TrueCreation Web

What does everyone think of my new web site I am developing (currently there is a navigation bar glitch in table sizes)?: http://www.promisoft.100megsnds.com/TrueCreation/Index.htm--Comments, contributions, and suggestions are readilly acceptable.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-13-2002]

I'm not sure what you mean by saying there is a table bar glitch but I hope this means you intend to make the active area of the links include the word. For example, if I want to see your evolution page, I will automatically try to click the word "evolution" on the graphic, not the little button to its left. Constantly having to click something else is a bit of a frustration and it slows me down.The rest of it looks interesting but I don't have any other comments as yet.

I intend to take a look TC, give me some time.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

It has a great look to it TC however as the lady in the progressive ad says "its your website I need more content..."I`m sure thats on the way though....Don`t take this the wrong way but some of your text seems a little bit garbled in particular:"Join in the scientific frenzy on the struggle for theoretical implications in the debate for various scientific questions such as:"I personally would phrase it differently.... i.e.Join the struggle for ideological ascendance in the debate of various scientific questions such as:Also:
"-What about Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity?"Is an incomplete sentence, possibly:-What challenge to evolution is provided by Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity?would serve you better.And finaly:"-And hundreds more questions that claim the scientific realm for unbiased interest in the Creation and Evolution Debate and Discussion."Sentences should not start with and, the message seems slightly garbled and I think discussion is a bit redundant... I would express it more like this:-Hundreds more questions that are significant to the Creation and Evolution Debate.Apart from that it seems like a well laid out web site....Oh nagging question who will perform the peer review?

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 02-14-2002]

"I'm not sure what you mean by saying there is a table bar glitch but I hope this means you intend to make the active area of the links include the word. For example, if I want to see your evolution page, I will automatically try to click the word "evolution" on the graphic, not the little button to its left. Constantly having to click something else is a bit of a frustration and it slows me down."
--Thanx for the suggestion, that Is a good idea, I think I will keep the images the same, otherwize I would have to lay out the navigation bar differently, but I think I will make it a hyperlink as a hotspot would work better. (Add by edit) the navigation bar glitch is a miss numbering in the table size (HTML) so you see little white lines (the white background) running through the left navigation bar so it seems as if the peices of the puzzle are spaced out."The rest of it looks interesting but I don't have any other comments as yet."
--Thanx, there's more coming so I will have to keep updated slightly in this topic, and just for percipients notice, I am not intending on a forum type of site, more of an articles/essays and a neatly and unbiased peer review ability.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-14-2002]

"It has a great look to it TC however as the lady in the progressive ad says "its your website I need more content..."
I`m sure thats on the way though....
--Yes it is, I was just posting the topic for now to start getting suggestions before I start going overboard or relying on some particular peice of the site that I will take off, thus would have to do more house-cleaning."Don`t take this the wrong way but some of your text seems a little bit garbled in particular:"
--Yes it is, when I was typing it up, It took me a couple minutes, I was typing a rudimentary text so I can get the main idea of the site down before I end up forgetting it or something. Thanx for all the suggestions, I will definantly take them into consideration."Apart from that it seems like a well laid out web site...."
--thanx The main skin and bones layout is gray scale, color will spruce it up after I get it under way more."Oh nagging question who will perform the peer review?"
--My peer review ability will be somewhere along the lines of a 'forum' type of peer review, as anyone who can make any intelligent relevant contribution, creationist or evolutionist or just someone recognizing a problem. The details I will attempt to work out as it comes along, I am shooting for a very easilly navitational site in all these areas, peer review ability is one of my larger concerns.------------------

I have the pages: Home - Creation - Evolution - About Us - and Contact working, the rest are copies of the About Us page or something so that I could edit it. I still have the Home page to clean up and I'll start adding more things when Neccessary and when I start getting articles. To start receiving articles I'll have to get the peer review thing up though.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
My peer review ability will be somewhere along the lines of a 'forum' type of peer review, as anyone who can make any intelligent relevant contribution, creationist or evolutionist or just someone recognizing a problem. The details I will attempt to work out as it comes along, I am shooting for a very easilly navitational site in all these areas, peer review ability is one of my larger concerns.

---

The way peer review works in TRW is something like this...Scientist A produces a body of work for publication....He submits said work to a journal...The editors of the journal send the work (with no attribution I believe) to various aknowledged experts in the relevant field B, C and D (and possibly E, F etc)...These experts then review the work for errors (mathematical, proceedural, misapplied theory etc)...If such errors are found the work is returned for possible modification and resubmition....If no errors are found the publication of the work goes ahead (assuming no other difficulties)...If I may make a suggestion for the purposes of your site creationist work should be reviewed by creationists and work favouring evolution, old earth + universe etc should be reviewed by those of a similar worldview...Also these reviewers should be knowledgeable in their fields, it occurs to me that you could ask for volunteers from these boards....

I'm gonna start putting my face in some books, I have many I am already into and I have to get them off my back, one is Biology and is about 800 pages so it will take me about 3-4 weeks. So my posting will be real shallow unfortunatelly, also because I'm involved in more than just one forum and I'll be working on my site. Just thought I would tell everyone why I will end up slowing in my posts.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-19-2002]

I've noticed that trucreation.com is in use

"I've noticed that trucreation.com is in use"
--Yeah, I'll probably have to settle for truecreation.org -------------------

So how is your peer review going to be conducted?

"So how is your peer review going to be conducted?"
--I am thinking of something along the lines of setting up a form where you send your information. I would post the article in a Archive section where you would have the article that I would refine and fit (without change to text) within an appropriate format. I am comprehending a forum or a 'guest book' type of posting wherein comments, suggestions, etc can be presented. The posting would be slightly strictly moderated in deleting irrelevant posts or encourage staying on the topic of discussing the paper presented for review. I believe this public form of review would be an advantage in presenting a paper of optimal efficiency and make more of an impact on the controversy at hand. When the informatino from the form is filled out and sent it will send to an e-mail that I can access. I would roughly skim through the paper and if there are major problems such as an obvious illiteracy in spelling or grammer, I would send a notice that it should be refined before I would be to post it. I would do the same if say the paper were largely switching off topic unless it would be needed. My personal review would not be a strict review at all. Also to make sure of the least bias that may possibly co-inside in these reviewals, if my server allows I may have a forum for complaints on this matter.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
I am thinking of something along the lines of setting up a form where you send your information. I would post the article in a Archive section where you would have the article that I would refine and fit (without change to text) within an appropriate format. I am comprehending a forum or a 'guest book' type of posting wherein comments, suggestions, etc can be presented. The posting would be slightly strictly moderated in deleting irrelevant posts or encourage staying on the topic of discussing the paper presented for review. I believe this public form of review would be an advantage in presenting a paper of optimal efficiency and make more of an impact on the controversy at hand. When the informatino from the form is filled out and sent it will send to an e-mail that I can access. I would roughly skim through the paper and if there are major problems such as an obvious illiteracy in spelling or grammer, I would send a notice that it should be refined before I would be to post it. I would do the same if say the paper were largely switching off topic unless it would be needed. My personal review would not be a strict review at all. Also to make sure of the least bias that may possibly co-inside in these reviewals, if my server allows I may have a forum for complaints on this matter.

---

Thats not how peer review works TC....In peer review a selection of people in the relevant field are asked to review the work to be published, this they do looking for any obvious methodoligical or mathematic errors (REGARDLESS OF ANY CONFLICTING THEORIES THAT THEY SUBSCRIBE TO), in the absense of such errors publication may continue (the article appears without amy additions by the reviewer).....What you suggest is not peer review, peer review happens before publication to sort the good science from the bad, the process you suggest would be publication first and then critical review.....Theres no reason that your system wouldn`t work quite well but I would avoid calling it peer review. Also given the name of the site and your obvious position on this matter it would be advantageous to set up a submision proceedure for evolutionists et al where an evolutionist or the like decides what should and what should not be published, otherwise you lay yourself open to charges of crippling the case for evolution et al by selectively avoiding posting their better arguments (I`m not saying that you would just that people may think so)...

"Theres no reason that your system wouldn`t work quite well but I would avoid calling it peer review. Also given the name of the site and your obvious position on this matter it would be advantageous to set up a submision proceedure for evolutionists et al where an evolutionist or the like decides what should and what should not be published, otherwise you lay yourself open to charges of crippling the case for evolution et al by selectively avoiding posting their better arguments (I`m not saying that you would just that people may think so)..."
--You may be correct on saying that it wouldn't neccessarelly be 'peer review', that is, in your context of the word and its meaning. The main reason I see a public forum-like approach toward a review of an article is effective in many ways. There less bias (though there would be next to none in the least from evolutionist/evolutionist and creationist/creationist reviewing), and a very effective way of finding peoples arguments in an article before it is really an 'article' to be rebuted. Creationists looking over an Evolutionists work and vice versa are more likely to pick out errors in various places. For example, If in an evolutionists writting it says that 'Creationists think that this happend' when infact they do not, or it is a easy straw man approach. In this a creationist would ask them to consider another approach or a more effective rebutal toward what they may actually think.
--I am having second thoughts on the system, it seems it could be tuned more. Mabye a selected people in different groups to have access in this review. What gaps may you see that need some work in this system, what would your considerations be?
-- (sorry about the wait in some of the forums, I am seeing to the forum on impact theory and its effects. We are into some about the atmosphere and the like, so I am reading a lengthy book that has much information. It is about 350 pages and I am at pg49, also about 270 page are nothing but pictures so it will be a rather good run-through.)------------------