Quote# 78398

Answers in Genesis is excited to announce the launch of its online technical journal called Answers Research Journal (ARJ). Hosted at www.answersresearchjournal.org (but linked to AiG’s website), 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.

Addressing the need to disseminate the vast fields of research conducted by creationist experts in theology, history, archaeology, anthropology, biology, geology, astronomy, and other disciplines of science, 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, the non-evolutionary origin of “created kinds,” and other evidences that are consistent with the biblical account of origins. The newly expanded research effort at Answers in Genesis, with the establishment of its Research Department, will facilitate this further venue for publication and dissemination of the results of creationist research.

Answers in Genesis, Answers in Genesis 62 Comments [12/31/2010 9:29:53 AM]
Fundie Index: 52

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 3 | bottom


There are "creationist experts in theology, history, archaeology, anthropology, biology, geology, astronomy, and other disciplines of science," in the same way that the Nazis had a minister for Jewish affairs.

12/31/2010 1:19:08 PM


Well technically speaking it is peer review...if you are an idiot, your peers will be other idiots.

12/31/2010 1:41:26 PM



I wish I could help, but I'm not knowledgeable enough on this stuff. If you manage it though, that would be AMAZING.

12/31/2010 1:53:30 PM


- this will be a goldmine of material for nerds and atheist bloggers to laugh themselves in hiccups.
I can't wait for the first conference where proponents of all the different lame ideas about the ark and dinosaurs "debate." How will they decide who's right? By number of Bible passages quoted, or will they "pray over it?"

12/31/2010 2:11:08 PM


I can simplify this: "We're going to put up a bunch of bullshit that gullible and ignorant people will believe because they can't think for themselves." There.

12/31/2010 2:32:27 PM

Has anyone told PZ yet?

12/31/2010 2:37:13 PM



Give me a fucking break!

12/31/2010 2:49:25 PM



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".]

DO IT! DO IT! DO IT! For the sake of knowledge and human freedom, DO IT! Activism at it's finest! Be sure to write it so that it isn't an obvious hoax...that a creationist can get sucked in without knowing!

12/31/2010 3:15:45 PM




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.]

But think of it this way, it's a hoax that would make that Skaggs guy proud! The truth will be revealed eventually! It's activism!

12/31/2010 3:18:51 PM


Question: who will they be using as referees? If I get my astronomer friends to sign on as reviewers, and they tear papers apart for being bullshit, will their reviews be honored and will they be allowed to continue as reviewers?

The AIG crowd does no not seem to understand what "research" and "peer-review" actually mean. Perhaps I should not be surprised.

12/31/2010 3:20:54 PM

Old Viking

I'll wait for the movie.

12/31/2010 3:24:56 PM


this will be a professional peer-reviewed technical journal

Does "peer-review" include people who are not YECs? Because creationists are amazingly deaf to anyone who offers any kind of questions or rebuttal. One of the problems with YECs is that they make claims, they are presented with legitimate evidence that they are wrong, but they then continue making the same claims as if the objection had never been made. They're like Monty Python's Black Knight who continues to try to fight, ignoring the fact that all of his limbs have been hacked off.

12/31/2010 4:14:07 PM


The self-deluded lying to each other for comfort.

12/31/2010 5:26:15 PM

Quantum Mechanic


12/31/2010 5:36:49 PM

The Jamo

Oh, hahahahaha! This is what we've all been waiting for. Another fucking farce. Interestingly, you've missed out on chemistry and physics in your list of disciplines. And also, if it is indeed peer-reviewed, that obviously means that you will consider ANY reasonable evidence-supported retort, right? I mean it would be completely pointless if you were only to consider evidence for your own point of view.

12/31/2010 5:57:50 PM


I'd like to submit the following papers I have written:
"Our Friend, The Beaver"
"Trees Make The Wind Blow By Waving Their Branches"
"Girls: America Loves 'Em"
and last, but not least:
"Some Scientific Buttcheese That I Pulled Out of My Butt."

12/31/2010 6:13:06 PM


That is a lot of doublespeak for attempting to sell your snake oil. You are about as legit of a scientist as a homeopath.

12/31/2010 6:54:44 PM



12/31/2010 7:02:44 PM

Mycoid Mike

A peer-reviewed publication of technical garbage is still garbage.

12/31/2010 9:24:16 PM


It'll be peer reviewed just like Liberty U isn't a diploma mill for creationists

12/31/2010 10:20:35 PM

Sagan's Ghost

"Creationist experts"? Is Wal-Mart doing home schooling now or is Hovind out of the pen?

12/31/2010 10:30:05 PM



There are "creationist experts in theology, history, archaeology, anthropology, biology, geology, astronomy, and other disciplines of science," in the same way that the Nazis had a minister for Jewish affairs.


12/31/2010 10:31:47 PM

Doubting Thomas

Oh how cute. YEC's are going to try to play science. The first document they could put in their journal could be Kent Hovind's PhD "dissertation."

But I think we should ALL submit "papers" to them on the same scholastic level as Kent's "dissertation" to see how many of them they publish. I'm betting they will publish probably anything which supports a YEC point of view.

1/1/2011 8:20:52 AM


You can't get published in peer reviewed scientific journals so you'll create a peer-reviewed bullshit-science (Biblical) journal and pretend it's valid in any way. Because you're good at pretending, well maybe not good at it, you just prefer fantasy.

Large segments of Conservapedia have done this already. I expect a lot of cross-duplication of bullshit.

1/1/2011 1:04:16 PM

David F Mayer

"demonstrates the validity of the young-earth model"

and also proves the existence of Peter Pan and the Tooth Fairy.

1/1/2011 11:17:06 PM

1 2 3 | top: comments page