Replies

To: CarolinaGuitarman

*Archaeoraptor* was never accepted by science; National Geographic goofed, and paid for it's sloppiness.

So much for Peer Review!

1,154 posted on 02/21/2006 12:52:35 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)

"So much for Peer Review!"

Peer review worked. It was never accepted in a scientific journal.

1,161 posted on 02/21/2006 12:59:42 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")

To: Elsie; CarolinaGuitarman

So much for Peer Review!

The whole point CG is making is that National Geographic jumped the gun when it should have waited for more peer review. Hopefully this (usually quality) popular mag learned its lesson from circumventing the peer review process. (Creation 'scientists' never seem to learn that lesson...)

In any case, good scientific magazines and journals retract errors when they are identified (which only serves to increase the accuracy of science over time). When are advocates of creationism going to start retracting some of these 542 long-since-identified inaccuracies and distortions? *

* The number 542 may not be exactly correct. Of course, creationist logic dictates that if this number is slightly off, then no statement made here contains any truth at all.

1,175 posted on 02/21/2006 1:12:58 PM PST by Quark2005 (Is Gould dead?)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794