The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

wolfsbane

Gumbi wrote: »

Creationism simply isn't scientific. Facts come before a theory, not the other way around. Evolution is proposed because it fits the facts. Creationists attempt to twist the facts to fit their pre-disposed idealogical position. This isn't science.

On the contrary, both sides have the scientific facts - the same evidence is before both. Each then advance scientific argument to back up their scientific theory.

Just because creationists have a heads-up on how things originated does not make their case unscientific. I mean, if you saw an object fall from a plane and land in the nearby park, you might listen to scientists who later claim it has been there for millennia and only emerged by erosion of the surrounding pasture, or that it was planted there as a hoax. Each could advance certain parts of the evidence to support his case. You would advance your theory and call on supporting evidence. All very scientific. The fact that you know exactly how it arrived does not invalidate your scientific case - even though your 'insider' knowledge is not itself scientific.


********************************************************************
Romans 1: 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

wolfsbane

Zombrex wrote: »

:mad:

Please don't bad mouth scientists which you know nothing about Wolfsbane. You can believe what ever supernatural stories you like, and what ever nonsense you read from your Creationist websites, but show some respect to the scientists who work hard and long learning about the biological world and how to help humans survive in it.

I know several scientists. And I'm not bad-mouthing any scientist. Merely stating the facts. You may like to think the scientific community is free from establishment control and peer-pressure, but the record speaks for itself. When pet or ideologically crucial theories are at stake, let the dissident beware!

We all rejoice at scientific advances that help mankind. None of that has involved theories establishing molecules-to-man evolution. Just the science common to both creationist and evolutionist.


******************************************************************
Romans 1: 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

Sarky

wolfsbane wrote: »

We all rejoice at scientific advances that help mankind. None of that has involved theories establishing molecules-to-man evolution. Just the science common to both creationist and evolutionist.

That is a laughably untrue paragraph. Without a solid understanding of evolution, disease control wouldn't be possible. Any vaccines or antibiotics you've taken in the last, oh, 30 years or so are each an admission that what you've just typed is incorrect. Oh, unless of course God magicked up these new viral and bacterial strains. If he did, it was a very sloppy job. Stray transposons and superfluous nucleotides everywhere. He should get an assistant to clean up after him.

tommy2bad

wolfsbane wrote: »

On the contrary, both sides have the scientific facts - the same evidence is before both. Each then advance scientific argument to back up their scientific theory.

Just because creationists have a heads-up on how things originated does not make their case unscientific. I mean, if you saw an object fall from a plane and land in the nearby park, you might listen to scientists who later claim it has been there for millennia and only emerged by erosion of the surrounding pasture, or that it was planted there as a hoax. Each could advance certain parts of the evidence to support his case. You would advance your theory and call on supporting evidence. All very scientific. The fact that you know exactly how it arrived does not invalidate your scientific case - even though your 'insider' knowledge is not itself scientific.


********************************************************************
Romans 1: 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

OK this post has me thinking that a literal seven day young earth creationism isn't what your supporting, so is it an intelligent design model you support then?
Either way one or the other is an assumption that God is actively interfering with the laws of physics. Why? Why have laws at all then?
By the way the object falling from plane is a terrible analogy.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote: »

I know several scientists. And I'm not bad-mouthing any scientist. Merely stating the facts. You may like to think the scientific community is free from establishment control and peer-pressure, but the record speaks for itself. When pet or ideologically crucial theories are at stake, let the dissident beware!

We all rejoice at scientific advances that help mankind. None of that has involved theories establishing molecules-to-man evolution. Just the science common to both creationist and evolutionist.

Not only do Creationists ignore science, they do not understand what science is. Creationism cannot be tested. It is as scientific as the belief that Thor causes lightning, and hence rightly rejected by the scientific community.

Evolutionary biologists, on the other hand, employ rigorous methods of investigation to a wide range of evidence, and have consistently and repeatedly tested and verified Darwinian evolution.

wolfsbane

Sarky wrote: »

That is a laughably untrue paragraph. Without a solid understanding of evolution, disease control wouldn't be possible. Any vaccines or antibiotics you've taken in the last, oh, 30 years or so are each an admission that what you've just typed is incorrect. Oh, unless of course God magicked up these new viral and bacterial strains. If he did, it was a very sloppy job. Stray transposons and superfluous nucleotides everywhere.

New viral and bacterial strains are just that - strains. Still bacteria, still viruses. No molecules-to-man evolution.

Both creationists and evolutionists agree that organisms mutate and adapt. Wolves, Poodles, Pekinese - all the basic dog-kind. None has evolved through time into something other than dog-kind.

All observed adaptation has resulted in no movement beyond the basic type of organism. No fruit flies, no matter how changed, are changed beyond recognition as fruit-flies. Evolution says such massive change has happened, and tries to patch together a tree of life. But it is all imaginary. The best of scientific imagination, but still imagination.

*********************************************************************
Romans 1: 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

wolfsbane

Morbert wrote: »

Not only do Creationists ignore science, they do not understand what science is. Creationism cannot be tested. It is as scientific as the belief that Thor causes lightning, and hence rightly rejected by the scientific community.

Evolutionary biologists, on the other hand, employ rigorous methods of investigation to a wide range of evidence, and have consistently and repeatedly tested and verified Darwinian evolution.

They have observed molecules-to-man evolution in the lab? Or even non-human to human evolution in the lab? I don't think so.

Creationism can be tested in exactly the same way as evolutionism. They both can arrange the evidence to support their theory, and conduct research to find evidence that falsifies one and supports the other. Both have difficulties with some evidence and support from others. Both hope that further research will remove the difficulties and confirm the facts.


*******************************************************************
Romans 1: 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

doctoremma

wolfsbane wrote: »

Both creationists and evolutionists agree that organisms mutate and adapt. Wolves, Poodles, Pekinese - all the basic dog-kind. None has evolved through time into something other than dog-kind.

Can you define a biological (or even notional) barrier that prevents small changes accumulating into larger ones? You are essentially saying that 1+1=2, that 2+1=3, that 3+1=4 but that 4+1 can't happen.

gkell2

wolfsbane wrote: »

We all rejoice at scientific advances that help mankind. None of that has involved theories establishing molecules-to-man evolution. Just the science common to both creationist and evolutionist.

Evolution in some shape or form has existed for hundreds of years before Darwin yet it is unfortunate that many grow up with the idea that Darwin's approach is evolution itself when it is merely evolution given the brutal empirical treatment as per usual.

The first person to make the huge leap was a Catholic bishop who realized that marine fossils found high up on mountains were once at the bottom of the sea or riverbeds -

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_04

The older traditions of a great flood came from people who were looking at fossils and eventually wove stories around a great flood that covered the mountain tops and these things are so much loved as analogies in clearing out corrupt and useless ideologies with new and productive ones ,events that change children into adults or unbelievers into believers.

Sometimes people have to take a wider view of things in order to come back and look at topics with new eyes,in this case the narrative of Genesis.

wolfsbane

tommy2bad wrote: »

OK this post has me thinking that a literal seven day young earth creationism isn't what your supporting, so is it an intelligent design model you support then?
Either way one or the other is an assumption that God is actively interfering with the laws of physics. Why? Why have laws at all then?
By the way the object falling from plane is a terrible analogy.

No, I'm a six day YEC. My point was to show that prior knowledge of the real origin of something does not rule out one from being able to advance proper scientific argument in support of it, as Gumbi alleged.


***********************************************************************
Romans 1: 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

tommy2bad

wolfsbane wrote: »

New viral and bacterial strains are just that - strains. Still bacteria, still viruses. No molecules-to-man evolution.

Both creationists and evolutionists agree that organisms mutate and adapt. Wolves, Poodles, Pekinese - all the basic dog-kind. None has evolved through time into something other than dog-kind.

All observed adaptation has resulted in no movement beyond the basic type of organism. No fruit flies, no matter how changed, are changed beyond recognition as fruit-flies. Evolution says such massive change has happened, and tries to patch together a tree of life. But it is all imaginary. The best of scientific imagination, but still imagination.

Morbert you are right, Not only do Creationists ignore science, they do not understand what science is.
Wolfsbane, Speciation has occurred both in nature and laboratory. Google it, I'm not doing all the work for you.

tommy2bad

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, I'm a six day YEC. My point was to show that prior knowledge of the real origin of something does not rule out one from being able to advance proper scientific argument in support of it, as Gumbi alleged.


***********************************************************************
Romans 1: 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

Wana buy a bridge? cos if you fell for that bullspit I have one thats due to be demolished and can be shipped anywhere as soon as I get the cash.

gkell2

tommy2bad wrote: »

Morbert you are right, Not only do Creationists ignore science, they do not understand what science is.
Wolfsbane, Speciation has occurred both in nature and laboratory. Google it, I'm not doing all the work for you.

Creationists understand things at their level and do nobody any harm but the same cannot be said for Darwin's approach to evolution,mostly created at a time when the sun never set on the British empire and a great way to justify putting the natives in their place.


"One day something brought to my recollection Malthus’s “Principles of
Population,” which I had read about twelve years before. I thought of
his clear exposition of “the positive checks to increase”—disease,
accidents, war, and famine—which keep down the population of savage
races to so much lower an average than that of civilized peoples. It
then occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are
continually acting in the case of animals also..... because in every
generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off and the
superior would remain—that is, the fittest would survive.… The more I
thought over it the more I became convinced that I had at length found
the long-sought-for law of nature that solved the problem of the
origin of species." Charles Darwin

"Till at length the whole territory, from the confines of China to the
shores of the Baltic, was peopled by a various race of Barbarians,
brave, robust, and enterprising, inured to hardship, and delighting in
war. Some tribes maintained their independence. Others ranged
themselves under the standard of some barbaric chieftain who led them
to victory after victory, and what was of more importance, to regions
abounding in corn, wine, and oil, the long wished for consummation,
and great reward of their labours. An Alaric, an Attila, or a Zingis
Khan, and the chiefs around them, might fight for glory, for the fame
of extensive conquests, but the true cause that set in motion the
great tide of northern emigration, and that continued to propel it
till it rolled at different periods against China, Persia, italy, and
even Egypt, was a scarcity of food, a population extended beyond the
means of supporting it." Thomas Malthus
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/malthus/malthus.3.html

"Without consideration of traditions and prejudices, Germany must find
the courage to gather our people and their strength for an advance
along the road that will lead this people from its present restricted
living space to new land and soil, and hence also free it from the
danger of vanishing from the earth or of serving others as a slave
nation. The National Socialist Movement must strive to eliminate the
disproportion between our population and our area—viewing this latter
as a source of food as well as a basis for power politics—between our
historical past and the hopelessness of our present impotence" Mein
Kampf

Have a nice day.

wolfsbane

gkell2 wrote: »

Evolution in some shape or form has existed for hundreds of years before Darwin yet it is unfortunate that many grow up with the idea that Darwin's approach is evolution itself when it is merely evolution given the brutal empirical treatment as per usual.

The first person to make the huge leap was a Catholic bishop who realized that marine fossils found high up on mountains were once at the bottom of the sea or riverbeds -

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_04

The older traditions of a great flood came from people who were looking at fossils and eventually wove stories around a great flood that covered the mountain tops and these things are so much loved as analogies in clearing out corrupt and useless ideologies with new and productive ones ,events that change children into adults or unbelievers into believers.

Sometimes people have to take a wider view of things in order to come back and look at topics with new eyes,in this case where the narrative of Genesis.

Of course they were once at the bottom of the sea - the Flood covered the whole earth! Exactly as the Bible says. The idea that Fossils were instead thought to have fallen from the sky, or to be “sports of nature”—peculiar geometrical shapes impressed on the rocks themselves was anti-Biblical.

Your assertion that the bible story was made up by ignorant men to explain the fossils is certainly one logical possibility. But Christians know - or should know - that it is a mistaken theory.

******************************************************************
Romans 1: 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

tommy2bad

gkell2 ;
Creationists understand things at their level and do nobody any harm but the same cannot be said for Darwin's approach to evolution,mostly created at a time when the sun never set on the British empire and a great way to justify putting the natives in their place.

Oh I agree, when creationist use creationism as a means of expressing their faith, I don't have any problem its when the insist that it's an equaly good explanation as evolution in a scientific sense that I draw the line. The same for social Darwinism which was an idealism anyway and not science.

wolfsbane

tommy2bad wrote: »

Morbert you are right, Not only do Creationists ignore science, they do not understand what science is.
Wolfsbane, Speciation has occurred both in nature and laboratory. Google it, I'm not doing all the work for you.

Tommy, you are showing your lack of comprehension. Speciation is accepted by both creationists and evolutionists. There are many species of finch, for example. But all are finches. That is the only 'evolution' that has been observed. Since the phenomena is explained by creationism, it cannot be said to demonstrate evolution.

Google it. Compare for yourself all the species of finch. If you find any that have evolved beyond the finch, let me know.

********************************************************************
Romans 1: 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

wolfsbane

doctoremma wrote: »

Can you define a biological (or even notional) barrier that prevents small changes accumulating into larger ones? You are essentially saying that 1+1=2, that 2+1=3, that 3+1=4 but that 4+1 can't happen.

Yes. It's called death, or at the least infertility. It seems that change has its limits. Certainly all observed change has.

I don't know the exact mechanism - something working like telomeres? I'm sure further research will find it in time.

********************************************************************
Romans 1: 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

gkell2

wolfsbane wrote: »

Your assertion that the bible story was made up by ignorant men to explain the fossils is certainly one logical possibility. But Christians know - or should know - that it is a mistaken theory.

I assert no such thing,I absolutely love what my ancestors did using observations of natural phenomena whether it is the Great Flood of Noah or Venus rising before the morning Sun and sinking back as a description of lucifer.You are perfectly entitled to believe a great flood covered the Earth ,after all,that is what Genesis states however it does hint at different things.

If you know the chronology of Genesis from Adam to Noah there are 10 Patriarchs with all great ages apart from one and with this Patriarch the author of Genesis breaks with the formula "then he died".

"The whole lifetime of Enoch was three hundred and sixty-five years.
Then Enoch walked with God, and he was no longer here, for God took him."

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P7.HTM

Now isn't that a wonderful hint to look a little closer at the text and especially the lifespan of Enoch ?.If not then no harm done.

tommy2bad

I don't understand, if Speciation is accepted by creationists whats wrong with the logical progression to further evolution? Once a species becomes isolated from the others of it species it can then further split and move on to other species and in time to completely different lines of evolution. If you accept that all finches are cousins then why not all apes?

gkell2

tommy2bad wrote: »

Oh I agree, when creationist use creationism as a means of expressing their faith, I don't have any problem its when the insist that it's an equaly good explanation as evolution in a scientific sense that I draw the line. The same for social Darwinism which was an idealism anyway and not science.

The basis of any form of evolution is that you cannot see the timeline of development directly,it is a puzzle you put together where the rock strata and fossil record work in tandem.The system is so delicate and the history behind it is fascinating -

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/smith.html

So,you cannot see your own development from child to adult directly nor the development of a town or country apart from archaeology.It is not possible to see the development of the human race directly nor the development of life itself apart from snapshots contained in rock strata,you cannot see the planet develop directly nor the solar system as large enough pieces still have to be put in place and not even the development of galaxies or any larger structures there may be as collection of galaxies.

Then it was thrown all away by the belief that you can see the evolutionary timeline of the Universe directly hence a situation far worse than anything a creationist can come up with.If you wish to promote evolution,there has to be a clear sense of the continuity between past and present so I may not be entirely using your own argument for evolution against you,but if you are good enough you will get the point almost immediately why I started a thread before on evolutionary disciplines.

tommy2bad

If you wish to promote evolution,there has to be a clear sense of the continuity between past and present

I think it called cause and effect.
Are you saying that the data is not complete enough to support evolution or that a time-line is an impossibility unless you have an atemporal view of things? Because if you are arguing the latter then all science is impossible. Hell even this conversation is impossible.

the development of a town or country

How about one hotel for a start.

doctoremma

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes. It's called death, or at the least infertility. It seems that change has its limits. Certainly all observed change has.

Observed change certainly does have its limits, most obviously the time span over which we've been able to observe it. I've come across no biological research that shows that 'change has limits' (assuming we're talking about neutral or beneficial change).

wolfsbane wrote: »

I don't know the exact mechanism - something working like telomeres? I'm sure further research will find it in time.

Telomeres are replenished in gametes so there is no accumulated shortening with generations. But appreciate your response - you're outlining some kind of quality control mechanism that can 'measure' accumulated changes in the genome? I can't conceive of a chemical mechanism by which this could happen, although there certainly is a more indirect, phenotype-led approach (e.g. a change that simply causes a cell, or the organism, to die). So, that's essentially a QC checkpoint for detrimental mutations - what about neutral or beneficial ones?

gkell2

tommy2bad wrote: »

I think it called cause and effect.
Are you saying that the data is not complete enough to support evolution or that a time-line is an impossibility unless you have an atemporal view of things? Because if you are arguing the latter then all science is impossible. Hell even this conversation is impossible.

Anyone who supports geological and biological evolution is breaking their own rules if they suddenly decide that they can see an evolutionary timeline directly as is the case with Universal evolution.

It is called common sense,you enjoy the overlaping geological and biological evolutionary work of Steno,Smith and Wegener in how they put the best picture forward for biological/geological evolution using clues found in all sorts of data,in fact I worked on a rotational mechanism known as differential rotation which brings astronomy into the picture in terms of evolutionary geology.

Unless a person is a complete know-nothing,they have to assume that getting rid of the idea of seeing the past directly and using common sense for a change is the top priority for everyone concerned.

doctoremma

This 'kind' thing, where organisms can change within boundaries but not across boundaries....

Are dogs and cats different 'kinds'? What defines the 'dog kind' as different to the 'cat kind'? Which features are undeniably 'dog', not 'cat' (and vice versa)? Are 'kinds' differentiated on phenotype or genotype? If we could breed a dog that looked like a cat, would that provided evidence that changes between 'kinds' was accepted? Or would dog and cat simply be redescribed as the same 'kind'? Lots of animals have been misclassified in the past - have a look at these two:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Armidillidium.vs.glomeris.jpg
Would they be classed as the same 'kind' or do you use genetic information to distinguish them?

gkell2

tommy2bad wrote: »

How about one hotel for a start.

None of you are serious and it is like the card game at the end of Animal Farm where an argument breaks out between Napolean and Pilkington and the animals are unable to tell the difference between pig and human.That is the way it looks at the moment as a vicious strain of empiricism squares off against creationists.Matters of faith and science are the real casualties in a phony war between empiricism and creationism that some mistake for science vs religion.

Good luck to you now.

HamletOrHecuba

tommy2bad wrote: »

Oh I agree, when creationist use creationism as a means of expressing their faith, I don't have any problem its when the insist that it's an equaly good explanation as evolution in a scientific sense that I draw the line. The same for social Darwinism which was an idealism anyway and not science.

Tommy far from decreasing in Christian circles "Creationism" is spreading greatly all the time. For instance in Eastern Orthodoxy it has made a massive come back. A big reason for this is that a lot of "Creation science" is very scientifically convincing.

The whole idea of evolution despite your dismissal of Social Darwinism is very idealogically important to the modern world- it has served as a massive support to economic liberalism, political liberalism, Marxism- just consider the cultural revolution in China, the British Empire and all that went along with like the so-called famines in the Punjab and Ireland as well as its massive theft in general, the evil side of German National Socialism. It serves as the basis as the mad assumption of most people today that because something is more modern it must be better than what went before and that we must be better and more intelligent than our ancestors. If its true orthodox Christianity is WRONG- and we should become Gnostics.

Corkfeen

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

Tommy far from decreasing in Christian circles "Creationism" is spreading greatly all the time. For instance in Eastern Orthodoxy it has made a massive come back. A big reason for this is that a lot of "Creation science" is very scientifically convincing.

Why is it that creationism is largely considered to be a pseudoscience by the majority of the scientific community? The only supporters are from fundamental Christians (The vast majority of normal Christians accept evolution which is backed up by actual evidence.). Science is not a dogmatic field if there is evidence to support alternative hypotheses, scientists will investigate and the investigations will be peer reviewed etc. And if it makes scientific sense, it will be accepted. Creationism is not supported by any scientific evidence and is dependent upon idiots making false claims such as 'The second law of thermodynamics disproves Evolution' which is absolute rubbish. There is not a massive conspiracy against creationists, Creationist science is merely a bullshít science without any evidence...

tommy2bad

HamletOrHecuba
it has served as a massive support to economic liberalism, political liberalism, Marxism- just consider the cultural revolution in China, the British Empire and all that went along with like the so-called famines in the Punjab and Ireland as well as its massive theft in general

Irish famine 1845 to 1852, Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, published on 24 November 1859. Yeah I can see how it caused that one :rolleyes:
No. Evolution is not social Darwinism. Creationism is spreading among fundi xians because they are being deceived by liars and fools. Yes the exploitative have distorted evolution to justify their greed but before that they justified it by the divine right of kings and god's will, so what one liar is no different to another.

Sarky

Corkfeen wrote: »

Why is it that creationism is largely considered to be a pseudoscience by the majority of the scientific community?

Because it doesn't work.

gkell2

Corkfeen wrote: »

Science is not a dogmatic field if there is evidence to support alternative hypotheses, scientists will investigate and the investigations will be peer reviewed etc. And if it makes scientific sense, it will be accepted.

Don't make me laugh !,peer review is the most anti-evolutionary,anti-competitive setup you can get.I am not an empiricist so as an outsider I can describe how sterile it is.The peer reviewers only pass opinions that secure their own jobs and reputations and the proposer has no incentive to do anything other than please the reviewers.

I had to laugh with 'peer review' and the Piltdown Man hoax,just goes to show how self-serving the whole thing is -

"Anthropologists refer to the hoax as 'another instance of desire for fame leading a scholar into dishonesty' and boast that the unmasking of the deception is 'a tribute to the persistence and skill of modern research'. Persistence and skill indeed! When they have taken over forty years to discover the difference between an ancient fossil and a modern chimpanzee! A chimpanzee could have done it quicker." Piltdown Man commentary

I work on evolutionary geology and the only thing that moves slower than the Earth's crust are geologists to adapt to the rotational mechanism.Brave new evolutionary world out there where Wikipedia is an ad hoc peer review process and the Usenet forums insure priority and I quite like it.Of course empiricists don't evolve,that is the lesson of Piltdown man,they simply die out with their ideologies.