Your claim really, is that it has to be agreed with by the likes of the late Stephen hawking....if he didnt agree, then it's not peer reveiwed!
Wow…you must hate Hawking.
especially as this is strawman, since I have never brought up Hawking, as Hawking’s area of expertise is in theoretical astrophysics & cosmology, not on Earth’s stratigraphy, he wouldn’t reviewing any work in regarding to geology.
Paleontology is also something that Hawking wouldn’t talk about, as fossils are not his area of expertise.
Also, Hawking never sponsored any organisation in relation to Evolution, as he wasn’t a biologist.
so Hawking wouldn’t be “peer” on anything relating to fields of geology or to palaeontology, hence this is rather a baseless argument from you.
So what would be your point In bringing Hawking into this debate?
Let's not forget, a lot of YEC have lost their lucrative jobs once they found evidence of, and published in support of YEC. you cant call all of these individuals quacks with poor research skills, they were in the employment of very highly respected institutions for a long time...if they are dumbasses, how did they get those jobs in the first place?
That’s not how peer review works, especially towards natural sciences.
As Gentry’s work, in which
@SavedByTheLord, was about rock formation at the Grand Canyon, you would expect that if there were be any peer reviewing done, it would by geologists especially with extensive knowledge in the field, such as knowledge on stratigraphy…so not by theoretical astrophysicists, like Hawking.
Would you have dentists or electricians or accountants to review a paper in neurology? So why would you think Hawking be a reviewer on stratigraphy?
PLUS. If there were any peer reviewing to be done, they would be reviewing any data that come with any new hypothesis.
Data are essential parts of observations when testing a hypothesis. Data including any information gathered about the discovered evidence or any experiments performed, because the evidence and experiments should provide any information about the properties of the evidence, especially measurements.
Gentry wrote about rocks, particularly igneous rocks like granite and that radiation could have affected those rocks, providing false readings of old age where as he claimed they were much younger.
now, while I am not doubting his expertise in nuclear physics, I do question his knowledge on geological fields like stratigraphy…as
those who have criticise his so-called works; “those” being the people who are geologists (not astrophysicists like Hawking).
As Earth Science Associates (ESA) isn’t a publisher at all, but his webpage where he self-published and self promoted his book, it cannot be considered peer reviewed. But geologists have criticised his book, as he presented no evidence, particularly no data to accompany with his work. What those critics have done, as they have seen no evidence or data to support his works, and those have read, have criticised the numbers of misinformation.
The reasons why real peer-reviewed publishers don’t publish any work by YEC believers is that they (creationists) think can have their works printed without having to include the necessary evidence and data to support their claims. YEC authors also rely on great deal of misinformation.
If you wanted to talk about bull****, then that’s really coming from YEC crowd.
