Theist ➤ Why ☠ Evolution is not Scientific ✔

[The Joker]

Joker, you're allowed to post links as long as it's relevant to the discussion.

The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth

None of which is peer reviewed and published in the scientific literature.

Well not directly, because secular scientists don't want to believe in God.

Answers Research Journal (ARJ) is a professional, peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework. https://answersingenesis.org/answers/res...nal/about/

Christians will probably never satisfy critics of creationist peer review, but we believe that creationists have a duty to practice stringent peer review. Presenting only the best information to the public is a responsibility of all Christian scholars, regardless of their opinion about the creation/evolution issue. Peer review is an important tool for doing that. Resting upon the biblical principles outlined in this paper, we believe that peer review is godly counsel that will improve our work, including our research proposals and choice of research methods, as well as the published presentation of our results in abstracts, journal articles, and monographs. We reject any suggestion that peer review is a form of personal judging that disrupts unity of the body of Christ. Rather, if carried out correctly, peer review acts to unify the body in purpose, function, and integrity.

The status of peer review in the creationist community is largely unknown. Other than personal experiences, there is very little data about the practice or effectiveness of creationist peer review. Applying the recommendations in this paper, all creationist publications can better serve the public and better reflect the excellence of God. We hope that this is the goal of every Christian scholar.

Reviewers
Scholars called upon to review articles should first evaluate their own qualifications and suitability for the article in question. Potential reviewers should decline to review papers for which they are not qualified and should identify any conflicts of interest to the editor immediately. A major source of conflict of interest is competition. Potential reviewers who are working on similar projects or alternative models should identify this bias to the editor prior to conducting the review. The editor will then decide whether the conflict of interest is sufficient to warrant replacement of the reviewer. Not all disagreements among authors and reviewers would be conflicts of interest. It may be that the editor wants an opinion from a scholar who disagrees with the approach or philosophy of the authors.

The primary duty of the reviewer is to be honest. If the work contains errors, it will do the author no good if the reviewer fails to point out those errors for fear of offending the author. Remember that it is the editor’s responsibility to evaluate the work based on the reviewer’s comments. Concealing problems on the pretense of “kindness” or “Christian unity” only inhibits the editorial process. Furthermore, allowing a Christian author to persist in mistakes and errors is unloving. As noted above, the editor should do what is necessary to “cushion the blow” when communicating the reviews to the author.

The secondary duty of the reviewer is to treat others with respect and to speak the truth in love. Abusive or sarcastic reviews are disrespectful to the author and the editor. Reviewers should treat the author as the reviewer would like to be treated. Again, this should not be considered a reason to overlook error or excessively compliment poor-quality work. Encouraging a fellow Christian to conduct or publish work of poor quality is unloving. Reviewers should encourage excellence whenever possible.

Finally, for the sake of the editor, reviewers must write a thorough review. Barrett and Mustard (2002) described a three-part approach to writing a review. In the first part, the reviewer briefly summarizes the work, highlighting the basic argument and the importance of the subject. Next, the reviewer suggests areas of improvement, focusing on the major weaknesses in the paper. The review concludes with specific comments aimed at improving the writing or the clarity of figures or tables. In the case of creationism, following these suggestions may be challenging, especially when dealing with an amateur author who is unfamiliar with the basic conventions of the reviewer’s field of expertise. Nevertheless, making the effort to follow these suggestions will help to craft a loving and kind review, even if the reviewer recommends against publication.

Source: https://answersingenesis.org/creation-sc...er-review/

[I_am_not_mafia]

Joker, you're allowed to post links as long as it's relevant to the discussion.

None of which is peer reviewed and published in the scientific literature.

Well not directly, because secular scientists don't want to believe in God.

But scientists are also looking to disprove each other's theories and to make a break through in understanding. They can only do this if they have the evidence though. So if there was any evidence for what you posted, so-called secular scientists would be publishing it if they could and furthering their own careers.

[The Joker]

Well not directly, because secular scientists don't want to believe in God.

But scientists are also looking to disprove each other's theories and to make a break through in understanding. They can only do this if they have the evidence though. So if there was any evidence for what you posted, so-called secular scientists would be publishing it if they could and furthering their own careers.

Secular scientists always start from a godless naturalistic framework, whereas Creationist scientists start from Godly view of things and then on to natualistic view. So the two groups of scientists are never going to unite. We will have to see both sides.  

[I_am_not_mafia]

But scientists are also looking to disprove each other's theories and to make a break through in understanding. They can only do this if they have the evidence though. So if there was any evidence for what you posted, so-called secular scientists would be publishing it if they could and furthering their own careers.

Secular scientists always start from a godless naturalistic framework, whereas Creationist scientists start from Godly view of things and then on to natualistic view. So the two scientists are never going to unite. We will have to see both sides.

No, we only need to use the scientific method. As from your OP, observable evidence, testable and repeatable experiments, and falsifiable hypotheses.

Creationist scientists do not use the scientific method.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science

In its ruling, the court wrote that for any theory to qualify as scientific, the theory must be tentative, and open to revision or abandonment as new facts come to light. It wrote that any methodology which begins with an immutable conclusion which cannot be revised or rejected, regardless of the evidence, is not a scientific theory. The court found that creation science does not culminate in conclusions formed from scientific inquiry, but instead begins with the conclusion, one taken from a literal wording of the Book of Genesis, and seeks only scientific evidence to support it.

[The Joker]

Secular scientists always start from a godless naturalistic framework, whereas Creationist scientists start from Godly view of things and then on to natualistic view. So the two scientists are never going to unite. We will have to see both sides.

No, we only need to use the scientific method. As from your OP, observable evidence, testable and repeatable experiments, and falsifiable hypotheses.

Creationist scientists do not use the scientific method.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science

In its ruling, the court wrote that for any theory to qualify as scientific, the theory must be tentative, and open to revision or abandonment as new facts come to light. It wrote that any methodology which begins with an immutable conclusion which cannot be revised or rejected, regardless of the evidence, is not a scientific theory. The court found that creation science does not culminate in conclusions formed from scientific inquiry, but instead begins with the conclusion, one taken from a literal wording of the Book of Genesis, and seeks only scientific evidence to support it.

Creationist scientists do use the scientific method. 

https://answersingenesis.org/what-is-sci...s-science/

[Tonus]

Scientists start with observations. These do not require the assumption that God does or does not exist. They form hypotheses from those observations, which must be testable and falsifiable and must produce results consistent with the hypothesis in order to become a theory, which must do the same but with more rigorous standards.

Creationists start with the presupposition that God must exist and that the world bears the marks of his intervention and that any and every discovery, observation, hypothesis, and theory must take this into account. Not only are they biased every step of the way, they are obligated to reject any facts or theories that do not specifically credit the mythological accounts that they presuppose are 100% true. Because they begin from a basis that they admit cannot be tested or falsified they have no consensus on how to proceed, which is why they selectively accept science when they feel it supports their claims and then reject that same science if it refutes them.

Also, "historical/operational" science are bullshit terms defined specifically for convenience and, like any other creationist claim, are used or ignored as needed.

[Mister Agenda]

Good for bringing this up, Carl Linnaeus a Creationist was the founder of the modern classification system.

Good, then you shouldn't have any problem using standard taxonomic terms in a discussion about biology.

[Mister Agenda]

Great. Now we have a working definition. That would mean that, for example, dogs are the same 'kind' as coyotes, foxes and jackals; cats the same 'kind' as lions, tigers and leopards; horses the same 'kind' as zebras and donkeys; and humans are the same 'kind' as gorillas, orangutans, chimpanzees and bonobos.

So they should all be able to interbreed, yes?

I as a creationist would agree to the point of the following.

Great. Now we have a working definition. That would mean that, for example, dogs are the same 'kind' as coyotes, foxes and jackals; cats the same 'kind' as lions, tigers and leopards; horses the same 'kind' as zebras and donkeys;

They are correct.

 and humans are the same 'kind' as gorillas, orangutans, chimpanzees and bonobos.

But this I see no connection, Humans are far above them all, we are in the image of God, While unique in their own way, both humans and animals can have such features as eyes, noses, legs, and arms that point to our common Creator. It is the unique creation of mankind in the image of God that distinguishes us from all other creatures. This still-common idea is not in the slightest a proof of evolution. It is simply an assumption by those who reject creation. So what about the classifications? Well, Creationists gave Humans their very own classification.

Or you could go with genus instead of family as synonymous with 'kind' as I suggested earlier. Humans, family Hominidae, Genus Homo, Species Homo Sapiens. Humans are the only extant species in genus Homo. The roaring cats are in the same genus and at least some of them can interbreed, but they can't interbreed with Felinae (all non-Pantherine cats). Ordinary scientific taxonomy gives humans their own classification, too.

Did you pick 'family' instead of 'genus' as synonymous with 'kind' for some particular reason?

[The Joker]

Joker, you're allowed to post(exceptions to 30/30).... as long as it's relevant to the discussion.

[Mister Agenda]

What is the justification for agreeing with the taxonomic classification as long as it's convenient, then clutching the goddidit security blanket when reality starts tugging at it?

Well it is more rational to say God did it, than to say God didn't do it.

That this is true is what you've been failing to establish.