It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: wisvol
the link is a romanian book, still same structure
your link is Rumanian which I cannot understand
originally posted by: wisvol
Peer reviewed research means research that has been reviewed by peers.
originally posted by: wisvol
this is what accredited means according to Oxford's dictionary.
OMICS.org does not have the authority to determine what journal is and isn't accredited by the scientific community, only the authority to accredit some journals through a list, and based on how those OMICS.org accredits a list of journals based on the same perspective I'd say that's fortunate.
Peer reviewed means other people whose job it is to study and teach science in accredited universities have reviewed before publishing, and the journal of creation, along with answersingenesis.org... for instance, fit that description exactly.
Denying that they do does not help the idea that your conclusions are reached through the scientific method.
In Sequoia Caverns, stalactites protected from tourists from 1977-1987 grew 10 inches or 1 inch / year. At this rate they could have grown 300 ft in just 3600 years.
You are welcome to explain why in your view the earth is millions or billions of years old, I've been waiting to read this from you.
originally posted by: wisvol
You are welcome to explain why in your view the earth is millions or billions of years old, I've been waiting to read this from you.
As with so many good scientific puzzles, the question of the age of the earth resolves itself on more rigorous examination into distinct components. Do we mean the age of the solar system, or of the earth as a planet within it, or of the earth-moon system, or the time since formation of the earth’s metallic core, or the time since formation of the earliest solid crust? Such questions remain under active investigation, using as clues variations in isotopic distribution, or anomalies in mineral composition, that tell the story of the formation and decay of long-vanished short-lived isotopes. Isotopic ratios between stable isotopes both on the earth and in meteorites are coming under increasingly close scrutiny, to see what they can tell us about the ultimate sources of the very atoms that make up our planet. We can look forward to new answers—and new questions. That’s how science works.
Do you have a good reference from a reputable website/book/journal for the Sequoia stalactites?
Evidence is a large component of the peer review process. Thus using The Bible as a starting point is not a Scientific process.
The oldest material of terrestrial origin that has been dated is a zircon mineral of 4.404 ± 0.008 Ga enclosed in a metamorphosed sandstone conglomerate in the Jack Hills of the Narryer Gneiss Terrane of Western Australia.[4] The 4.404 ± 0.008 Ga zircon is a slight outlier, with the oldest consistently-dated zircon falling closer to 4.35 Ga.[5] This zircon is part of a population of zircons within the metamorphosed conglomerate, which is believed to have been deposited about 3.060 Ga, which is the age of the youngest detrital zircon in the rock. Recent developments in atom-probe tomography have led to a further constraint on the age of the oldest continental zircon, with the most recent age quoted as 4.374 Ga ± 0.006.[6]
By zapping single atoms of lead in a tiny zircon crystal from Australia, researchers have confirmed the crystal is the oldest rock fragment ever found on Earth — 4.375 billion years old, plus or minus 6 million years. "We've proved that the chemical record inside these zircons is trustworthy," said John Valley, lead study author and a geochemist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. The findings were published today (Feb. 23) in the journal Nature Geoscience.
Peer review does the same thing for science that the "inspected by #7" sticker does for your t-shirt: provides assurance that someone who knows what they're doing has double-checked it. In science, peer review typically works something like this: A group of scientists completes a study and writes it up in the form of an article. They submit it to a journal for publication. The journal's editors send the article to several other scientists who work in the same field (i.e., the "peers" of peer review). Those reviewers provide feedback on the article and tell the editor whether or not they think the study is of high enough quality to be published. The authors may then revise their article and resubmit it for consideration. Only articles that meet good scientific standards (e.g., acknowledge and build upon other work in the field, rely on logical reasoning and well-designed studies, back up claims with evidence, etc.) are accepted for publication.
If you have read all those references you have given me then you would have no problem telling me the original author.
I have actually read the Strahler book many years ago and I know for a fact he never mentioned the quote I am enquiring about.
The author of the quote you reproduce is a geologist by the name of Dr. Duane Gish it seems.
I have read none of those references, and reading them isn't a requirement to presenting them.
Strahler's book was written in 1987 and is quoted as a reference of the article, not the other way around.