Bibliophobic mainstream scientists mock young earth creationists’ for their lack of accepted “peer reviewed” research papers and scholarly works of theory, but of course, peer reviewed means by darwinists! So what are the odds of acceptance by that intellectually dishonest crew? Darwinists and uniformitarian geologists are instructed to not debate knowledgable young earth creationists, ostensibly because the biblical model does not deserve the time of day, but the real reason is that the mainstream scientists are embarrassed in such encounters, so who really has the monopoly on scientific truth?
Some issues of science are so obvious that any moron can see the truth of them, for instance that only a wamer ocean having been heated from below could have been the cause of the dense cloudcover for the Ice Age (think it through), yet mainstream scientists ignore this obvious fact of hydrology because they know that Noah’s Flood had caused that warmer ocean, Noah’s Flood which they say was impossible. Yet when you realize that the mountains rose at the close of the Flood, the geology all fits together, seeing information such as here http://globalflood.org.
If mainstream archaeologists and professors of ancient mathematics would have the courage and intellectual honesty to address this ancient mapping finding http://genesisveracityfoundation.com/earth-measure-geometry, they’d then be forced to admit that the cubit unit of length was earth commensurate, not the distance from some pharoh’s elbow to fingertip, clearly foolish in light of the finding in the link. So bring on the peer review, for to not do so is intellectually dishonest, hindering the furtherance of knowledge about the ancient world to the public.
And what about Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, treated as holy writ by mainstream science? About all you need to know is that Darwin’s term species is actually meaningless, because differing species can interbreed sometimes up to the family level on the phylogenetic tree, rendering the term species useless for meaningful animal classification by genetics. But the biblical model fills the bill, the term syngameons having classification value by genetics, such that only 20,000 syngameons of animals need have been on Noah’s Ark. Peer review anyone?