DrNoGods wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 3:39 pm
[
Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #29]
Right so like I said already you don't know!
And neither do you apparently, even though you suggested those two journals as a comparison to a creationist "journal." Do your homework next time.
I'm not the one pretending to know what peer review means.
DrNoGods wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 3:39 pm
This is no different to arguing that The American Journal of physics is biased toward physics, a frankly cringeworthy, embarrassing position to take.
It is not at all the same. Physics has not been thoroughly debunked, whereas a young earth and the reality of Noah's flood have. Claiming physics has been debunked as you just did (see how two can play the strawman building game?) is indeed an embarrassing position to take.
Right I know your opinion on some variants of creationism, but the question was is
The American Journal of physics is biased toward physics, well, is it or isn't it?
DrNoGods wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 3:39 pm
Well you surely investigated the The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism in order to claim it is not really peer reviewed, yet can't do the same for these other magazines? You say also "am not going to contact them and ask" yet did not contact the The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism adding even more doubt to your claimed objectivity.
No ...
you are the one who brought up PICC in the first place, and it is
you who have claimed repeatedly that they are a bona-fide, peer-reviewed scientific journal. Go back and read your own posts.
Well yes I did, I presented a paper by two scientists that discuss bacteria, you then reacted by claiming (without proof) that despite the writers being certificated doctorates and despite the magazine having a formal peer review process that it was in fact not a peer reviewed paper. Yet when asked several times now you can't even tell me of two other publications are peer reviewed either!
We both know what's going here, you are afraid. If you say
they are not then you'll look foolish because they are and if you say
they are you'll look foolish because their process is no different to PICC.
That's what happens to you when you carelessly debate with me.
DrNoGods wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 3:39 pm
Now you say that this doesn't matter? is that because you don't really want to talk about this any more?
What is "this"? You continue to make up stuff and attribute your random reinterpretations it to me.
I mean "this" you know, your inability to answer basic questions about peer review, your apparent prejudice toward creationists.
DrNoGods wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 3:39 pm
You're all over the place!
Only because of your incessant word twisting, strawman building and goal post moving as you continuously dodge questions and reinterpret what people say, then present these warped revisions as a basis for some point you want to make. It has gotten old and boring, but at least you're consistent.
Don't blame me buster if you've failed to make a solid case.
So typical, atheists and evolution devotees often shout "but that's not been peer reviewed" when scientific material is presented questioning aspects of the evolution doctrine, and when a peer reviewed article is presented we hear "but that's not how peer review works"!
I understand though now, peer review to you means a review by people who consider evolution an unquestionable fact, that's really it isn't it? Unless the paper meets with the approval of evolutionists it isn't a real, scientific paper!
Unless a paper that questions evolution does not question evolution, it can't be real science!