Carbon dating rate group
(See here for further discussion on the charade of creationist "peer-review.")If these results are "breakthroughs" that provide convincing evidence which will overturn the firmly established laws of physics pertaining to rates of radioactive decay, why are they only published in obscure religion-based journals?
After all, if it were true, this work would undermine the very foundation of theoretical physics.
But even he “realized that there probably would be variation”, says Christopher Bronk Ramsey, a geochronologist at the University of Oxford, UK, who led the latest work, published today in Science.Surely if this work is as momentous as the article claims it is, it would receive top billing in some prestigious science journal such as Science or Nature.There is nothing mainstream science likes better than authenticated "breakthroughs" that call into question the veracity of existing theories.These reviewers are motivated solely by the desire to defend their sacrosanct religious beliefs, not by the desire to discover the the scientific truth.Anyone who would expect them to actually engage in an impartial and scientifically honest analysis of the evidence is deluding themselves.