Is this the creationist "Peer Review" process?

Perhaps they misinterpreted "peer" and assumed it meant squint at something and have difficulty making it out.

Martin S: "it truly is sparkling that to make certain that DNA code to artwork in residing cells the two some intelligence had to layout the cells and the code to artwork to maintain the cellular functioning" No it truly is not any longer sparkling. it is your assumption based argument from incredulity - you could no longer think of it so it is going to likely be designed. And your statements point out you think of evolution is random, it truly is not any longer. Your beginning place isn't maximum surprising. finally, the 1st existence wasn't like a renowned cellular. a renowned cellular is the end results of three billion years of evolution. you ought to examine a textbook no longer printed by utilising the invention Institute.

Or take a paper written by a scientist, reinterpret the Bible or Quran and claim God already told us that.

Reminds me of the Caliph who burned the library of Alexandria, on the grounds that those books that disagreed with the Quran were blasphemous, and those that agreed with it were superfluous!

Think about the bar set by evolution peer review

"If it supports the Bible than it wont be reviewed"

Wow. Nice Straw Man

Haha, it's probably more like. "That's not evidence!"

maybe you need this as a proof but we don't .