The self correcting peer review process? What does that have to do with anything? Other than the fact that claims require robust evidence in order to pass peer review.
Kinda proving the point there actually, that it is the very nature of science and the lack of viable data, not these "secular scientist" bogey men that prevent publishing.
.
Oh... and sediba? Been just might be cherry picking the data and coming to a premature conclusion:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/debate-flares-over-identity-of-celebrated-human-fossils/
Then what is Science?
https://youtu.be/Gsrd3y0YooI
We have our own peer-reviewed Science papers too.
http://creation.mobi/journal-of-creation
"Started in 1984, Journal of Creation brings you in-depth, peer-reviewed comment, reviews and the latest research findings that relate to origins and the biblical account of Creation, the Flood and the Fall."
10:00 of this clip:
https://youtu.be/8FKKw74DWo0
"Multiple scientific works have been rejected by peer-reviewed journals only for the researchers to carry on and win the Nobel prize."
Actually, fun fact, no one can prove evolution either! Both Inteligent Design Theory and Evolution Theory are just that. Theories! To prove something happened, it must be repeatable, observable, and there can be no other possible explination.
Okay but what exactly is a theory in your definition? Because yes, you can't prove evolution, but a theory isn't like a hypothesis. It's not a prediction or a guess. It's an idea formulated due to support by an acceptable of evidence by the scientific community. Ie. Gravitational Theory is a theory, yes, but there is evidence supporting it like the fact that if you drop an apple it will in fact fall on the ground.
*acceptable amount of evidence (sorry for the typo)
2
deleted
· 8 years ago
Actually, the evolution theory was first made when Darwin saw that the beaks of several species of finches were different based on their environments. The birds were all similar, but their beaks were different based on the food sources on their respective islands. Also, the bone structure of many animals is another form of proof. Many animals have a limb bone structure which starts with one bone, then two bones, then many bones. This is present in humans, birds, cows and even whales. Just search for 'vestigial structure' on Google images and scroll down and you will see proof. These are two examples of proof for evolution, and just googling 'evolution evidence' will give you a lot more examples. ID theory has less, and much less stable proofs, and evolution has evidence that can be found in lifeforms everywhere. So, to sum up, evolution IS provable, and already has been. Thanks!
-StrangelyAcoustic
Actually, Darwins finches are proof of natural selection. The beaks of those birds change back and fourth through generations. Different beaks are better for getting different foods. When a certain type of food is more available (I.e. Nuts with hard shells) the beaks of the birds are all fatter and better equipped for nut cracking
4
deleted
· 8 years ago
Natural selection and evolution are very closely intertwined and at this stage are pretty much are immediately thought of when the other is brought up. And it's the same basic concept. All I wanted to say is that there is proof for evolution. Thanks for reading!
As a Young Earth Creationist, I do believe in 'micro-evolution', changes inside the kind of animal (eg the finches' beaks), but I do not believe in macro-evolution, one type of animal changing into another (eg dinosaurs to birds). The finches are still finches, just with different characteristics.
When we talk about Evolution, Macro-evolution is what we are referring to, and it is not observable, nor testable, nor repeatable as it would take far too long a timeframe (millions of years) to actually do so.
Also, if you search for 'Wazooloo' on YouTube, there are many more 'scientific' reasons why Evolution is not true.
https://youtu.be/fQ_h-S7IuaM https://youtu.be/vuLlRYTqzAAhttps://youtu.be/_cwvo2orlk8
Kinda proving the point there actually, that it is the very nature of science and the lack of viable data, not these "secular scientist" bogey men that prevent publishing.
.
Oh... and sediba? Been just might be cherry picking the data and coming to a premature conclusion:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/debate-flares-over-identity-of-celebrated-human-fossils/
https://youtu.be/Gsrd3y0YooI
We have our own peer-reviewed Science papers too.
http://creation.mobi/journal-of-creation
"Started in 1984, Journal of Creation brings you in-depth, peer-reviewed comment, reviews and the latest research findings that relate to origins and the biblical account of Creation, the Flood and the Fall."
https://youtu.be/8FKKw74DWo0
"Multiple scientific works have been rejected by peer-reviewed journals only for the researchers to carry on and win the Nobel prize."
.
I smell a shitstorm in the comments.
-StrangelyAcoustic
When we talk about Evolution, Macro-evolution is what we are referring to, and it is not observable, nor testable, nor repeatable as it would take far too long a timeframe (millions of years) to actually do so.
Also, if you search for 'Wazooloo' on YouTube, there are many more 'scientific' reasons why Evolution is not true.
https://youtu.be/fQ_h-S7IuaM
https://youtu.be/vuLlRYTqzAA https://youtu.be/_cwvo2orlk8