Is a peer-reviewed study in a scientific journal more trustworthy than Ken Hovind's or Richard Dawkins' research?
Why?
2007-11-26 03:43:38 · 13 answers · asked by Eleventy 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Should Answers in Genesis be taken less seriously than Talk.Origins?
2007-11-26 03:47:07 · update #1
A reliable source can be verified.
Obviously the peer review. Verification is one thing that peer review insists on. Ken Hovind is in jail for tax FRAUD, which I think automatically makes him a totally untrustworthy source.
Added: in answer to your second question I tend to not use Talk Origins as a primary source ever. They do have an obvious bias and an agenda even though I know that they are right. However, they actually do link to peer reviewed articles (unlike the creationist sites) that I will use as a primary source.
2007-11-26 03:51:24 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
Using the bible as a reference is good in understanding Jewish culture and history and the Jews relation with God. From the Jewish perspective they rely on prophecies from the bible the say that the Jews would return to the land of Israel. However the bible shouldn't be the only source to use, and like I said its a good reference. You should also use other academic sources that support your main ideas and arguments. You should see the political and social conflicts the Jews have had throughout centuries which led to the creation of the modern state of Israel. To make it more interesting you shouldn't also pointed how the Palestinians and other Arab countries feel about this conflict. So using a bible and other academic sources would've made your research more interesting and open to discussions. All composition professors know that and should've advised you ahead of time.
2016-04-05 23:11:30 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you become known for disregarding the truth, you're not a reliable source. There's a clear example right here. Lion of Judah writes:
"The Other way around, Talk Origins has fabricated it's evidence with Psuedo Science.
Answers in Gen has not. Accept it."
If you say that kind of thing, you're not a reliable source, obviously. Answers in Genesis has the same degree of unreliability as Pravda, and for exactly the same reason.
2007-11-26 03:55:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 0⤋
I do think peer review is important. So many arguments against evolution are so obviously flawed that there might be some out there that hold water but the guilt by association is so strong that I'd never even see them. I think it's important that an argument not be relplete with fallacies and that it truthfully represent whatever it is arguing against, though. I mean, "if we came from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys" is so out of touch with what the theory of evolution actually says that it can not be considered an argument against evolution, but try telling that to some of these "creation scientists."
2007-11-26 03:54:51 · answer #4 · answered by ZombieTrix 2012 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
peer reviewed sources are more reliable for facts...
dawkins and hovind are more of an opposing philosophy
2007-11-26 03:48:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I trust my own judgement less and less as I get older. Am I becoming more of a fool, less of a fool, or just fool-aware?
2007-11-26 03:47:32 · answer #6 · answered by chem sickle 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Depends. If their research is well documented and follows scientific and/or historiographic principles, then it is fair enough. If it is histrionic diatribe ... well then, there you go.
Ath
2007-11-26 03:47:07 · answer #7 · answered by athanasius was right 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
By the gift of discernment
2007-11-26 03:47:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Randy's right. When you are still truth resonates within you.
Chem, perhaps you are becoming hardened?
2007-11-26 03:51:52 · answer #9 · answered by temerson 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The absolute source is God's Word. God Bless You!
2007-11-26 03:52:25 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋