Talk:Creation science/Archive 13

message: by Mike Martin, Former State Legislator
If there are scientific discoveries that back claims of a world-wide catastrophic flood taking place in history, should that evidence be excluded from students because it also backs the story of Noah's flood?   NASA scientists were so convinced that the moon and earth were of the same age that they designed the first lunar lander's legs to be six feet longer than needed. There was no doubt at the time that solar dust would be ten feet deep.  When it ended up being only six inches, did they rewrite theories of the age of the moon?  No, they changed the theory by saying that solar dust has only been falling for the past twenty thousand years rather than 3.5 billion.  What froze the mastodons so quickly that they were found standing up with buttercups still in their mouths?  The vapor canopy theory explains such mysteries quiet well; however, evolutionists will not allow the theory because it clashes with too much of their stuff.  According to them, the ice age came slowly.
There are thousands of theories taught in our public schools as "facts of science" when they are only guesses made by so called, educated people.  When a God-believing educated person creates a theory on scientific finds that lends credibility to something mentioned in the Bible, he is a nut.  The author of this Wikipedia article managed to get that across in his biased definitions of what Creation Science is and is not. "The science of evolution" is wrongfully defined. It should be called, "the religion of evolution". To accept most of the theories derived by evolutionists, you have to take each by faith.  To accept any, you have to believe by faith that the earth is billions of years old without any scientific proof what-so-ever.  I believe the "Creation Scientists" rely more on science than the evolutionists.  At least they do not try to censor the other side.  
Note:  If you don't believe me, look into the history of this discussion page and see how many times the author and his buddies attempt to delete my comments.  For crying out loud, I'm not editing the biased article.  I'm just back here in the discussion page where no one goes.  I even had the balls to put my name on this.  I'm retired with lots of time on my hands.  I will simply keep undoing their censorship.  What they are doing is called "Secular Humanism", and it is taking over this country.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.112.62.246 (talk • contribs).
:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum. If you want to improve the article, you're welcome, but at least for now, "creation science" is considered by scientists to be pseudoscience. If you want to change that, you're at the wrong place. Also, there's at least two wiki for people who don't care about objectivity; Creation Wiki and Conservapedia. -PhDP (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Creation science article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Removal of material judged to be inappropriate is not at attempt to "supress the truth" - nothing so sinister. It sounds from what you've written as though you'd like it over at Talk.Origins - they just love discussing frozen mastodons there. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 23:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Better to leave it up. If we remove it, he'll just keep readding it until he gets blocked, resulting in a waste of everyone's time. Let's just leave it up to let its inanity speak for itself, and then conveniently skip over this section when this page is archived. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 12:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have my doubts if this is by the person above who claims to have written it, although the IP address is from Austin Texas. I cannot imagine that this person would brag about his identity and even link his name to a pretty uncomplimentary article about himself. If he was to edit here, I would suspect he would edit his own article.--Filll 13:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it matter if he's a faux-sleazebag or the genuine article? Either way, you'd need to use a micrometer to measure his reputation. Hrafn42 15:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apply Common Sense 

message: :There seems to be a complete confusion about what peer review is here. 
:*First, if something is to be published in a peer-reviewed history journal, the reviewers with be professionally recognized historians. If something is to be published in a peer-reviewed linguistics journal, the reviewers will be professionally recognized linguists. If the journal is a peer-reviewed medical journal, the reviewers will be recognized experts in medicine. And if the journal is a peer-reviewed science journal, the reviewers will be scientists. Since creation science is NOT science, anyone who claims to be a "creation scientist" is not a recognized expert by the scientific community, and would be unsuitable for reviewing something that is supposed to be science.
:*Typically you do not get to choose who your reviewers will be in peer-review. You do not get to personally choose the reviewers of your own articles.
:*Not only must the reviewers be in a recognized field by the overall academic community, but they will be reviewers specializing in the same area your article is in. Which might not be your exact specialty. You might get a mainstream biology textbook author and a National Academy member with expertise in evolution and a junior biology faculty member as reviewers of an article claiming that evolution is wrong. You have to convince them ALL you are correct to get your article is published.
:*Typically people are chosen who oppose your views, or are your adversaries/competitors, and also recognized experts in the same field. This means that someone who claims to have found a flaw in radioactive dating techniques, for example, would have a reviewer who is a world expert in scientific radioactive dating techniques and who has often expressed the view that such flaws are spurious. 
:*There are good reviewed journals, and bad. If a journal starts to always get easy softball reviewers, its reputation will go down and no one will want to publish anything of quality in that journal, because it will be meaningless to pass review in such a journal. 
:*A proper peer-review can mean that articles take a few months to write, and maybe a year or two or more to get through review. If ever. 
:*Most articles sent to properly peer-reviewed journals are rejected. 
:*Even good peer-reviewed journals publish some bad things, sometimes. To really count, people have to confirm it, and it has to be heavily cited by other peer-reviewed articles in high quality high reputation journals, over a long period of time. 
:*Some articles have 3 reviewers per article. Some have 5. Some have more. It can be a brutal, gruelling process. 
:*Just claiming your journal is peer-reviewed does not really mean that the academic community accepts it as "peer-reviewed". A journal will gain a reputation over time based on its quality of articles and what others in the academic community think of it. If the general community of scientists do not think a journal is peer-reviewed or produces high quality scientific articles, then it is not treated seriously by the scientific community. You cannot self-proclaim a book like "Explore Evolution" or "Origins" to be peer-reviewed. That is up to the community, not up to the authors or creationists etc. That is up to the science community at large. And if they do not think it is peer-reviewed, it does not matter what you personally claim.
:Is this clearer? --Filll 13:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your effort, though a link to a definition would have sufficed. rossnixon 01:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What is peer review?

message: Please note that  this page is for discussing improvements to the article itself, not for  soapbox speeches on the article's subject. The material removed here did not suggest improvements. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 14:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even harsher than I would have been. But admittedly funny. Unfortunately, no WP:V and WP:RS sources for his assertions. --Filll 14:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Typical censorship by biased Wiki editors.  Let all the anti-creationists garbage in the discussion page, but crop out reasonable discussion from the other side.  I used to think Wiki was a great creation until I found out how they take sides on controversial subjects like creation science.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.32.58 (talk) 12:41, August 30, 2007 (UTC) 
In the articles WP takes sides. Both sides, usually in proportion to how the community of which the article is part of is divided. It is part of WP:UNDUE. These talk pages are not for soap box arguments or proselytizing. There are many other places on the internet for that.--Filll 12:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Definition of a Scientist" - unsuitable material removed