I once thought that, no Young Earth Creationist will ever have a paper supporting Creationism printed in any peer reviewed journal ever. There's many reasons for this- mainly the small scraps of evidence they can come up with are either invented or explained better by the far more realistic multi-billion year old Earth model. There is no physical fact that backs up a 6,000-10,000 year old Earth. I doubt that one will ever be discovered.
Some Creationists call this "censorship", and have vowed to prove me wrong. They're starting their own peer reviewed journal.
In case you missed it, they only want research that demonstrates and supports their hypothesis. Science, and peer reviewed journals don't work that way. You aren't allowed to assume your conclusions and then pick the evidence that supports them. You have to look at all the evidence, and draw conclusions. Not the other way around. Not the way these 'tards are approaching it.
When I read this article, the first words out of my mouth are "You're NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT!" There are very, very good reasons why. Once you're assuming your conclusions, you automatically start filtering. You start ignoring conflicting data. You start cherry-picking. This is bad Science, and it's bad thinking.
Like it or not, the real world- the one outside of our heads- obstinately refuses to bend to our preconceived notions. We must approach it with an open mind and be prepared to be wrong. Science- real Science- assumes that we're wrong to begin with, and has built in error correction mechanisms. It abhors logical fallacies and doesn't like assumptions.
Some Creationists call this "censorship", and have vowed to prove me wrong. They're starting their own peer reviewed journal.
Addressing the need to disseminate the vast field of research conducted by experts in geology, genetics, astronomy, and other disciplines of science, IJCR provides scientists and students hard data based on cutting-edge research that demonstrates the young earth model, the global Flood, the non-evolutionary origin of the species, and other evidences that correlate to the biblical accounts.
In case you missed it, they only want research that demonstrates and supports their hypothesis. Science, and peer reviewed journals don't work that way. You aren't allowed to assume your conclusions and then pick the evidence that supports them. You have to look at all the evidence, and draw conclusions. Not the other way around. Not the way these 'tards are approaching it.
When I read this article, the first words out of my mouth are "You're NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT!" There are very, very good reasons why. Once you're assuming your conclusions, you automatically start filtering. You start ignoring conflicting data. You start cherry-picking. This is bad Science, and it's bad thinking.
Like it or not, the real world- the one outside of our heads- obstinately refuses to bend to our preconceived notions. We must approach it with an open mind and be prepared to be wrong. Science- real Science- assumes that we're wrong to begin with, and has built in error correction mechanisms. It abhors logical fallacies and doesn't like assumptions.
partial here here!