[Right Wing Professor]

I read the paper, commented that their results were at variance with the literature, and gave the charitable explanation they were looking at a damaged sample. In fact, they were well aware of the literature, had failed to acknowledge a discrepancy with it, failed to note a major anomaly in their data, and omitted to note that if they used the data before temperature cycling, they got a result identical with those of the 'uniformitarians' they deride. In other words, I assumed incompetence, when a more careful read suggests malice.

[Right Wing Professor]

My mistake: that should have been to 'All'. Sorry.

[longshadow]

I read the paper, commented that their results were at variance with the literature, and gave the charitable explanation they were looking at a damaged sample. In fact, they were well aware of the literature, had failed to acknowledge a discrepancy with it, failed to note a major anomaly in their data, and omitted to note that if they used the data before temperature cycling, they got a result identical with those of the 'uniformitarians' they deride. In other words, I assumed incompetence, when a more careful read suggests malice.

This brings up a very important point. Creationists frequently get upset when pro-Evolution Theorists disparage Creationist material on the basis of it not having been published in a main-stream, peer-reviewed scientific journal. Furthermore, when pressed to explain the dearth of Creationist literature in the main-stream, peer-reviewed scientific journals, the charge of there being a conspiracy of some sort frequently arises.

In the example at hand, given the defects that you have uncovered, what are the odds that such an article would have gotten past the peer-review process of a main-stream scientific journal?

Additionally, what does this tell us about the real reasons why Creationist "research" does NOT get published in main-stream science journals?

Lastly, does this not go to the heart of why Creationist "research" papers have such a bad reputation in the scientific community?

[DittoJed2]

You read A paper. You don't know you read the one that AIG is talking about because they just announced this as breaking today. It may NOT be the same paper.