creeky belly
Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006
|
| Quote | | I didn't say anything about a conspiracy. I'm merely stating that scientists certainly wouldn't publish something that they feel goes completely and utterly against the grain. |
Especially when it's poor science. If you look at Brown's page, he eliminates himself from being able to publish:
| Quote | | I certainly want my ideas tested and have frequently initiated and appreciated cordial, factual exchanges with scientists who are not creationists. But in a journal, who does the testing, and does a writer have a right to challenge the reviewer’s conclusions if the writer disagrees? In other words, is there an unbiased judge? Unfortunately, leading science journals have a solid history of hostility toward creationists. Evolutionists are both judge and jury. Who would want to make his case in a court run by an opponent? Why would that opponent publish your case? The playing field is not level. |
The people that get published are those who question paradigms well supported by evidence; indeed the whole point of science is that it can be done and verified by anyone. It's more than just saying, "Yeah, my theory can account for X, Y, and Z." He doesn't want to have his ideas tested, because it will take an independent referee about 5 seconds to spot the flaws in his argument.
For example, he says his hydroplate theory is correct and the earth is not 4.6 billion years old. Fair enough, would you care to refute the entire branch of radiometric dating, cosmology, and earth science? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and he doesn't have it. His premise that most elements that make up comets aren't found in space seems to ignore the fact that many of them are found during star system formation. His only source of water for these comets is from earth, but he doesn't even do basic calculations of how much water it took to form these comets, or take into account that there are other objects within our own solar system that could have contributed. And it goes on, and on. This is sloppy scholarship pure and simple.
| Quote | | The alternative would be to actually consider creation and ID theories seriously, and obviously guys like you are not going to be open to that. |
Well we've tackled some of the creation arguments. What ID argument do you think is the most well supported by evidence? IC, EF, the flagellum, the immune system?
Here is a good discussion about why we don't take them seriously.
|
