otherwise.
                      What's bizarre is you commenting on a process that you obviously know nothing about.


                      And they are.
                      Good for them! HAve any links to support this assertion?
                      Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)

                      But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

                      What are my fruits today?

                      Cityboy With Horses A blog about what happens when you say, "I Promise"

                      "Moral standards" are a lot like lighthouses: they exist to help us stay on course as we sail through life. But we have to steer BY them, but not directly AT them. Lest we end up marooned on the shoals of perpetual self-righteousness.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by CabinetMaker View Post
                        They are a key part of the scientific process.

                        they have become a key part of the scientific process, relatively recently in terms of scientific exploration

                        One of the key principles of the scientific process is repeatability.
                        that doesn't require publication in a peer reviewed journal

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by CabinetMaker View Post
                          ... But when you publish in a peer reviewed journal, it ....


                          gonna stop you right there


                          modern publication in a peer-reviewed journal does not serve science

                          it serves academia

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by CabinetMaker View Post
                            Well there is a complete lie from Stripe.
                            Oh, so you were just quoting me and disagreeing for the thrills.

                            The peer review keeps everybody honest.


                            What's bizarre is you commenting on a process that you obviously know nothing about.

                            Good for them!




                            Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
                            Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                            E≈mc2
                            "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                            "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                            -Bob B.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by ok doser View Post
                              they have become a key part of the scientific process, relatively recently in terms of scientific exploration
                              I suspect that there is a reason for that. Don't you?



                              that doesn't require publication in a peer reviewed journal
                              No, it doesn't. But when you do publish, others will likely repeat your experiment and see if they get the same results.

                              Originally posted by ok doser View Post
                              gonna stop you right there


                              modern publication in a peer-reviewed journal does not serve science

                              it serves academia
                              As most of the pure research science is done in the academic realm, it serves both science and academia. I don't see you think this is some sort of problem. People have gone after Einstiens's work for years. Many have set out to disprove what he proposed and have instead ended up verifying that he was right. Academic rivalry actually helps the scientific process.
                              Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)

                              But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

                              What are my fruits today?

                              Cityboy With Horses A blog about what happens when you say, "I Promise"

                              "Moral standards" are a lot like lighthouses: they exist to help us stay on course as we sail through life. But we have to steer BY them, but not directly AT them. Lest we end up marooned on the shoals of perpetual self-righteousness.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X