Atheists just love peer reviews. If a "scholar" reviews something they like favorably, the "scholar" is an official peer.


Well-known member
Natural science.
What's that? Your best guess?
Or can you show us how an assembly line of organelle could evolve.
How many times do I have to tell you no, I can't because I haven't studied the subject. Have you?

Just because I can't show you doesn't mean there isn't a natural explanation.
Maybe you could call up and ask one of your scientist buddies.
I'm not the one making claims borne out of ignorance, you are and you are refusing to educate yourself about a subject you pontificate upon, but know so little about.

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Your argument is based on a flawed understanding of the term "peer review." While it is true that a peer is someone of equal standing, that is not the only requirement for a review to be considered "peer review."
In academic and scientific circles, peer review refers to a process where experts in a specific field review and evaluate research or academic work before it is published or presented. These experts are typically scholars or researchers with advanced degrees in their field of study and extensive experience in the subject matter being reviewed.
Narrow minded.
The purpose of peer review is to ensure the quality, accuracy, and validity of the research or academic work being presented. It provides a system of checks and balances to ensure that new ideas or research are subjected to rigorous scrutiny by knowledgeable experts before they are accepted as valid and reliable.

Used car sales pitch.

It is publish or perish. Mutual slap on the back.
Your reference to Genesis 1:3-4 as an example of peer review is problematic because it ignores the context and purpose of the passage.

The creation story in Genesis is not intended to be a scientific or academic work subject to peer review.

False. Your unglodly peers review your angle on The Word of God?

Rather, it is a religious text that serves a different purpose.
According to your opinion?
In conclusion, while it is important to consider the definition of terms like "peer" and "scholar," it is also crucial to understand the specific context in which those terms are being used. Your argument fails to recognise the accepted definition and purpose of peer review in academic and scientific circles.
No wonder those 2 circles and becoming untrustworthy.

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
I noticed that you had a few naysayers, who tried making it easier to disregard the point of the op.
so, I decided to do some research on it.
I've found a number of different industry standards for peer-review qualifications.

CPA (honestly, i never would have considered that CPA's would actually have a peer review qualification standard, so needless to say.... i am impressed!)

CPA "peer" review. audits by definition review the financials prepared by the client to ensure they 'represent fairly" the year ending....

Even a small company audit can turn into hundreds of hours.

Peer review in "science" may be limited to reading a paper. CPA's have an ethics exam. Which of course helps me see incredible conflicts of interest others in other industries never notice. At the front end of an audit, we do an internal control questionaire. The total field of 'climate science' stinks to high heaven in regards to botched and negligent internal control practices.