 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:11 pm Post subject: Re: Glenn Morton - Why I left Young-earth Creationism |
 |
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Dr. Michael Martin wrote: |
I addressed that in the previous thread. Journal of Creation is a popularly renown peer reviewed journal. |
It's run by a church group called Creation Ministries International! You can't be serious!
Give us papers from a PROPER journal. I'm an academic; I can tell the difference between a respected one and a fraudulent one. (Not that it takes an academic to tell you that the Journal of Creation is a shill and has very little to do with real science.) |
What would be some 'respected ones' P, and why is a journal disqualified simply because it is ran by a 'church group'?
Just curious.
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Unverified
Booted
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 299
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:20 pm Post subject: Re: Glenn Morton - Why I left Young-earth Creationism |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: | | P1234567890 wrote: | | Dr. Michael Martin wrote: |
I addressed that in the previous thread. Journal of Creation is a popularly renown peer reviewed journal. |
It's run by a church group called Creation Ministries International! You can't be serious!
Give us papers from a PROPER journal. I'm an academic; I can tell the difference between a respected one and a fraudulent one. (Not that it takes an academic to tell you that the Journal of Creation is a shill and has very little to do with real science.) |
What would be some 'respected ones' P, and why is a journal disqualified simply because it is ran by a 'church group'?
Just curious. |
If one is Intellectually honest, there is no difference. They should be considered equal in value.
Here are a ton of overlooked journals on the issue......some of which (article related) we have actually taken into consideration ourselves: Acts & Facts Free monthly publication by the Institute for Creation Research
AlphaNOVA
Archaeology Odyssey Magazine by the Biblical Archeology Society
Biblical Creation Journal by the Biblical Creation Society UK
Biblical Archaeology Review by the Biblical Archeology Society
Biblical Astronomer Journal Quarterly on Geocentricity
Christian Research Institute : Journal
Connections Archive quarterly magazine from Reasons to Believe
Creation Dialogue by the Creation Association of Alberta
Creation Social Science and Humanities Out-of-Print Quarterly Journal Archive by Creation Social Science and Humanities Society
Creation by Creation Ministries International
Creation Science Dialogue by the Creation Science Association of Alberta
Creation Illustrated Magazine
Creation Matters - Periodic Newsletter by the Creation Research Society
Creation Perspective - Magazine Topics by the Creation Moments Inc. (Incomplete)
Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ)
CSM Journal - Creation Science Movement
CTNS Bulletin Quarterly journal by the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences
Currents in Science and Technology by Access Research Network
Discovery - Scripture and Science for Kids a creationary children's magazine
Does God Exist?
Explore Magazine
The Forerunner Magazine : Science Articles
ICR Publications
Acts and Facts Monthly Newsletter
Impact Science Articles
Back to Genesis
Days of Praise- Quarterly Devotional
Journal of Creation - (Formerly TJ) by Creation Ministries International
Meta Research Bulletin Quarterly Publication
Natural Theographic Magazine of Design in the Creation
NCSE Reports - Journal by the Anticreation National Center for Science Education
Origins Index by Year; A journal by Geoscience Research Institute
Reports from Origins by the Geoscience Research Institute
Origins - A journal by The Biblical Creation Society UK
Origins & Design - Online Journal by Access Research Network
Origins Research : Quarterly Publication by Access Research Network
Our View The Teenagers quarterly creation paper by the Creation Resource Trust
Our World The children's quarterly creation paper by the Creation Resource Trust
Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith : Journal by the American Scientific Affiliation
Premise by The Center for the Advancement of Paleo Orthodoxy
Progress in Complexity, Information and Design (PCID) quarterly online journal by the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design
Saskatchewan Creation News Quarterly Magazine by Creation Science of Saskatchewan Inc
Science & Spirit Connecting Science, Religion, and Life
Science and Christian Belief : Journal by Christians in Science
Theology and Science new journal by the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences
Westminster Theological Journal Scripture & Geologists articles
WorldNetDaily Creation Friendly Magazine
World Magazine Creation Friendly Magazine
Creation/Evolution Reference Database ***Searchable Archive of Numerous Journals***
Creation Research Database Searchable archive of titles and authors
References to Creation Related Journals by the Geoscience Research Institute
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Off-Line Creation Related Journals
Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences Bulletin
2400 Ridge Road
Berkeley, California 94709 USA
510-848-8152
ctns2gtu@aol.com
Ciencia de los Origenes
Published by the Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA 92350; USA & Mexico subscription rate $1.50/year; all other countries $2.50/year. A tri-annual publication in Spanish which contains original articles and reprints of articles translated from Origins.
Creation/Evolution
Published by the National Center for Science Education, PO Box 9477, Berkeley, CA 94709-0477; USA subscription rate$25/year; other countries $32/year; subscription rates include the quarterly newsletter NCSE Reports. Semi-annual journal designed by evolutionists primarily to refute claims of creationists, to offer ammunition to fight the inclusion of the creation model in public-school science classes.
Christian Scholars Review
Circulation Department
Calvin College
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49506 USA
Science and Religion News
Riverside Communications
One Sanborn Road
Concord, New Hampshire 03301-1819 USA
603-225-3720
Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science
Blackwell Publishers
238 Main Street
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142 USA
800-835-677
http://nwcreation.net/journalcreation.html
Last edited by Unverified on Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:26 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well lets see, Dr. what would disqualify a journal in your opinion from being 'respected'??
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unverified
Booted
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 299
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: | | Well lets see, Dr. what would disqualify a journal in your opinion from being 'respected'?? |
Mostly if someone's writing outside of his field, and we see some goofy nonsense from them (this is on both sides of the coin), we're not going to pass it to the next step of review. There are several other guidelines, but in general....thats one. It has to be logically sound and coherent, nothing 4th grade in content. There's a lot more than just this however.
I can assure you however that not every journal is like this. We know of some journals that will only pass them if they are Evolution related.
We do frequently get however, a great many Creation Science articles on the matter, but we typically do not disclose which side of the coin they lie on, for the general purposes that people not be biased one way or the other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am just curious as to what makes a journal respectable. It seems to me that if a community all agreed upon one issue, they would not consider opposing views to be 'respected'. And I don't really blame them, I am convinced in my determinism, I don't normally think of arguments contrary to determinism to be 'respectable' as I believe them to be wrong.
Therefore, if we have an entire community of scientist that are evolutionist, I don't honestly think they are going to consider an opposing view 'respectable' or 'considerable'. They have made up their mind, any challenge to this has, in their mind, already been eliminated and therefore not note-worthy.
But I may be wrong, hence my question. Is a journal 'respectable' because it comes from a 'respectable' institution? But I guess that would lead again to the question of what makes an institution respectable?
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unverified
Booted
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 299
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: | I am just curious as to what makes a journal respectable. It seems to me that if a community all agreed upon one issue, they would not consider opposing views to be 'respected'. And I don't really blame them, I am convinced in my determinism, I don't normally think of arguments contrary to determinism to be 'respectable' as I believe them to be wrong.
Therefore, if we have an entire community of scientist that are evolutionist, I don't honestly think they are going to consider an opposing view 'respectable' or 'considerable'. They have made up their mind, any challenge to this has, in their mind, already been eliminated and therefore not note-worthy.
But I may be wrong, hence my question. Is a journal 'respectable' because it comes from a 'respectable' institution? But I guess that would lead again to the question of what makes an institution respectable? |
What he's looking for I believe is an Evolutionist journal that only looks at Evolution peer review research, to actually advocate a Creationist article within their peer review journals....
And thats like expecting that by asking a gangster for a dollar you won't be getting your head blown off in the process.
Respectable is a very subjective term as he's using it I believe. Any journal that hasn't been reviewed in a consistently fraudulent manner (Kent Hovind's might be up for suspectibility) should be considered.
See if you can subscribe to the journal also. If you can't, its likely nonsense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well then lets see what he has to say, I'll ask again in case our conversation got into the way,
What would be some 'respected ones' P, and why is a journal disqualified simply because it is ran by a 'church group'?
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8322
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: | | I am just curious as to what makes a journal respectable. It seems to me that if a community all agreed upon one issue, they would not consider opposing views to be 'respected'. |
I asked for a respected SCIENTIFIC journal. Science starts with as small a set of assumptions as possible and then uses scientific evidence as well as logical inference to draw conclusions.
The journal which Dr. Michael cited is not a scientific journal in any way, shape, or form. It is a religious publication put out by Creation Ministries International. They start with the conclusion that God exists and that the Bible is His inerrant word. Then they go out and look for evidence which supports this predetermined view.
This is NOT science. They are starting with their conclusion and then looking for evidence. In science, you start with the evidence and then work your way towards the conclusion. What this journal does is the EXACT opposite of science. That is why it is not a respected scientific journal. It isn't even a disrespected scientific journal. It isn't a scientific journal at all.
Besides, Dr. Michael claimed that 57% of all mainstream scientists are creationists. If so many scientists are friendly towards creationism, it should be relatively simple for Dr. Michael to find some papers from a respected and peer-reviewed SCIENTIFIC journal.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unverified
Booted
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 299
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | sofyst wrote: | | I am just curious as to what makes a journal respectable. It seems to me that if a community all agreed upon one issue, they would not consider opposing views to be 'respected'. |
I asked for a respected SCIENTIFIC journal. Science starts with as small a set of assumptions as possible and then uses scientific evidence as well as logical inference to draw conclusions.
The journal which Dr. Michael cited is not a scientific journal in any way, shape, or form. It is a religious publication put out by Creation Ministries International. They start with the conclusion that God exists and that the Bible is His inerrant word. Then they go out and look for evidence which supports this predetermined view.
This is NOT science. They are starting with their conclusion and then looking for evidence. In science, you start with the evidence and then work your way towards the conclusion. What this journal does is the EXACT opposite of science. That is why it is not a respected scientific journal. It isn't even a disrespected scientific journal. It isn't a scientific journal at all.
Besides, Dr. Michael claimed that 57% of all mainstream scientists are creationists. If so many scientists are friendly towards creationism, it should be relatively simple for Dr. Michael to find some papers from a respected and peer-reviewed SCIENTIFIC journal. |
This means, if its not Naturalism, its not Science. Which is like saying, if its peanut butter, then it doesn't come from peanuts!
Much whining and complaining, Activistic type claims here, but nothing much worthy of a response. Just elephant hurl thrown against a wall.
I believe I posted a ton of journals from actual Creation Scientists....
Now just imagine if all of these Creation Scientists publish and institute Peer Review research how many of these Scientists are actually writing in "Evolution" journals as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8322
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dr. Michael Martin wrote: |
This means, if its not Naturalism, its not Science. Which is like saying, if its peanut butter, then it doesn't come from peanuts!
Much whining and complaining, Activistic type claims here, but nothing much worthy of a response. Just elephant hurl thrown against a wall. |
What it means is if its starts with the conclusion that God exists and that the Bible is His inerrant word and then looks for evidence to support those preconceived conclusions, then it isn't science.
Do you seriously think that The Creation Journal is a SCIENTIFIC journal?
Cite a paper from a respected, peer reviewed scientific journal! Am I asking so much? You said that 57% of all mainstream scientists are creationists.
If this is true, and you can't find a single creationist or YEC paper in ANY of the mainstream journals, then what does that say? It says that even though most of the mainstream scientific community is biased TOWARDS creationism, nobody can get a single creationist or YEC paper published in a mainstream scientific journal. This means that creationism must be SO unscientific, that even the scientific community's bias towards creationism cannot outweigh the fact that most scientists consider it to be so unscientific that NOT A SINGLE creationist paper has ever been published in a mainstream journal.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unverified
Booted
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 299
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Dr. Michael Martin wrote: |
This means, if its not Naturalism, its not Science. Which is like saying, if its peanut butter, then it doesn't come from peanuts!
Much whining and complaining, Activistic type claims here, but nothing much worthy of a response. Just elephant hurl thrown against a wall. |
What it means is if its starts with the conclusion that God exists and that the Bible is His inerrant word and then looks for evidence to support those preconceived conclusions, then it isn't science.
Do you seriously think that The Creation Journal is a SCIENTIFIC journal?
Cite a paper from a respected, peer reviewed scientific journal! Am I asking so much? You said that 57% of all mainstream scientists are creationists.
If this is true, and you can't find a single creationist or YEC paper in ANY of the mainstream journals, then what does that say? It says that even though most of the mainstream scientific community is biased TOWARDS creationism, nobody can get a single creationist or YEC paper published in a mainstream scientific journal. This means that creationism must be SO unscientific, that even the scientific community's bias towards creationism cannot outweigh the fact that most scientists consider it to be so unscientific that NOT A SINGLE creationist paper has ever been published in a mainstream journal. |
What it means is if its starts with the conclusion that God exists and that the Bible is His inerrant word and then looks for evidence to support those preconceived conclusions, then it isn't science.
The presupposition is coming out right here guys. Evolution is Naturalism in disguise.
Do you seriously think that The Creation Journal is a SCIENTIFIC journal?
Cite a paper from a respected, peer reviewed scientific journal! Am I asking so much? You said that 57% of all mainstream scientists are creationists.
Yes, as well as the other many Scientific journals I mentioned. You apparently don't realize that much of what is written in these journals is not Biblically related, and therefore can not be constituted as religious in nature. These are journals monitored by Creation Scientists. If they are monitored by Creation Scientists, then what does that say here about the other Creation Scientists that we have in the community? There are bunches of them.
The last comment is more Elephant Hurl. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P123 wrote: | The journal which Dr. Michael cited is not a scientific journal in any way, shape, or form. It is a religious publication put out by Creation Ministries International. They start with the conclusion that God exists and that the Bible is His inerrant word. Then they go out and look for evidence which supports this predetermined view.
This is NOT science. They are starting with their conclusion and then looking for evidence. In science, you start with the evidence and then work your way towards the conclusion. What this journal does is the EXACT opposite of science. That is why it is not a respected scientific journal. It isn't even a disrespected scientific journal. It isn't a scientific journal at all. |
May I ask how you know this? It seems that you automatically discredited his citation of this journal based upon it being a 'religious publication'. You seem to assume that this publication was not SCIENTIFIC based solely upon it being from a religious source.
How do you know they did not start from the evidences and work to a conclusion, and given their conclusion agreed with Scripture and Christianity, they then labeled it a Christian Journal?
Hopefully you did not assume in this situation and know beyond doubt that this journal does in fact start with a conclusion and look for evidence to support it as opposed to the way in which Science works.
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unverified
Booted
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 299
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: | | P123 wrote: | The journal which Dr. Michael cited is not a scientific journal in any way, shape, or form. It is a religious publication put out by Creation Ministries International. They start with the conclusion that God exists and that the Bible is His inerrant word. Then they go out and look for evidence which supports this predetermined view.
This is NOT science. They are starting with their conclusion and then looking for evidence. In science, you start with the evidence and then work your way towards the conclusion. What this journal does is the EXACT opposite of science. That is why it is not a respected scientific journal. It isn't even a disrespected scientific journal. It isn't a scientific journal at all. |
May I ask how you know this? It seems that you automatically discredited his citation of this journal based upon it being a 'religious publication'. You seem to assume that this publication was not SCIENTIFIC based solely upon it being from a religious source.
How do you know they did not start from the evidences and work to a conclusion, and given their conclusion agreed with Scripture and Christianity, they then labeled it a Christian Journal?
Hopefully you did not assume in this situation and know beyond doubt that this journal does in fact start with a conclusion and look for evidence to support it as opposed to the way in which Science works. |
Thats a good point...what to say for this P123? Lets hear something other than that they conclude with God therefore it isn't Science. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1566
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'll wager that his response will be more along the lines of "you don't start with a conclusion and then look for evidence to support it - you start with evidence and figure out your conclusions based on the evidence."
_________________
Truth doesn't care about theology, and theology doesn't care about truth.
Ana's Bananas |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ana wrote: | | I'll wager that his response will be more along the lines of "you don't start with a conclusion and then look for evidence to support it - you start with evidence and figure out your conclusions based on the evidence." |
But my entire question is how do you know this is what the religious publication did? It seems that P is assuming that since it is religious it therefore starts with teh conclusion rather than starts with evidence. I just want to know how he knows this, or if he even knows this and is not assuming and discrediting for no reason.
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
