RE: The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old
October 30, 2013 at 12:17 pm
(October 30, 2013 at 11:36 am)Zazzy Wrote:(October 30, 2013 at 9:41 am)orogenicman Wrote: "Are there any evolutionists who have published worked in creation peer-reviewed journals? "I think he means to give me tit for tat, because he sees those things as equal. And I'll give him a chance to prove that they are instead of dismissing him out of hand. I've never seen a creationist science journal, and I'm actually curious. Just as newbies to any field need help finding the best material out there, he can help me by showing me his best material. I'm not curious enough to go wade through it, but I am curious enough to read something he provides me.
You think it is a genuine question , right?
Quote: Zazzy, there are no peer-reviewed creation journals. It's a red herring. Creationism is not a science. It is a religious belief. Don't believe me? Ask the Supreme Court.I've been a bench scientist long enough to know that if there are creationist journals, they aren't useful to bench research. And I've been battling creationism in the public school system long enough to know it's a religious belief. What I don't know is what Statler Waldorf thinks is a good primary creationist research paper in my field. I hope you'll join me in looking at what he provides.
I would think that what he has already provided is a good example of how disingenuous he is - citing mostly outdated research papers from mostly dead or retired researchers that have nothing to do with creationism as his example of creationism research. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out his game plan.
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
- Dr. Donald Prothero
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
- Dr. Donald Prothero
