[DannyTN]

Regarding Post 127 and the List of Reports on Piltdown

1. I'm glad y'all got a good laugh out of Authur Conan Doyle being in the list. The great irony is that Authur Conan Doyle's work was the MOST CREDIBLE work in the list. You see, from the most prestigious London Geological Society to the least known, every report on there was a work of FICTION. Thus Doyle's work, being the only one to present itself as fiction, was the most credible.
2. When I cut and pasted that, I assumed that the evolutionists on this thread would be smart enough to scan the list and spot the scientific journals. My bad.
3. Communication always being the burden of the communicator, I should have realized that in your arrogance and inflated self importance, anything less than a precise answer would be confusing to you. Again, My bad.
4. I concede the point that Peer Review did not become formal until the 1950's, probably as a result of Piltdown. But the concept was known from at least the early 1800's. I suggest that we throw out all evolutionist works prior to the 1950's, including Darwin's, and start over as there was no formal peer review process.
5. If you go to the first two links from the London Geological Society, and look at the end of the reports, you will see several comments from various doctors who reviewed the work, so it appears London Geologcial did employee a peer review process of a sort. In fact they seem to spend quite a bit of time congratulating themselves on having comments from the world's foremost brain expert and so forth. To do that you will need to go to the following link and then follow the first two links. Reports on the Finds: 1912-1917

[Dimensio]

I'm glad y'all got a good laugh out of Authur Conan Doyle being in the list. The great irony is that Authur Conan Doyle's work was the MOST CREDIBLE work in the list.

[...]

When I cut and pasted that, I assumed that the evolutionists on this thread would be smart enough to scan the list and spot the scientific journals. My bad.

It was bad enough that you presented a Sir Arthur Conan Doyle novel as a "peer reviewed scientific paper", but attempting to use this transparent excuse is beyond pathetic.

You screwed up. Admit it. Stop trying to justify your blunder.

[WildTurkey]

I suggest that we throw out all evolutionist works prior to the 1950's, including Darwin's, and start over as there was no formal peer review process.

Then you will accept peer-reviewed work on evolution post-1950? Somehow, I doubt you are sincere. It would not fit with your "soldier of God" standing ...

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post!

I suggest that we throw out all evolutionist works prior to the 1950's, including Darwin's, and start over as there was no formal peer review process.

The standard of peer review bothers me because I suspect the "gatekeepers" would not have allowed Einstein's relativity as they did not allow other theory which later accrued to Nobel prizes. I believe there ought to be an outlet publication for works which were rejected by peer review. (Refereed Journals: Do they ensure quality or enforce orthodoxy?)

Having said that, however, there is a fundamental difference between the "hard" sciences like physics and chemistry and the "historical" sciences like evolution theory, anthropology, archeology and Egyptology. The historical sciences suggest history based on quantizations of the evidence. There is often much contention (especially in archeology) - so IMHO, it would be helpful to have the post-publication debate as part of the "record".