What is peer review?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Often when debating atheism or questioning the evolution doctrine, the supporters of evolution will reject arguments against it made by scientists because they insist that only "peer reviewed" publications are to be trusted (else it must be pseudo science).

So I want to ask how does one decide whether a journal is or is not peer reviewed? what definition do people use to help them make this decision?

[Eloi]

Well, I can show you a couple of examples where atheists and evolutionists can be very stupid ...

[Jose Fly]

Well, I can show you a couple of examples where atheists and evolutionists can be very stupid ...

You're deflecting. The fact remains, creationism articles are not suitable for publication in scientific journals because they invoke the supernatural and/or miracles to explain things, which violates a fundamental standard of science (explanations must be testable). That's why creationists started their own journals and don't publish their creationism articles in scientific journals.

[Eloi]

Well, I can show you a couple of examples where atheists and evolutionists can be very stupid ...

You're deflecting. The fact remains, creationism articles are not suitable for publication in scientific journals because they invoke the supernatural and/or miracles to explain things, which violates a fundamental standard of science (explanations must be testable). That's why creationists started their own journals and don't publish their creationism articles in scientific journals.

"Creationist articles" can be about anything ... You obviously have a very serious prejudice.
I think that if creationists created their own magazines, it was precisely because of the discrimination they have been subjected to by people like you. It seems to me a very natural reaction to this human system of things ...

[Jose Fly]

"Creationist articles" can be about anything

Not really. For example, "Answers in Genesis" has a rule that they will reject anything that contradicts their reading of the Bible.

You obviously have a very serious prejudice.

Well I'd ask how that is so, but your behavior today suggests that you won't answer. How about you surprise me and actually engage in a discussion?

[Eloi]

"Creationist articles" can be about anything

Not really. For example, "Answers in Genesis" has a rule that they will reject anything that contradicts their reading of the Bible.

You obviously have a very serious prejudice.

Well I'd ask how that is so, but your behavior today suggests that you won't answer. How about you surprise me and actually engage in a discussion?

Answer what? I do not see any serious question to answer with my opinion ... And, do you care what I think?

My posts say already what I think. I am not here to change the world ... The Kingdom of God will.

[Jose Fly]

Answer what? I do not see any serious question to answer with my opinion

How I am prejudiced.

And, do you care what I think?

Overall, no. But this is a debate forum, so the understanding here is that people will defend the claims they make when challenged.

My posts say already what I think. I am not here to change the world ... The Kingdom of God will.

So you're not really here to debate as much as you're here to preach.

[Eloi]

Answer what? I do not see any serious question to answer with my opinion

How I am prejudiced.

Because you think that everything that any believer in general can say is afected by his beliefs some way ... The truth is like I am fund of Maths and can do a lot of aportations to it being a believer, others can in any other field.

And, do you care what I think?

Overall, no. But this is a debate forum, so the understanding here is that people will defend the claims they make when challenged.

I value a lot my time. There are dialogs in which I won't loose it for nothing. Tell me why is important to answer all your questions and maybe I'll consider to do it.

My posts say already what I think. I am not here to change the world ... The Kingdom of God will.

So you're not really here to debate as much as you're here to preach.

So are you ... just to preach a diferent thing: the kingdom of those peer-reviewers. You are not gods.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Well, I can show you a couple of examples where atheists and evolutionists can be very stupid ...

You're deflecting. The fact remains, creationism articles are not suitable for publication in scientific journals because they invoke the supernatural and/or miracles to explain things, which violates a fundamental standard of science (explanations must be testable). That's why creationists started their own journals and don't publish their creationism articles in scientific journals.

Only a theory is expected to be testable, not an article or hypothesis or speculative opinion.

Furthermore can you define what "scientific journal" is for me?

Since the Big Bang is a hypothesis, would any magazine with an article or discussion of it, not qualify in your opinion, as scientific journal?

[Jose Fly]

Because you think that everything that any believer in general can say is afected by his beliefs some way

Nope, I don't think that at all. For example, I don't think a religious IT person at my work makes IT decisions based on their beliefs.

Tell me why is important to answer all your questions and maybe I'll consider to do it.

Again, this is specifically a debate forum. If you cannot grasp the link between answering questions and debate, I can't help you.

So are you ... just to preach a diferent thing: the kingdom of those peer-reviewers. You are not gods.

No, I'm here to debate. But at least you admit that your purpose here is to preach, so again...I appreciate your honesty.

[JoeyKnothead]

I am fond of mathematics. I worked for a long time on an algorithm to determine if a large number is a multiple of a large prime... Sure, there are many algorithms which do that already out there, but the one I created was novel in several respects. One day I posted it on a site dedicated to algorithms and stuff... A forum participant questioned the value of the algorithm I had created; what he told me was: how can your algorithm be better than the ones we already have?

I think that this elitist attitude and behavior is simply a hindrance to the development of human knowledge. The truth is that thousands of scientific discoveries throughout all time have been made by people who are not part of any world elite.

So lets see this algorithm, that we might determine if it's as novel as you propose.

It'd be a shame if others thought it was you being the elitist.