For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.(2 Timothy 4:3-4) NKJV
We have considered the dubious nature of the Great Permian Contrivance. The Permian, and its supposed date millions of years ago, isn’t a testable hypothesis, so it’s not, technically, scientific.
The process of Peer Review is supposed to be constrained by the rules of the scientific method but fortunately Stephen Hawking, among others, came up with the perfect workaround for that: plausibility. The only real rule in the scientific method is plausibility.
The Scientific Method Post Hawking
- If it’s plausible it’s possible.
- If it’s possible it happened.
- It has to have happened because we exist.
- The chances of us existing are so remotely tiny that our existence proves our hypothesis (whatever it is).
The Permian is necessary to account for inconvenient evidence. Peer Review has determined that we can ignore the normal rules of the scientific method and accept anything that fits the prevailing narrative.– Peer Review
This is the beauty of Peer Review. If the consensus of the scientific community is that the Permian plugs the gaps and smooths out the bumps in the narrative then it will be accepted, regardless of whether or not it has any scientific merit. The narrative has paramount importance, therefore if the hypothesis fits the narrative then it must be right. It’s a microcosm of circular reasoning.
Peer review is the collective will of society which promotes our existential hope of eternal oblivion; it maintains the internal logical consistency of the popular science paradigm (SciPop); it’s inductive, reductive, circular reasoning designed to rationalize leaps of faith. It’s the padded rail around the intellectual play pen where you’re allowed to think; the blind leading the blind. A ruling deity in the atheist pantheon, the subject of a lot of special pleading.– Peer Review, definition
Peer Review is all about telling you what you want to hear. The collective will of society is what we hope for. The problem is that society is at the mercy of human nature. Humans have a dual nature and corruption is part of it. What most people hope for, their desire, is that there’s no God, no judgement and no hell. Peer Review is designed to promote a theoretical framework which fulfills this desire. This is where we get popular science (SciPop).
Mainstream science (SciPop) is peer reviewed which means that you’re not allowed to question it, you’re instructed to believe it. The thinking’s been done by people immensely more qualified than you. It’s not your problem, so stop worrying about it. You’re free to abdicate taking intellectual responsibility for your beliefs.– Peer Review, MO
The truth, as inconvenient as it may be, is that God is real, judgement is real and hell is real.
We’re cleaning up the mess made by peer review. It’s called mainstream science (SciPop).– Navigate below
Equatorial Glaciation – Navigation
|1||Equatorial Glaciation?||Genesis 8:1|
|Avoid Foolish Disputes||Titus 3:8-9|
|The Things We See||Luke 10:23-24|
|2||Which Ice Age?||Job 38:29-30|
|Earth in Upheaval||Isaiah 24:20|
|3||Climate Change and Global Warming||Deuteronomy 32:22|
|4||Peer Review||2 Timothy 4:3-4|
After Noah’s flood a wind caused the waters to evaporate. Evaporation causes cooling. This caused the formation of equatorial and polar ice.