[
Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #27]
Well I inferred that you don't know because you introduced a conditional, and did not indicate the values of it. If you do know then tell us else I'm taking it as either you do not know or do not want to reveal your opinion.
What is so hard about this? The conditional related to whether the journals you mentioned send manuscripts out for normal external review as any legitimate science journal does. I'm not familiar with those specific journals myself, so why don't you tell me (since you chose them) if they do this, and that will be your answer. I would assume they do but am not going to contact them and ask. You chose them, you can find out the answer.
Well you obviously answered this "if" in the case of the creationism journal so can't you do the same thing and answer it for these other two? I mean is this a hard question or just unwelcome?
Again, this is very simple. The creationist journal specifically states that they are biased in favor of young earth and a literal Noah's flood. The other two make no such biased statements in the section you posted, along with the creationist About page section that I had posted. So all you have to do is read them both to see that one is biased (they explicitly state it) and the other has no such statements. If you want to dig deeper into their manuscript review processes, do that work yourself. Why did you choose the two journals that you did?
Hardly a warp, I ask if you know if X is true, you answer with X is true if Y is true and refuse to state if you regard Y as true, it's reasonable in a debate to suspect that you do not know if Y is true or simply do not want to share your answer.
See above ... just more word twisting. I'm not "refusing" to state if I regard Y as true ... it is up to you to investigate (Sherlock Holmes) the manuscript review policies of the two journals
you chose.
It seems that if two candidates were being considered and one had a paper published in The Journal of Neuroscience and the other had a paper published in The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism you'd be able to say right away that the latter was not a peer reviewed publication but how is that fair? You must apply unbiased fair criteria to each candidate, seems you have a rule for the second candidate that you don't have for the first, tell me more about how you'd make this decision?
What are you talking about? The PICC is NOT a peer reviewed scientific journal for one thing. But if you go back and read what I actually wrote regarding this issue (post 10) I clearly said that I'd consider their knowledge of the subject, not what journal they may have published something in. You're just twisting things up as usual to build a strawman. Here is what I actually said:
No, but I'd probably read the article and see if it conflicted with the job requirements being hired for, ie. if it showed that the person did not understand the subject well enough to do the job. I'm a spectroscopist by trade, and if their article considered something related to spectroscopy (eg. red shifts, the H2 spectrum characteristics, selection rules, etc.) that conflicted with what we know to be correct (eg. because they argue that the universe is only 6000 years old), then yes ... I'd disqualify them on the basis that they do not understand the subject well enough. But if their article didn't relate to the job being considered, I wouldn't care.
Nothing to do with whether the journal is a proper peer-reviewed journal or not. Just more word twisting on your part to produce a false argument.