Peer Review or BUST??

Chuck, have you actually read many of the threads on this site? There are dozens of them dealing with creation science research and not simply dismissing it for not having appeared in a mainstream peer reviewed journal.The thing is though that publication is not the end point of scientific review and research, it is the point where that work becomes open to wider scrutiny. The fact is that a lot of creation science research doesn't stand up to that further scrutiny, which is not unconnected to why it doesn't get published in mainstream peer reviewed journals.If people have access to these peer reviewed creation science papers then nothing stops them from presenting that data. The fact is that in the vast majority of cases creationists/IDists are much more ready to present claims than they are to present data.Have you considered actually starting a thread to discuss such research rather than just complaining about how you can't before you even try? Of course if the research is going to be something from several years back such as Baumgardner's flood models or the RATE study then there is a better chance that people will discount it as a PRATT simply because they are things that have been already been repeatedly discussed here and in other places.If you think you have something good from Answers, Journal of Creation, CRSQ, IJCR or whatever technical Creation science journal you are thinking of then just start a thread with a post giving a reference and an outline of the research and what you want to discuss about it.TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

So even though you yourself acknowledge that the topic you intend to bring up has been discussed before in depth you still want a brand new thread to discuss it and plan to ignore the old one and presumably the other two or three threads there have been on the topic? What you have done here is precisely demonstrate why so many creationists/IDists get accused of presenting PRATTS.It is an especially succinct demonstration since some of your claims, such as Richard Sternberg having been fired as a result, are so demonstrably false. So he resigned before the paper was even published, he was not fired.This demonstrates another aspect of PRATTS, that some of us just can't help ourselves when it comes to responding to them.TTFN,WK

So can you tell us what job he got fired from yet? Because I can't make it out from your post.TTFN,WK