Creationist "Peer Review"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-05-2016, 12:06 PM
RE: Creationist "Peer Review"
(17-05-2016 08:08 PM)Fireball Wrote:  Well, in all fairness "peer review" can come in many forms. Let's just say that these tree stumps are all out in a field somewhere. They can be reviewed by their fellow stumps. "Yup, that's a stump, what do you think, Woody?". "Yup, that there is another stump." Fellow creationists are just equally dispersed between the stumps. Difference is, they can talk, and the rest of the stumps can't.

Pity. I expect the stumps would offer more stimulating conversation than creationists.

Don't let those gnomes and their illusions get you down. They're just gnomes and illusions.

--Jake the Dog, Adventure Time

Alouette, je te plumerai.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2016, 12:56 PM
RE: Creationist "Peer Review"
(17-05-2016 08:12 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(17-05-2016 07:39 PM)DLJ Wrote:  International Flat Earth Conference.

I want to attend. Yes
When and where is it?

Sapere aude
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2016, 04:25 PM
RE: Creationist "Peer Review"
(19-05-2016 12:56 PM)f stop Wrote:  
(17-05-2016 08:12 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I want to attend. Yes
When and where is it?

They're not having it this year....

It was too close to "the edge" and fell off into the abyss...............

....

Ironic, huh??

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes onlinebiker's post
19-05-2016, 08:30 PM
RE: Creationist "Peer Review"
(19-05-2016 09:49 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  I just saw the term "geo-lateralism"......

Really???

Obviously methane is conducive to verbal gymnastics.......

Only someone breathing inside their own asshole could get the levels of contortion needed (both physical and verbal) to come up with "geo-lateralism" and say it with a straight face...................

Lucky that I have crooked face, I suppose.

Did you google it?

You'll find it only used once on the whole of the internet .... this thread

(19-05-2016 12:56 PM)f stop Wrote:  
(17-05-2016 08:12 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I want to attend. Yes
When and where is it?

When: Sunrise, pre-scientific era.
Where: The edge of the Earth (the left side).

See you there.

Big Grin

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2016, 11:01 AM
RE: Creationist "Peer Review"
(17-05-2016 05:02 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  No methodology, no empirical evidence, no hypotheses based on observations?

And...........you can submit anything you want provided it supports their biblical stance.

That's peer review?????Facepalm

They have to keep their bullshit consistent. If they don't, it will have as many holes as the four Gospels, and they can't have that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2016, 07:18 PM
RE: Creationist "Peer Review"
(18-05-2016 08:31 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  The editor of the "Answers Research Journal" is one Andrew Snelling who is a creationist geologist. He has a Ph.D. in geology from the University of Sydney and has worked as a consulting geologist. He was, for a decade, the geology spokesman for the Creation Science Foundation, the coordinating center for creationism in Australia.

Snelling has been published in standard geological publications estimating the age of geological specimens in billions of years. Strangely though he seems to be able perform logical somersaults because he's written articles for creationist journals in which he supports a young-earth creationism viewpoint.

His creation research has focused on dating methods, with his pet project being polonium halos, which according to Answers in Genesis, he has used to "demonstrate" that most rock layers and fossils were deposited by a global flood 4,300 years ago. Strange to say he has been repeatedly passed over for a Nobel prize despite the obvious importance of this discovery.

Wonder why? Drinking Beverage

I'd guess it's because he's been thoroughly and resoundingly debunked.

http://ncse.com/rncse/30/5/origin-polonium-halos

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2016, 04:23 AM
RE: Creationist "Peer Review"
Those requirements could be used to teach a master class in 'Not Fucking Getting It'... Dodgy

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
27-05-2016, 07:28 AM
RE: Creationist "Peer Review"
(26-05-2016 07:18 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(18-05-2016 08:31 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  The editor of the "Answers Research Journal" is one Andrew Snelling who is a creationist geologist. He has a Ph.D. in geology from the University of Sydney and has worked as a consulting geologist. He was, for a decade, the geology spokesman for the Creation Science Foundation, the coordinating center for creationism in Australia.

Snelling has been published in standard geological publications estimating the age of geological specimens in billions of years. Strangely though he seems to be able perform logical somersaults because he's written articles for creationist journals in which he supports a young-earth creationism viewpoint.

His creation research has focused on dating methods, with his pet project being polonium halos, which according to Answers in Genesis, he has used to "demonstrate" that most rock layers and fossils were deposited by a global flood 4,300 years ago. Strange to say he has been repeatedly passed over for a Nobel prize despite the obvious importance of this discovery.

Wonder why? Drinking Beverage

I'd guess it's because he's been thoroughly and resoundingly debunked.

http://ncse.com/rncse/30/5/origin-polonium-halos

Pfft. Nah.

Conspiracy, obvs. It's always a conspiracy.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
27-05-2016, 09:12 AM
RE: Creationist "Peer Review"
(26-05-2016 11:01 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(17-05-2016 05:02 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  No methodology, no empirical evidence, no hypotheses based on observations?

And...........you can submit anything you want provided it supports their biblical stance.

That's peer review?????Facepalm

They have to keep their bullshit consistent. If they don't, it will have as many holes as the four Gospels, and they can't have that.

consistent bullshit is still bullshit and spraying gold paint and deodorant isn't going to change that
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: