This weeks feedback mainly addresses the issue that some of those that regularly post comments on our website that continually make dogmatic evolutionary and atheistic statements without any support for those statements. 

Comments on “Are We on the Verge of a Second Age of the Dinosaur” 

Robert
2010/12/03 at 12:47 am

Since evolution is a proven fact, this post is nonsense. Furthermore, it assumes the biblical tale of creation, which is demonstrably false in numerous respects. And the tale of the flood is strictly fiction. See:

Wood et al, Accretion of the Earth and segregation of its core. Nature, vol. 441, 15 June 2006, p. 825.

Lambert et al, Dust-climate couplings over the past 800,000 years from the EPICA Dome C ice core. Nature, vol. 452, 3 April 2008, p. 616.

Loulergue et al, Orbital and millennial-scale features of atmospheric CH4 over the past 800,000 years. Nature, vol. 453, 15 May 2008, p. 383.

MY RESPONSE:

Robert:  Last week I asked you on what basis do you claim that evolution is a proven fact, but you failed to respond.  Instead, you continue to your dogmatic claim without any substantiation. 

What you fail to realize is that neither evolution nor creation can be proven.  They are both theories on the origins of the universe and life on earth.  Neither can be repeated or tested.  We openly admit this, but I see and hear so many evolutionists that refuse to admit the truth.  They remain blinded by their faith in naturalistic materialism. 

The arguments we have are not evidence versus evidence, but one presuppositional view versus another presuppositional view.  How we interpret the physical universe and life around us is based our own presuppositional views.  We both have the same facts.  Our interpretation of those facts is what differs and those differences, said again to try to make sure you understand, are made based upon our presuppositional foundations. 

I for one wish that evolutionists like yourself would have the honesty and integrity to admit it and stop hiding behind undefendable arguments. 

As for your references, are you willing to admit that all of your so-called evidences are based upon assumptions?  To start with, according to your own evolutionary presuppositions, no one was there to observe these processes in action therefore you have to admit that your conclusions are based on assumptions made from the present.  But how can you be dogmatic about these? 

Evolutionary facts change from time to time based upon new discoveries and new studies.  How can any be so dogmatic about a FACT that is subject to constant change?  Seems the only fact that is real about evolution is that the views they hold now will change again and again.  I don’t know about you, but I don’t call that a fact, I call it a whim.

Until you are willing to be honest and take the discussion to its core, there really isn’t any reason to spend much time debating symptoms of the real issue.

Additionally concerning your references is that I could start listing references that counter your and we could go on and on, but I won’t because as I just said, this is not where the argument is. 

 

 

Comments on “Peer-reviewed creation-science journal” 

 

 

Robert

2010/12/01 at 11:38 am 

 

The claim that mainstream science journals are closed to creationist ideas is silly. The reason that the journals don’t publish such is that the proposed articles are nonsense: they simply don’t present credible evidence to back up their purported conclusions. We know that the flood tale is fiction [1]; we know that the earth is 4,568,200,00 years old [2] — and claims that the situation is otherwise simply cannot be conformed to the observed facts.

 

1. Luthi, et al, High-resolution carbon dioxide concentration record 650,000 – 800,000 years before present. Nature, vol. 453, 15 May 2008, p. 379.

 

2. Bouvier, et al, The age of the Solar System redefined by the oldest Pb/Pb age of a meteoritic inclusion. Nature Geoscience, vol. 3, Sept. 2010, p. 637. 

 

MY RESPONSE:

Robert: It sounds to me that you are an expert in repeating anti-creationist rhetoric that is espoused by others without first researching to back them up. 

I personally know of several instances where scientists had been publishing in main stream scientific journals until the journal editors learned of the creationist views held by the submitting scientists.  Once known, they were never able to get another article to be accepted by the same journals.  This reeks of prejudice and unfair censorship based not upon the quality of the paper but solely upon the philosophical views held by the submitting author.  Had this same censorship happened concerning employment or real estate transactions, it would be against federal law.

I also know of some articles written by Bible believing creationists that have been published because of the excellent work conducted by the creation scientist but these are few and far between.

For more on the subject of creationists publishing in peer reviewed journals, I recommend you read the article Creationism, Science and Peer Review.

As for your references about the Flood, see my response above about where this argument really lies.

Samuel

2010/12/02 at 8:45 am

Robert your comments are seriously descending into the ridiculous. To make such a statement, A) you must be on the editorial review board of a science journal, and B) you must have seen dozens upon dozens of articles come across your desk detailing 1) flood geology, and 2) dating technologies. Second, to make such a statement, one could only assume that you have experience attempting to publish a science article eluding to creation and, upon review and revision, have been published. Third, instead of offering the citations you did (which do not support your claim), instead it would have been better to offer a citation of an article written by a known creationist in a secular science journal with an attempt to substantiate creation/design.

 

Since from the way you form your arguments (in this and other posts) I can positively say that you have NO< NADA< ZILCH< ZERO< experience in following any of the points listed above, then you have no basis to make such a ridiculously hypocritical, forked-tongue, two-faced claim, since you actively oppose science-based creation claims.

 

The article of mine that was kindly published on this site has no less than 29 references from peer-reviewed secular science journals. I have attempted 5 times to be published in physics and cosmology journals. The same rejection each time, “We do not publish articles of this type”.

However, I have not given up hope. There must be some rational, open-minded journal editors out there somewhere. But, the nature of my search over the past 5 years to be published for my discovery, has proven how rare true intelligence and rationality there really is in the “community of scientists”.

 

In conclusion, based on my experience: there absolutely is at present and historically, no access for science-based articles that challenge the status quo by supporting creation in secular journals.

 

MY RESPONSE:

Samuel, your experience with trying to get your article published in the science journals is typical of the experience of so many other creationists.  Please read the article I referenced earlier for Robert.

 

Comments on “The Evolutionary Enigma of the Echidna” 

 

 

Tony

2010/11/29 at 6:55 am | In reply to Jonathan Sampson.

I assume that science is valid because without science I wouldn’t be able to discuss the stupidity of the fundamentalist world view via the internet (which only exists because of science) using a computer (more science), powered by electricity (science again).

Now would you kindly stop interrupting, I was talking to David (who incidentally seems to believe in some science, just not the bits he disagrees with).

 

MY RESPONSE:

Tony, I believe I was open that the methods of how the echidnas got to Australia were possible solutions, but never was I dogmatic over it. 

You and Robert seem to have a lot in common in that you argue evidence against evidence instead of admitting that the argument actually likes in our presuppositional foundations.  The rest of my response to you lies in my response to Robert above in this Feed Back posting. 

Until you and Robert are willing to be honest and take the discussion to its core, there really isn’t any reason to spend much time debating symptoms of the real issue.

Continue Reading on