Oh you mean evolutionist reviewers did not like them.
Here's some advice: if you have to invent a massive conspiracy in order for your argument to stand up, your argument was insufficient to begin with.
I already said something about why that may happen. The call was not for favourably peered reviwed creationist research, anyway. Are you also trying to move the goal post as a result of feeling threatened in some way? Would your world fall apart if some creationists could be shown to be knowledeable?
Where has anyone moved the goalposts? Something is either peer reviewed or it isn't, and these papers are not peer reviewed.
That is really sad. Is this what happens when you get old?
Y'know, when other posters accused you of being Newhope I thought they might just be acting cynical, but now I'm not so sure...
Are you unable to read? The articles are on a range of creationist topics.
Please present these two peer reviewed papers, then.
That was just one of them. Get Real. You cannot escape the fact that these guys and gals are not idiots and there are many of them. They most certainly are not ignorant, particularly in their own fields. Many would have credentials better than yours and most here. It is a little up onesself to say you know more than those with higher credentials and expect that to be a lynchpin argument. So unless you have a PHD in everything, you are biting your own hand.
Why do I have to keep repeating myself? Ignorance can be plain old ignorance or willful ignorance - either way, the only people who deny evolution fall into one of those two categories. Every single person you have mentioned so far is either demonstrably ignorant of evolutionary biology, demonstrably ignorant of science in general, unqualified and ignorant in the subject of biology, or just plain willfully ignorant on any and all topics that they believe conflict with their religious ideology. You've done nothing but present wave after wave of self-refuting arguments - creationists who have to be dishonest to get their research peer-reviewed, the fact that creationists have to print their own journals because no reputable scientific journal would print them, and blatant misrepresentation of scientists like Behe who don't even reject common ancestry.
I am not saying their lack of ignorance proves creation.
Where did I accuse you of saying that?
What is up with you? You cannot separate the difference or what? Being ignorant means to not have knowledge about the matter at hand. Well the quoted reseachers have plenty of knowledge about the matter at hand they talk about, and simply are not ignorant, by definition.
Yes, they are. Not a single one of them is a credentialed biologist and every single one of their claims collapses under the slightest scientific scrutiny.
It really does not matter how ignorant any of you want to demonstrate youselves to be. This does not make these creationist researchers ignorant.
You're right. It's their ignorance that makes them ignorant.
I do not have to demonstrate any more than that a few creationists have knowledge and are not ignorant. I have done that already. The 10 thinggy was just placating someone emotionally younger than me, for fun, and learning what creationists have to say.
If you read a single one of those pieces of trash you posted, you would understand why we say all creationists are ignorant.
Your whole post is splitting hairs. For example who cares if Sarfarti's PHD is in physical chemisty?
Evidently, scientists care. Since biology is not his area of expertise, he is in no position to lecture anyone about whether or not the lynchpin of modern biology is valid or not.
He is credentialed in an appropriate discipline of science and produced a peer reviewed paper.
He is not a credentialed scientist in an appropriate discipline with regards to evolution.
Your arguments, from what I know, are not convincing as they are not based on observed evidence. As I said initially, no evolutionist reviewer is going to put ap a favourable review of any paper that hints of creationism.
Because creationism isn't science. If it is, present a single test of creation science ever conducted.
I have even supplied a link that demonstrated research that was accepted and then withdrawn when creationism was spotted in it...GO BIAS!
Or, GO ACADEMIC HONESTY! The paper was dishonestly written by a non-biologist and a non-credentialed scientist. That's not bias any more than discovering flat earth research in a paper then rejecting it is bias. It's just good science cutting out fake science.
So if you do not have a PHD in physical chemistry you likewise are no less ignorant then Sarfarti. Is that what you are trying to allude to and trip yourself over?
I haven't the faintest clue about physical chemistry, and I am more than happy to defer to Sarfarti's opinion with regards to any issue on that subject. I am not, however, going to defer to him on matters of evolutionary biology, for which I will take the words of an actual biologist. It's the same reason I wouldn't call a baker to come and fix my car.
Indeed you can demonstrate your bias for as long as you wish. The fact that it is unfounded, based on a gross exaggeration and unreasonable reasoningings, really points the finger to whom the ignorant ones truly are. If I was a creationist, I would hang here for that reason. The ones that do have guts.
All you've done is show up creationist dishonesty, their underhand tactics, ignorance and misrepresentation of the facts. With friends like you, creationists don't need any of us to show them up for what they are.
There researchers I quoted are smart enough, educated enough, sufficiently credentialed in an appropriate science
LIE.
They are not credentialed in any science appropriate to discuss the subject of evolution.
enough to understand proposed facts. Not accespting them and being to articulate why they they do not accept them is a different thing and does not mean these creationists have not looked at all the evidence, not that they do mnot understand it. I suppose every one here is an expert in every field of evolutionary science in their lunch break.
You really don't get it, do you? Your argument basically boils down to "they are smart, therefore they must not be ignorant". Well, guess what? They clearly are - because they're creationists. You can obtain degrees that show you are versed in a particular discipline, but that doesn't suddenly exempt everything you say on any subject from being ignorance. You prove your lack of ignorance through your words and research, and these men have not done that. They have proven themselves well respected in their specific disciplines, but in the field of evolutionary biology they are not only underqualified but woefully ignorant.
Are you also an expert geologist? Is Tumbleweed or Skwim experts in everything? This link talks about Christian geologists that were quite influential at the GSA meeting and they have also have provided peer reviewed papers. Have you?.
Christian Geologists Influential at GSA Meeting
Oh look, another creationist website!
And you accuse
us of bias? Remove the log from your eye.
