Creationism vs carbon dating central american dating traditions

Feedback archive → Feedback 2008 We have often received feedback in the form of questions on the lines of, ‘If creation is scientific, then why don’t you publish in peer-reviewed secular journals?’ Andrew Kulikovsky answers this common question in detail.), it reveals an astonishing ignorance and naivety of how science and the peer-review process is actually conducted.Proponents of young-earth creationism are not the only scientists who have experienced this kind of discrimination.Suffice to say, the peer review process is not foolproof and has many problems and limitations: Despite the advantages, peer review is simply incapable of ensuring that research is correct in its procedures or its conclusions.

I have also, at times, recommended against publishing a particular submission—not because I disagreed with the author’s conclusions, but because I discovered false assumptions or serious flaws in the arguments presented.

Are the ‘peers’ of old-earth scientists not also proponents of an old earth?

Would this not cast serious doubt on the validity of their research?

Occasionally you will see young earth claims of their work being peer-reviewed. However, for young earth work to be taken seriously, it must pass the muster of peer-review from non young-earth scientists …

Normally, a peer-reviewed article which passes muster would be published in a leading journal such as from the Geological Society of America, [not just] on the ICR website.

Search for creationism vs carbon dating:

creationism vs carbon dating-21creationism vs carbon dating-32

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

One thought on “creationism vs carbon dating”