Why don't creationists publish?

[6days]

With respect, your beliefs, mine or anyone else's about the past are completely irrelevant where it comes to science.

That is so true. I wish evolutionists would understand that.
Frankly, not everybody uses the scientific method either, evolutionists
for a start. The scientific method involves amassing data, analysing the findings and formulating theories that best support the evidence, modifying as necessary. Evolutonism starts with a conclusion based on a belief and then tries to fit theories in with that belief while discarding anything that contradicts it. That's not the scientific method by a long shot.

Like any system, it isn't going to be perfect but I don't hear of many scientists wanting to do away with it either.

Nobody suggested that pure review be done away with. We can agree though that it is flawed system, and especially so when it comes to interpretations of data shoe horned to fit belief systems.

 

[6days]

What is interesting about science is that it does not stand still. You may state a starting assumption and people may agree with you and the paper is accepted. But then something happens to change your starting assumption and invalidate it. Back to the drawing board. It is a learning process.

You just provided an excellent explanation of why evolutionism is not science . They start with the conclusion and stick with it no matter what the data shows. For example science has proven virtually everything false that evolutionists believed at the time of the famous Scopes trial. But in spite of the data evolutionist still stick with the belief / paradigm of common ancestry. And science in recent yearscontinues to prove evolutionist beliefs are false. (Junk DNA, useless appendix, dimwitted Neanderthals, pseudogenes Etc)

 

[Arthur Brain]

That is so true. I wish evolutionists would understand that.
Frankly, not everybody uses the scientific method either, evolutionists
for a start. The scientific method involves amassing data, analysing the findings and formulating theories that best support the evidence, modifying as necessary. Evolutonism starts with a conclusion based on a belief and then tries to fit theories in with that belief while discarding anything that contradicts it. That's not the scientific method by a long shot.

Doesn't work 6Days. The ToE came about after the data had been analysed, not beforehand, the same as with common theory that the age of the earth is a lot older than six to ten thousand years. There was no conclusion with evidence shoe horned in to fit in with any of it. Creationism works in reverse and you can't really deny it. You automatically disregard anything that doesn't fit in with your religious belief whereas science doesn't.

Nobody suggested that pure review be done away with. We can agree though that it is flawed system, and especially so when it comes to interpretations of data shoe horned to fit belief systems.

There's always going to be imperfections in any system so improvements, sure, absolutely. If you think the global consensus on the age of the earth and evolution arose though "belief systems" then this is kinda pointless.

 

[Stripe]

Creationists don't publish.

Except that they do.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[User Name]

Except that they do.

https://thenaturalhistorian.com/201...-science-as-measured-by-scholarly-publishing/

 

[Stripe]

[urlhttps://thenaturalhistorian.com/2012/11/03/the-state-of-creation-science-as-measured-by-scholarly-publishing/[/url]

So your defense of your assertion that creationists don't publish is to provide proof that they do publish.

Thanks, Mr Nothing To Add.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[User Name]

So your defense of your assertion that creationists don't publish is to provide proof that they do publish.

=

 

[Stripe]

YyDXXVKlv7k

Contribute something useful or sod off, numbskull.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Jonahdog]

Very good!
The problem for evolutionists is wild extrapolations that are consistent with their belief system but inconsistent with the data.

For example geneticists admit the data (mutation rate) is inconsistent with 'uphill' evolution. But, because they start with the conclusion that 'molecule to molecular biologist' evolution is truth, they ignore the data and invent rescue devices such as synergistic epistasis.

Evolution need not be uphill. You appear to interpret the data to support your belief in the supremacy of humans. Evolution doesn't care. Evolution fits the organism to the environment. Doesn't give a rat's behind about what you or anyone else believes.

 

[Jonahdog]

Creationism starts with a conclusion based on a literal reading of Genesis and then tries to fit theories in with that belief while discarding anything that contradicts it. That's not the scientific method by a long shot.

The creationist problem in a nutshell.

 

[Jonahdog]

So your defense of your assertion that creationists don't publish is to provide proof that they do publish.

Thanks, Mr Nothing To Add.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Did you bother to read that?
Here is the last paragraph:
"Returning to creationist scholarly publications, only 60 research articles in 2011 don’t tell the whole story. Of those a good portion involve analysis of theological concerns rather than scientific. Many of the scientific articles are not based on new data collected but are more like commentaries and speculations about how flood geology could explain secular data. Very few actually propose hypotheses for which new data is collected and analyses to test those hypotheses. I’m not saying that there aren’t intelligent people who are willing to devote great time and attention to writing for the creationist cause. Reiterating what I’ve said before, I’m pointing out here and my last two posts is that a 50 year old hypothesis if it were great at explaining the features of the earth’s land-forms it should be attracting a much greater professional following yet the average age of the intellectual drivers of the creationists movement is going up year after year."

Basically says creation science is a big yawn. The papers are not, for the most part, original science and they are written by the same group of club members.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Did you bother to read that?
Here is the last paragraph:
"Returning to creationist scholarly publications, only 60 research articles in 2011 don’t tell the whole story. Of those a good portion involve analysis of theological concerns rather than scientific. Many of the scientific articles are not based on new data collected but are more like commentaries and speculations about how flood geology could explain secular data. Very few actually propose hypotheses for which new data is collected and analyses to test those hypotheses. I’m not saying that there aren’t intelligent people who are willing to devote great time and attention to writing for the creationist cause. Reiterating what I’ve said before, I’m pointing out here and my last two posts is that a 50 year old hypothesis if it were great at explaining the features of the earth’s land-forms it should be attracting a much greater professional following yet the average age of the intellectual drivers of the creationists movement is going up year after year."

Basically says creation science is a big yawn. The papers are not, for the most part, original science and they are written by the same group of club members.

The assertion was:

Creationists don't publish because creationists don't do science.

The part you quoted proves that assertion wrong, first in that creationists do in fact publish, and second in that creationists do in fact do science.

Please, as I've asked you before, PAY ATTENTION!

 

[Jonahdog]

The assertion was:



The part you quoted proves that assertion wrong, first in that creationists do in fact publish, and second in that creationists do in fact do science.

Please, as I've asked you before, PAY ATTENTION!

Actually the article suggests that creationists do little actual science. PAY ATTENTION!!

 

[JudgeRightly]

Actually the article suggests that creationists do little actual science. PAY ATTENTION!!

Doing a little bit of science IS STILL DOING SCIENCE!

Creationists don't publish because creationists don't do science.

The assertion was that creationists "Don't do science"

Doing ANY amount of science contradicts that statement.

 

[Stripe]

Darwinists hate thinking.

 

[Jonahdog]

Doing a little bit of science IS STILL DOING SCIENCE!The assertion was that creationists "Don't do science"

Doing ANY amount of science contradicts that statement.

OK, you are correct. How about this, "Creationists do very little actual science." Work for you? I'm satisfied.

Perhaps we can add "What little they do has little impact."

 

[User Name]

Doing a little bit of science IS STILL DOING SCIENCE!The assertion was that creationists "Don't do science"

Doing ANY amount of science contradicts that statement.

Insofar as creationists do creationism, they don't do science. Any actual science they perform is minimal and has contributed nothing of value to the compendium of scientific knowledge.

 

[Stripe]

Insofar as creationists do creationism, they don't do science. Any actual science they perform is minimal and has contributed nothing of value to the compendium of scientific knowledge.

:yawn:

 

[ok doser]

Darwinists hate thinking.

now, to be fair, good thinking can hurt your brane if your not carful

 

[Arthur Brain]

Insofar as creationists do creationism, they don't do science. Any actual science they perform is minimal and has contributed nothing of value to the compendium of scientific knowledge.

Well, pretty much. Still, "Dinosaur Adventure Land" is probably good for a laugh even amid the tax fraud and criticism from other YEC outfits...

:rain: