Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Huh? Shot into the upper atmosphere by fire and exploding gases?
Ah yes; the "final solution!" God blasted them around the world. "Hang on, Fred; this is going to be one hell of a ride!" said the kangaroo.
Amongst those highly overheated, toxic fumes, sent to > 15 - 20,000 feet elevation, where there's not enough Oxygen, for a, say, twelve hour "flight" from Ararat to Peru. Oh, and why, then, is the Ark (supposedly) still there? Was it made of fireproof, explosion-proof "unobtanium". Let's see....
Nope. It was made from gopherwood (???) and pitch. Not likely very fire- and brimstone-proof, eh?
It's never-ending, the efforts at fantasy make-believe to overcome the uncountable logical flaws.
Frankly, folks, abandon those nut-ball concepts. It either never happened (Yey!!!) or it was done by Godly Magic. Evaluations based on logic will always conclude that it simply didn't or couldn't ever happen.
Answers in Genesis, the folks who brought us the Creation Museum, just launched a “professional, peer-reviewed technical journal.
VIII. Paper Review Process
The following criteria will be used in judging papers:
1. Is the paper’s topic important to the development of the Creation and Flood model?
2. Does the paper’s topic provide an original contribution to the Creation and Flood model?
3. Is this paper formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework?
4. If the paper discusses claimed evidence for an old earth and/or universe, does this paper offer a very constructively positive criticism and provide a possible young-earth, young-universe alternative?
5. If the paper is polemical in nature, does it deal with a topic rarely discussed within the origins debate?
6. Does this paper provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatical-historical/normative interpretation of Scripture?
Remark: The editor-in-chief will not be afraid to reject a paper if it does not properly satisfy the above criteria or it conflicts with the best interests of AiG as judged by its biblical stand and goals outlined in its statement of faith.
Contrast the criteria above with the guidelines for peer review at highly-respected journals like Science (where the rules begin with “reviews should be objective evaluations of the research,”) or Nature (where the first priority for a paper is that it “provides strong evidence for its conclusions”).
Answers in Genesis, the folks who brought us the Creation Museum, just launched a “professional, peer-reviewed technical journal.
VIII. Paper Review Process
The following criteria will be used in judging papers:
1. Is the paper’s topic important to the development of the Creation and Flood model?
2. Does the paper’s topic provide an original contribution to the Creation and Flood model?
3. Is this paper formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework?
4. If the paper discusses claimed evidence for an old earth and/or universe, does this paper offer a very constructively positive criticism and provide a possible young-earth, young-universe alternative?
5. If the paper is polemical in nature, does it deal with a topic rarely discussed within the origins debate?
6. Does this paper provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatical-historical/normative interpretation of Scripture?
Remark: The editor-in-chief will not be afraid to reject a paper if it does not properly satisfy the above criteria or it conflicts with the best interests of AiG as judged by its biblical stand and goals outlined in its statement of faith.
Contrast the criteria above with the guidelines for peer review at highly-respected journals like Science (where the rules begin with “reviews should be objective evaluations of the research,”) or Nature (where the first priority for a paper is that it “provides strong evidence for its conclusions”).
You must recognize the type, Antlered . . . you know . . . . "kick the cat" . . . "pull wings off flies" . . . they entertain themselves and assuage their inferiorities and insecurities by picking on weak, easy targets . . . especially the annoying ones.
You must recognize the type, Antlered . . . you know . . . . "kick the cat" . . . "pull wings off flies" . . . they entertain themselves and assuage their inferiorities and insecurities by picking on weak, easy targets . . . especially the annoying ones.
Oooh, you mean like yourself.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Huh? Shot into the upper atmosphere by fire and exploding gases?
