The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

JOURNAL OF CREATION: Peer Reviewed, ROFL, What Peers?

BTW: I've been reviewing the Creationist's so called scientific journal, entitled: "Journal of Creation".

This is supposed to have PEER REVIEW!

ROFL! Those reviewing these papers are not peers in any scientific sense.

Dr Andrew Snelling (mere geologist) who started the Journal of Creation, himself is nowhere near being a peer, not even in his own field. Yet he reviews and publishes articles on Biology, Paleontology, Astronomy, etc....

The Journal of Creation has no peers that count as peers in any field. Thus their journal is as scientifically relevant us as a load of bats droppings, oops, terribly sorry bats, your droppings are far more relevant and interesting to science.

Aye M8z! :-D-

2 members like this

Comment

You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by GOD'aye on March 2, 2013 at 4:54pm: Yes John, I'm well aware of the Dover trial and the many stupid lies put forth by the ID/Creationist front. Including the incredibly stupid comments by that failed scientist, now total lunatic, Michael Behe. Behe is likely in it for power and money. All his assertions are preposterous and very unscientific. Such as it always will be when pretend scientists try to match evidence to suit a pre-ordained 3000 year old bit of nonsense.

I do believe that scientists that turn to publishing creationist propaganda should be struck of records as being scientists and have their Ph.d or qualifications revoked or removed from public record.

That way they cannot be employed in scientific faculties.

Another idea for a blog.

Aye M8! :-D

Comment by John Aultman on March 2, 2013 at 2:56pm: If you haven't watch the NOVA Documentary "Intelligent Design on Trial" please do so. You will see firsthand the arrogant hypocrisy of Creationist Christians and watch the pseudo science Intelligence Design be destroyed by real science.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

Comment by John Aultman on March 2, 2013 at 2:29pm

This reminds me of the Kitzmiller V Dover, PA trial when Michael Behe was called as an expert witness in support of Intelligent Disign under cross-examination, where his testimony would prove devastating to the defense. Behe was forced to concede that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred"^[45] and that his definition of 'theory' as applied to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would also qualify.^[46]

Lehigh University exhibits the following disclaimer on its website:

“	While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally and should not be regarded as scientific.^[12]

Comment by GOD'aye on March 2, 2013 at 7:18am: Yes, the likes of Ken Ham, Andrew Snelling. John Morris, Duane Gish and those clowns that tour, giving nonsensical speeches and biased debates are in it for the power more than the easy money.

Yet, there are some books published by scientists nearing retirement who don't bother with the fan-fare, their books of nonsense will give them a better retirement than just a pension could offer. They have lost their sense of pride in their scientific work, selling out for a guaranteed future income.

Comment by Loren Miller on March 2, 2013 at 6:53am: Not just about MONEY, mate ... but CONTROL as well ... because when you have those two, you have something worth more to them than either one by themselves:

Power.

Comment by GOD'aye on March 2, 2013 at 6:50am: True Loren,

It's a case of lets choose only supporters to be our peers.

If scientists could do that, there's likely to be all kinds of junk in scientific journals.

Though it still won't be as bad as Creationists journals.

Because most scientists are conscientious about their work and reputation.

Creationists are not.

They are only in it for the money.

All their sites are really about selling books of junk and getting donations.

In other words: CREATIONISM IS ALL ABOUT MONEY, NOT TRUTH!

That should be a good title for another blog.

Comment by GOD'aye on March 2, 2013 at 6:45am: LOL Joan, though their droppings are dangerous here, contain nasty bugs that kill horses and can transfer to humans handling them.

Also just had a person die from the form of rabies that bats carry, it's incurable.

So scientists here are flat out examining droppings and saliva of bats for clues.

Comment by Loren Miller on March 2, 2013 at 5:23am: No great surprise that their "peer review" have their on side-boys as "experts". Apparently no one ever told them that the process of peer review was supposed to be adversarial!

Confirmation bias much?

Comment by Joan Denoo on March 2, 2013 at 2:54am: Bat dropping also work wonders in an onion patch!

Comment by GOD'aye on March 2, 2013 at 1:59am: Yes, the Peers reviewing the 'Journal of Creation' are not peers in science.

They are peers in Young Earth Creation.

Thus, the journals are nothing but garbage based and contain nothing but garbage.

Bat droppings are infinitely more relevant to science!