Evolution help!

[Sideline]

It’s good to know that scientific journals publish peer-reviewed papers by scientists that they consider to be “laughing stocks”.

That says quite a lot about the science establishment and the meaning of “peer review”.

Yes, it does say a lot doesn’t it. It says, that who you are isn’t important. It says that what they think of you isn’t important. It says it’s not a popularity contest or a select club that gets to play.

It says if you do good science, you can get published. If you don’t do good science you won’t get published.

By the way – what are your scientific credentials?

What are yours?

 

[Sideline]

Free will - we can still choose to deny the truth. The Jews choose to deny Christ. They do not deny all Revelation. They just deny parts, as we do now too.

We can deny Genesis. The question is, should we?

Because when it comes to science it’s wrong.

If you can prove that it actually explains everything we see in nature better than the scientific discoveries of the past 150 years, then I’d be happy to see how.

But then the next question… why did God allow us to misunderstand it?

 

[buffalo]

Because when it comes to science it’s wrong.

If you can prove that it actually explains everything we see in nature better than the scientific discoveries of the past 150 years, then I’d be happy to see how.

But then the next question… why did God allow us to misunderstand it?

So your position is we should deny Genesis because it’s wrong. Then your position is it’s not true Revelation.

Individuals and groups can deny truth.

I like the constant teaching of the Catholic Church protected by the Holy Spirit. The Church is the Body of Christ and is comprised of many members working through time to understand the truth. Catholic teaching must be in communion with the Pope and Bishops. It’s a great system and I like it.:tiphat:I wonder who thought it up?

 

[reggieM]

Yes, it does say a lot doesn’t it. It says, that who you are isn’t important. It says that what they think of you isn’t important. It says it’s not a popularity contest or a select club that gets to play.

No, it says that some scientists who publish in peer-reviewed journals are actually “laughing stocks” due to their incompetence.

It says if you do good science, you can get published. If you don’t do good science you won’t get published.

If you do good science, you get published. Behe got published. Therefore, he does good science. Your claim that he is a “laughing stock” in the scientific community is false.

As I suspected, you have no credentials in science. You’ve published no peer-reviewed papers, you’re not a molecular biologist and can show no professional competence in this field. Michael Behe, on the other hand, has demonstrated expertise and qualification in the field of biology.

So, you’re judging things on the basis of your own opinion and we can easily see what that is worth.