1 2 3
If you have a specific goal for your research -- other than a vaguely defined "more knowledge" -- then you're doomed to fail. At the very least, you will ignore evidence that contradicts your goal.
12/31/2010 9:34:40 AM
Aw, how cute. They think they can just up and start their own journal and get taken seriously. It's reminds me of a small child putting up a lemonade stand, getting five dollars and calling him/herself a businessman. The only part that's not cute is that these are adults that are playing pretend.
12/31/2010 9:40:27 AM
Oh, good. Ideologically motivated hacks will peer-review the work of other ideologically motivated hacks.
12/31/2010 9:41:28 AM
Aww they think they're doing science. How cute.
12/31/2010 9:46:06 AM
"the non-evolutionary origin of “created kinds,”
a pretend theory at best.
12/31/2010 9:50:14 AM
I went to the link. I read 4 of the "papers", which read like like the rantings of AV1611VET than serious science.
All I can say, after reading the papers is:
12/31/2010 10:02:04 AM
Answers Research Journal will provide scientists and students the results of cutting-edge research that demonstrates the validity of the young-earth model, the global Flood...
Oh holy hallaballakka!
When can I see this earth shattering research?
Has it been reviewed by real scientists and not paper mill clowns like tax-felon Hovind?
12/31/2010 10:03:36 AM
Creationist peer review?!?!?!?
Coming in close to the wire we have the oxymoron of 2010. Congrats to AIG!
12/31/2010 10:05:24 AM
Some of these papers are really interesting:
"In particular, we find that an observer-centric anisotropic synchrony convention eliminates the distant starlight problem by reducing radially inward-directed light travel-time in the reference frame of the observer to zero."
So light travels infinitely fast if it's heading towards the observer, but at only c/2 if it's heading away. Obvious really. I don't know how Einstein could have missed it.
12/31/2010 10:13:11 AM
> from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework.
> that demonstrates the validity of the young-earth model, the global Flood, the non-evolutionary origin of “created kinds,” and other evidences that are consistent with the biblical account of origins.
Look, peer reviewed science has seen damn
many revolutions. Just look at physics: the math gets more accurate, the theories and models become more complex. And they don't even look much like the previous iteration.
Are you ready for research that can challenge some pretty fundamental assumptions that you have? In other words, are you ready for some new information?
If you're just "demonstrating the validity" of the "framework", you're not going to get too far when (I was about to say "if", but, ahem, there's this recent research I've heard of that kind of guarantees that questions will be raised) the evidence contradicts it.
Oops, addition, almost forgot:
Be sure you have the right kind of peer review. These guys
had some fun with people who had an "informal" peer review process
. You don't want to use an "informal" peer review process like those guys. Because that kind of process just isn't very good.
...go ahead, read the site.
12/31/2010 10:14:51 AM
Sadly, I anticipate no practical outcome from your work to any science save abnormal psychology :(
12/31/2010 10:16:28 AM
"this will be a professional peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research"
Translation - If we use these same words that scientists use, then we will be taken just as seriously as they are..regardless of wether we use the scientific method or not.
I only hear creationists using this slogan so much. Also, how can something be "cutting edge" when the whole point is to do everything possible to prove a 2000 year old myth is correct and everything else is "of da debil".
Where is that "cutting edge" world wide proof of that global flood you mention? There should be MASSIVE amounts of evidence in MANY feilds across the board if that REALLY happened..hey, not a single bit of evidence. Merely local floods here and there, as what was expected of people who reason and use common sense.
How about those "kinds"? When are you fools going to come to a concensus on that one huh? What "kind" is a platypus? How about the differences of "kinds" between whales and hippos? What "kind" is a giraffe? How about the differences of "kind" between Ferrets and Weasels? Are ferrets the "weasel" kind or the "ferret" kind? If so then why call Ferrets ferrets? Why not just call them weasels, since they are the same "kind"? Same with the difference between lions and domestic cats. How about you do some research on basic deffinitions first, because they seem VERY fuzzy to me...
...get back to me on the other stuff AFTER you clear up this whole "kind" definition process...mmmkay.
12/31/2010 10:42:34 AM
Adorable, run along now.
12/31/2010 10:58:55 AM
I just went over to the site and have been mucking around a little bit. I'm thinking of writing an obviously made up paper that essentially concurs with their thesis just to see if they'd publish it. Then, when they do, I'd reveal the scam they really are. Who's with me?
Email me at mudak326 at gmail if you want in on this "research".
12/31/2010 11:00:00 AM
As long as you presuppose the Young Earth creation model then nothing you do can be labelled scientific research. Publish all you like in your pet journal, you will remain to the scientific community at large nowt but a laughing stock.
Also @ Mudak, awesome plan.
12/31/2010 11:18:13 AM
See kids, this is what happens when you can't get your bullshit pseudoscientific garbage reviewed favourably by real scientific bodies. You invent your own unscientific review body and claim it gives you validity.
Just another way of Lying For Jesus.
12/31/2010 11:21:55 AM
ROFL. Just ROFL.
12/31/2010 11:21:57 AM
How is a book/thought-process from thousands of years ago cutting edge?
creationist research='Making everything fit into my already predetermined conclusions encompassing 'God-did-it.'
12/31/2010 11:38:05 AM
If it only deals with evidence for young-earth creationism, it'll be a pretty thin publication.
12/31/2010 11:44:52 AM
This quote could really use that one Science vs Creation "Science" comic where they're talking about evidence and conclusions...
12/31/2010 11:52:08 AM
Oh I would, I'd LOVE to... but I'm studying to be a Psychologist and...we kind of frown on this sort of thing, even if it's an awesome scam, I don't want my name anywhere near their...craziness, people might not get the joke.
12/31/2010 12:07:19 PM
"Answers in Genesis is excited to announce the launch of its online technical journal called Answers Research Journal (ARJ). ...this will be a professional peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework."
Ha! Good one.
Peer-reviewed? Yeah, I'll bet it's reviewed by Fundie peers of the Fundie author.
AiG using the term "science" is always suspect. They don't understand that science doesn't start out with a conclusion and then search out only evidence which supports that conclusion.
Should be a good source of fodder for the FSTDT mill, though.
12/31/2010 12:07:52 PM
Pssh. Double post.
12/31/2010 12:31:15 PM
Translation: We can't get published in anything real, so we're making up a journal to be published in.
12/31/2010 12:56:17 PM
Not specifically fundy. Another extension of their insanity.
12/31/2010 12:56:49 PM
1 2 3