Comments on: Answers Research Journal is full of bogus

By: ABP

ABP — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:29:00 +0000

1) The author of this blog is not a he, but a she.

2) I have not made the idiotic mistake of criticizing a history journal for failing to be a science journal. Rather, I am criticizing a load of crap for claiming to be a science journal when it is just a load of crap.

3) Although we disagree on much, I really like your user name. Do you use it elsewhere?

By: Commentman

Commentman — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 06:08:57 +0000

The microbe journal is not science? Since when does a journal have to be about science? As far as I know one can write a research journal on the life of Frederick Douglass and it will remain a research journal. I just went to that site and I have to say, just because they are doing research does not mean it has to be restricted to the sciences. In this case it just so happens to be scientific theology.

One more thing, it wouldn’t hurt this author to doubt for a moment his own infallibilty and to be open-minded(I.E. thinkevolution….come on). After all, being unbaised is the basis of science and that is one thing he certainly is not.

By: Dirk

Dirk — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 20:50:50 +0000

I went to ARJ and read the story about microbial creation. Even though this is a “research” journal the article didn’t contain any research. It just stated what others had said WITH OUT any evidence supporting what they had said in the past. The Bible that I read said 6 days for creation and then He said it was good, which I feel meant that He was done creating, but the article goes on to say that creation of Viruses may have occurred after the curse… Day 8 of creation? Or is God not the only one with the power to give the spark of life (as Ezekiel found out).

The article doesn’t make a darn bit of sense from either the scripture or science.

By: ABP

ABP — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 16:29:07 +0000

I'm not familiar with AiG's book or DVD demonstrating that not all creationists arguments are valid. I suppose that effort could be called "extremely honest," but those words imply that promotion of a consistent (presumably truthful) creationist story is not AiG's default position. Science rejects problematic hypotheses and conclusions all the time. (You don't hear anyone arguing about evolution by acquired characteristics just to battle the creationists, do you?) I'm not impressed that a creation story might be internally consistent. And ARJ does not ask questions. The journal's mission statement states up front that they will publish "cutting-edge research that demonstrates the validity of the young-earth model... and other evidences that are consistent with the biblical account of origins." They're declaring up front which answers they want. Not scientific!

By: Pete Hodge

Pete Hodge — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 10:52:24 +0000

What needs to be pointed out here is that Answers in Genesis asks questions. Isn’t that the idea behind scientific investgation. Apparently not so if you dont accept the current hysterical trend of Darwinists, who hate any thought of anyone disagreeing with their pet theory.

AnswerinGenesis have actually published a book and DVD in which they discuss some of the popular arguments that have been used as ‘proofs’ of creation and state that they should not be used, as they are not scientifically ‘viable.’

I would have thought that was being extremely honest. But that is not good enoughfor the ‘worshippers’ at the altar of Darwinism.