[[—They do - but journals are for articles with something new to say,]]
Really? Because I see scientific journals rehashing the same old tied out crap over and over again- guess the ‘new’ only applies to ID proponents eh?
[[which this article didn’t. (And even if it DID have something new]]
Which is it- did it or didn’t it? As well, making an argument against Macroevolution, and in favor of ID doesn’t necessarily require ‘new material’ as the disciplines you and I both pointed out have plenty of powerful arguments agaisnt Macroevolution despite your claim to the contrary- individually they are powerful, but taken together, even more so- making the odds against Macroevolution happening simply overwhelming, and biologically, mathematically, chemically impossible, not to mentio nthe fact that macroeovlution violates basic scientific principles- I can’t help it IF the ‘vast majority’ of scientists ignore these powerful arguments against macroevolution- the fact is that they ARE devestatign to macroevolution- regarldess of hte unscientific and unrealistic denials of scientists who put all their FAITH in a hypothesis based simply on a priori belief
“Really? Because I see scientific journals rehashing the same old tied out crap over and over again- guess the ‘new’ only applies to ID proponents eh?”
—A journal may print new research backing an old idea, or a new idea based on old research, but not being sufficiently new is one of the common reasons for an article to be rejected.
“Which is it- did it or didn’t it?”
—It didn’t. (For the third time now). But if it did (rhetorically - does that help?) it was the wrong journal for such an article.
“I can’t help it IF the ‘vast majority’ of scientists ignore these powerful arguments against macroevolution”
—Are the vast majority of the world’s scientists ignoring “basic scientific principles”... or do the scientists know something you don’t? Must be one or the other... I wonder which is more likely. hmm