RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (46) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Can you do geology and junk the evolution bits ?, Anti science.< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2009,08:32   

I was going to post another thread on this one, but Wesley will probably close it and decide it belongs here.

From yet another poster on premier's discussion forum. This time, some bizaar comments on Hutton's unconformity at Siccar point in Scotland:

http://www.premiercommunity.org.uk/forum....t273783

   
Quote
WHAT !!?? Isn't 'peer review' something you keep on bleeting about when it comes to YEC research and publications, as Martin has pointed out ????

If it didn't appear in any peer reviewed journal, then who else repeated his work in order to verify it ??

Also, it looks as if Hutton just looked at a pile of rocks - his unconformity - and devised a theory that became widely accepted.

Is this what happened ??? please help me out here Peter, I'm trying to understand.

Berthault, on the other hand, did repeatable, verifiable experiments and published his work.


So all Hutton did was look at a pile of rocks and devise a theory that became widely accepted. Hmmmm seems like we're going to have to rewrite geology !

  
  1350 replies since Sep. 08 2009,09:59 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (46) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]