Re: WingNutDaily: 500 doctoral scientists skeptical of Darwin


mccoy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
wf3h@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 22 Feb 2006 20:48:11 -0800, mccoy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Says w, "Lawrence Krauss did a literature survey of the publication of
creationist articles in science journals. he found none."

First of all, evolutionist W knows very well that he's pulling a shady.
Even I know better than to think that if I sent an article to a
magazine that espoused evolutionary ideas that it would actually get
printed.

ah. the proof that christianists are being censored is that they
aren't being censored...

circular logic.

hey mccoy...ever hear of mike behe? he gets published regularly. when
i got my MS at lehigh he was an assoc. prof. today he's a full
professor...due to his scientific work

not his christianist work.

Trueorigins.org documents numerous examples where the traditional
method by which these publications actually put articles through the
peer review process actually doesn't happen when creationists have
submitted articles

again, both krauss, and earlier work in 1987 during the 'aguillard'
christianist fiasco found that creationists don't do research. they
don't even WRITE papers

Says W... creationists "don't even write papers."

False. If this statement does anything to discredit you it's this one.
Let me repeat what W said: creationists "don't even write papers."

ICR has a number of technical monographs out there

Technical monographs present a synthesis of a large body of research.
The one I'm most familiar with is C.W.Andrews "Marine Reptiles of the
Oxford Clay", published by the Natural History Museum in two large
volumes in 1910 and 1013.
This represents two or three decades of research, and includes the
detailed description and figuring of dozens of specimens of marine
reptiles. Because of the quality of Andrews work, these volumes are
still a primary reference for anyone interested in plesiosaur
palaeontology even a century later.

So which creationist "technical monograph" summarises a large body of
research in this way?


. These papers are
loaded with mathematical formulas and are difficult for the average
person to understand.

That's the point, isn't it? To make it seem complicated and
mathematical, so that those such as yourself who don't understand the
mathematics think that it must be correct because you don't understand
it. However, when people who understand the mathematics look at it,
they recognise it for the nonsense it is.


Woodmorappe is probably the most prolific of the
paper writers.

.....none of which would be published anywhere other than in creationist
journals....

But to top it off, for a time I had subscribed to the
Creation Research Society Quarterly. Just to quote from Volume 21 June
1984, number 1:

"This is billions of billions of timesw greater than the observed
average density (about 2 x 10-28 kg/m3),6 of matter in the universe..."


And this is supposed to be impressive for what reason, exactly?


And the complexity continues.

I see. A calculation of density is "complex".


I showed a professor

A "professor"! Wow! I'm impressed! A professor of what? Mathematics?
Biology? Or, more likely, a "professor" of janitorial services.

a copy of the CRSQ in response to his "creationism
isn't science" and he told me that "John, this is science." And he is
right. It is science.

So he was so impressed by a calculation of density that he converted to
the view that creationism is science.

Frankly, I'm not convinced. It sounds like something you have made up.

It's just that you don't like what creationists
are saying and therefore you sit on your high horse telling us that
it's not science. But evidently your high horse is so high that you've
made a terribly gross error that just brings your house of cards
crashing down. Creationists DO write papers and do so on a regular
basis.

They publish them only in creationist tracts for the simple reason that
their "scientific" content is ill-informed garbage and no reputable
academic journal would touch them.

Not only that, but they contain outright falsehoods. Here's a good
example of outright dishonesty in an article in "Creation" magazine.

http://www.plesiosaur.com/creationism/swissichthyosaur/swissichthy.htm

RF

JM





in addition, the templeton foundation SOLICITED christianists to do
research...and couldnt get any.



Enough said. Now W hopes that you don't visit trueorigins.org and see
for yourself.

JM

tell it to behe.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Re: Letter to the Editor: Theres no reason why school cant include intelligent design
    ... AiG is not science, it's a religious ministry. ... Who says that those scientists mentioned are members of any religious ... I offer my analysis of some of those articles here: ... "They (Creationists) still use arguments current over a hundred years ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Proposal - a new strategy to counter anti-evolutionists
    ... >>> There is certainly a place for education about the philosophy of science ... >>> take their lead from their parents and religious community. ... > a-priori set of assumptions about the world and the evidence for those ... > suggest that your creationists 'conversion' was as a result of trusting the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: free anti-ID e-book available
    ... creationists' attempts to have it taught as "an alternative science". ... The ID fight isn't about science. ... It isn't about religion, either. ... one that would be the death of democracy. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: i want to join with this group
    ... were not objective since you did not include evolutionists as well. ... consistent a phenomenon as the errors made by creationists. ... accomodate science, not by actual evidence. ... Science presupposing that God produced reality and the assertion is ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: i want to join with this group
    ... the minority but represent Science). ... Historically, Creationists are deeply divided ... Science presupposing that God produced reality and the assertion is ... If the majority is *always* wrong, ...
    (talk.origins)