Ninevite Posted August 20, 2013 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 127 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 14 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/14/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/02/1980 Share Posted August 20, 2013 I assume you can back up this assertion. It's right here in this thread. I also addressed that This doesn't help, Gerald. I want to see where you have spoken to every creationist who has ever not submitted work and told you all about not submitting it. You must be getting your information from somewhere, right? So where is the site that says, creationists never submit work? Links back to your own posts are self aggrandizing and useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkNigro Posted August 20, 2013 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 12 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 428 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 61 Days Won: 3 Joined: 07/10/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted August 20, 2013 I assume you can back up this assertion. It's right here in this thread. I also addressed that This doesn't help, Gerald. I want to see where you have spoken to every creationist who has ever not submitted work and told you all about not submitting it. You must be getting your information from somewhere, right? So where is the site that says, creationists never submit work? Links back to your own posts are self aggrandizing and useless. There is a book by Robert Gentry. It is called "Creation's Tiny Mystery". It documents his encounter with censorship in publications. He claims direct evidence of an instantaneous creation of the Earth and the world wide flood. I read it a number of years ago. It is good to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ninevite Posted August 20, 2013 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 127 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 14 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/14/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/02/1980 Share Posted August 20, 2013 (edited) Thank you, Mark. This is helpful... http://www.orionfdn.org/documents/index.htm And interestingly: Dear Dr. Press: The February 1987 issue of Physics Today (p. 66) mentions the National Academy of Sciences as one organization which is opposed to the Louisiana creation-science law, now being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Doubtless you already knew this because the booklet written by you and others, Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences (National Academy Press, 1984) is quoted in the Physics Today report as follows: ..."It is, therefore, our unequivocal conclusion that creationism, with its account of the origin of life by supernatural means, is not science. It subordinates evidence to statements based on authority and revelation. Its documentation is almost entirely limited to the special publications of its advocates. And its central hypothesis is not subject to change in light of new data or demonstration of error. Moreover, when the evidence for creationism has been subjected to the tests of the scientific method, it has been found invalid..." Edited August 20, 2013 by Ninevite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ninevite Posted August 20, 2013 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 127 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 14 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/14/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/02/1980 Share Posted August 20, 2013 (edited) For anyone interested in reading Gentry's book, mentioned above, here is a link: http://www.halos.com/book/ctm-toc.htm From chapter six: "The financial support for this research is a story in itself. During my tenure as a guest scientist at ORNL, my salary was provided from grant funds obtained through my affiliation with Columbia Union College. Through the early 1970's these funds came from private sources and the National Science Foundation to cover that expense. The National Science Foundation (NSF) is the government agency entrusted with allocating hundreds of millions annually for research in the scientific disciplines. Like all government agencies, it is publicly funded and legally obligated to disperse those monies impartially. In theory, taxpayers' money should be dispensed without preference for particular views or discrimination against alternative theories." http://www.halos.com/book/ctm-06-a.htm Edited August 20, 2013 by Ninevite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ninevite Posted August 20, 2013 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 127 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 14 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/14/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/02/1980 Share Posted August 20, 2013 I found this interesting. Note that he planned to submit this paper if his password was restored. Who needs to waste time with rejection letters when you can simply lock the creationist out and not allow him to submit in the first place? http://www.orionfdn.org/papers/predicts-enhanced-galaxy-brightness.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ninevite Posted August 22, 2013 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 127 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 14 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/14/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/02/1980 Share Posted August 22, 2013 So, I want to ask you, are creationist organisations not trying to get their discussions into the scientific community? If so, why? No, they're not. If they were, they would actually have a manuscript and a pile of rejection letters. But as we can see, some creationists apparently blame the scientific community for not accepting something that's never been submitted to them. Bizarre. Do you still maintain that these creationists are not submitting their work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ninevite Posted August 22, 2013 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 127 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 14 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/14/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/02/1980 Share Posted August 22, 2013 (edited) This is quite simple. Creationists are accusing the scientific community of conspiring against them and censoring valid scientific information that would overturn evolutionary theory. That is a positive claim, and as such requires positive evidence to back it up. Therefore, the burden of proof rests on the creationists to demonstrate this conspiracy. If such evidence isn't produced, then there's no evidentiary reason to accept their accusations as true. It's not a conspiracy. I never said it was. It is flat out discrimination. I think this is ought to be a well known fact by now. Arguing that it's my responsibility to disprove creationists' accusation is the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. You made the claim that creationists do NOT submit their work. I asked you to prove that claim. I don't see why it matters to you if they submit or not. If they don't, they are liars, if they do, their work is NOT science. You are unquestionably guilty of the discrimination I mentioned above. Furthermore, I cited examples for proof that the discrimination claim is valid. So I did not fully shift the burden, I asked you to share it with me. "It is, therefore, our unequivocal conclusion that creationism, with its account of the origin of life by supernatural means, is not science. It subordinates evidence to statements based on authority and revelation. Its documentation is almost entirely limited to the special publications of its advocates. And its central hypothesis is not subject to change in light of new data or demonstration of error. Moreover, when the evidence for creationism has been subjected to the tests of the scientific method, it has been found invalid..." Which part of the above is incorrect? Remember, evidence of a conspiracy isn't creationists being rejected for publication; scientists get their manuscripts rejected all the time. Evidence of a conspiracy against creationists would be rejection letters that are arbitrary. Your discrimination is showing. Edited August 22, 2013 by Ninevite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkNigro Posted August 23, 2013 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 12 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 428 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 61 Days Won: 3 Joined: 07/10/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted August 23, 2013 Robert Gentry wrote Creation's Tiny Mystery. That does show the censorship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ninevite Posted August 23, 2013 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 127 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 14 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/14/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/02/1980 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Robert Gentry wrote Creation's Tiny Mystery. That does show the censorship. It certainly does. Even the laziest of investigators will discover the discrimination based only on the links I provided. Robert Gentry has been involved in court battles over this sort of thing for many years. Some people just don't want to see the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ninevite Posted August 23, 2013 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 127 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 14 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/14/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/02/1980 Share Posted August 23, 2013 They are claiming to have valid scientific work that conclusively disproves the theory of evolution. The importance of such a thing cannot be overstated. If they have such a manuscript but aren't sharing it with the scientific community, I would like to see it and help them get it published. If they have submitted it and it's been arbitrarily rejected, I would like to publicize this so that the truth can be told. Lol. I'm sure you would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.7803ec9e3f1e9eeba0a93e6ebdacb0e3.jpg)
Recommended Posts