To: tpanther
How would you determine if it's NOT "anti-evolution" if it's not from a creationsist, say if it was this so called "peer review of evolution" I continue to hear about, and how do you tell the difference?
Also, if a paper was submitted by a creationist or an evolutionist, how would you tell the difference between "peer review", vs. "anti-evolution", if there were no name attached to the paper and it was submitted anonymously?
Lastly, is a creation scientist "allowed" to "peer review" evolution, or is it always labeled "anti-evolution", and does this work in reverse?
Because I keep hearing, even by you on this very thread today, about creation scientists submitting their ID papers for this so-called "peer review"...is this paper up for peer review among only the creation scientists or only evolution scientists or both; or is it ALWAYS and forever to be labeled as "anti-creation science" when it is "peer reviewed" by evolution scientists and "peer review" when reviewed by creation scientists?
Say what? Answers to your questions are readily available to you online. You have much to learn regarding the process of getting a real paper published in a real journal.
To: whattajoke; tpanther
You have much to learn regarding the process of getting a real paper published in a real journal. Any paper dealing with creation or ID will never be accepted for peer review because of the very mentality you are displaying.
Anything that doesn't tow the hardline evo position is by default dismissed as not *real* science and not even given any consideration.
This is another example of evos demanding the impossible by setting up conditions that they know no one can meet and then deriding those who can't meet them for their failure.
Talk about intellectually dishonest.
106 posted on
02/19/2009 5:26:07 PM PST by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: whattajoke
Say what? Answers to your questions are readily available to you online. You have much to learn regarding the process of getting a real paper published in a real journal.
Thanks for once again displaying you're unable to adequately explain your untenable positions, aptly named whattajoke.
161 posted on
02/19/2009 8:11:19 PM PST by
tpanther
(The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson