If you could be bothered to do any real research on Dr. Walt Brown I think you’d find that he does have many credentials beyond his PhD and he did indeed work in the field of ‘evolutionary’ science [left b/c he was highly disturbed by the amount of fabrication and outright lying by his peers].
Furthermore, once any scientist goes against the evo meme they will not be published nor peer-reviewed by the evo scientific periodical gate-keepers. Talk about close-minded - reminds me of the global warming accepters!
I did not re-read the article posted about Mary Schweitzer from some time ago and so if my memory failed me, sorry. But I do recall some other article regarding this same dig site being referred to as smelling of rotting flesh. Google it yourself.
Lastly, I’m not taking her research out of context. Rather she contradicts herself at the time of the article and later even invents a just-so story to try to describe how any soft tissue can remain intact for such a long time - an outright distortion of the truth to support a theory that deserved to die out long long ago. A method the evos use time and time again to explain away the problems inherent in long ages evolution.
According to his biography on the Center for Scientific Creation website he did not, nor ever worked in the field of ‘evolutionary’ science unless you consider mechanical engineering, physics, mathematics, and computer science, as ‘evolutionary’ science and being a Director of Benét Laboratories ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benét_Laboratories ). His bio states that he was ““an evolutionist” but after years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and teaching on creation and the flood.” That sounds more like he took up a hobby after retiring from the military rather than leaving because he was highly disturbed by the amount of fabrication and outright lying by his peers. If you are going to lie, Brandt, at least make it a good lie and one that is not so easy to refute.
Furthermore, once any scientist goes against the evo meme they will not be published nor peer-reviewed by the evo scientific periodical gate-keepers. Talk about close-minded - reminds me of the global warming accepters!
Funny, astrologers and ancient alien theorists are not published in any serious peer reviewed astronomy journals and periodicals either. Damned those closed minded gate-keepers.
I did not re-read the article posted about Mary Schweitzer from some time ago and so if my memory failed me, sorry. But I do recall some other article regarding this same dig site being referred to as smelling of rotting flesh. Google it yourself.
No, Brandt, but you can Google it. Let us know what you find…
Lastly, I’m not taking her research out of context. Rather she contradicts herself at the time of the article and later even invents a just-so story to try to describe how any soft tissue can remain intact for such a long time - an outright distortion of the truth to support a theory that deserved to die out long long ago. A method the evos use time and time again to explain away the problems inherent in long ages evolution.
The only contradictions are those created by creationists when they quote out of context or make stuff up.