OK, I'll address your claims about the lack of peer reviewed scientific papers supporting creationist claims
I'm sure that you'll present only facts and cite your sources, and certainly you won't resort to such base tactics as making ad Hominem attacks and vague assertions that you can only back up with "Because I said so, and if I say so then it must be true."
I'm sure you know this well(but won't admit it)
Don't presume to tell me what I do or do not know. You don't get to tell me, or anybody else what their opinions are. opinions
PREJUDICE, plain and simple
Uh-huh... Sure it is. Poor little creationism, being persecuted by "Big Evolution". Grow up. not getting to have things your way isn't indicative of predjudice or persecution.
And it is as ugly and hateful as the racial prejudice that led to the Jewish holaocaust perpetrated by Hitler (a pond scum himself)
Not only is that an outright and intentional lie, it's fucking downright insulting. You mock, trivialize, and make light of those who suffered not only during the Nazi Holocaust, but also during the centuries of scapegoating, murder, oppression, and pograms at the hands of Christendom. The anti-semitism that came to a head under in Nazi Germany had it's genesis in centuries of hatemongering and falsehoods rationalized by christian claims of deicide and blood libel.
How can you, no, how dare you so much as suggest that you and your fellow creationists suffer under comparable predjudice and persecution. There are not scientists or atheists calling for a "final solution the the creationist problem", nor are any of your fellow creationists being rounded up and put into camps, or being herded into cattle cars never to be seen again.
(several anti-Christian, evolutionist, atheist blogs as case-in-point). The so-called referees and peer reviewers have an emotional/psychological adherence to the prevailing paradigm.
You are not qualified to assess the emotional or psychological ties of people yu have likely never met. The peer review process is designed to tear other researcher's work apart in an effort to confirm or falsify the research. Just because your pet fables don't meet the standard doesn't mean that it's a conspiracy.
Anything challenging that will be rejected out of hand, no matter its' merits.
Bullshit. 99% of the time creationist/ID'ers don't have any research to submit in the first place. The other 1% of the time the "research" is not methodologically sound, falsifiable, or repeatable, and in many cases is nothing more than speculation and wishful thinking asserted as if they were irrefutable facts.
Show me one research paper that was "rejected out of hand" for no other reason than is supported creationism/ID. Show me one research paper that was "rejected out of hand" for supporting creationism that was later prove to be true.
Of course, it was rejected when submitted because of institutionalized, systematic predudice!
Because of the content I'm sure. It couldn't possibly be that the methodology was flawed, or the research was shoddy and poorly sourced, could it? Of course not! Everybody knows that it's really just part of a giant conspiracy to silence creationists and "true christians".
I'll be praying for all you pond scum.
Like I said, I'm glad that you are such a classy debater that doesn't ned to resort to base tactics like personal attacks, name calling, and presuming to tell people what their opinions "really are".
You promise to pray for us, and we'll promise to think for you.
