If I was a great quarterback in the Arena League or Canadian Football would I be taken as seriously as a mediocre NFL quarterback? The same logic applies. I scientist at Podunk Community College isn't going to be taken as seriously as one who works for MIT.
Berlinski has an impressive resume by any standard. But to follow your sports analogy, what if the athlete were black and played in an era were blacks were not allowed to play in the top league? Intellectual snobbery could have the same effect as racism and exclude countless people from a lucrative and thrilling profession. To take the question a step further what if the athlete were offered the ability to participate in the thrilling, lucrative profession if only he would change his race? (Obviously absurd, but it's a hypothetical question) The result would be the majority of people could, through no fault of their own, believe that blacks can't play quarterback. When in reality what happened is that blacks weren't allowed to play quarterback. I think this is what happens in science. I would wager that professing disbelief in evolution within the scientific community will doom the individual to Podunk colleges, and they know it.
Wait a second, you just did it. Shroud of Turin carbon dating-good Dinosaur carbon dating-bad I don't know that much about it, read one book and it was interesting. I would tend to believe it but mostly because that would be very difficult to fake. That's a hard question to answer. I don't really think science conflicts with "Hebrew mythology".
You never answered my question regarding this. Do the pictures on the second link not strike you as similar to the grand canyon? That is a sincere question, they look similar to me.
That is not how it works in the scientific community. I can't imagine why you would think that unless you suspect there is a vast conspiracy. In which case, I ask you to prove it. What dooms an individual to podunk colleges is podunk research. Science constantly revises itself. It is entirely possible to change the consensus if your research is good enough. It is impossible to even nudge it if your evidence is shaky, your analysis flawed, and your conclusions are unconvincing.
No. The Grand Canyon is the result of gradual change over great time, where a river maintains its general position while the land is subjected to uplift beneath it. It causes the river and all of its tributaries to erode down through the layers of rock to reach the sea, producing a distinctive very deep and wide dendritic system of canyons that are observably still eroding the rock. The channeled scablands are a result of a catastrophic flood event when a glacier created a huge lake and finally the ice floated and released a huge wall of water. Such flooding does not dig a deep channel, it does not have the time. It seeks existing valleys and fills them, stripping away soil up to the level of the flood and redepositing it downstream, making huge oversized ripples. Where the water filled the valleys and ran over open land it branched out and made many braided channels where the topsoil was washed away exposing bedrock and creating huge waterfall pools where it rejoined a valley downstream. This unusual geology was a mystery for many years until aerial photography revealed the size and nature of the flood features and separate research upstream discovered extensive terraces showing former levels of a giant lake. The flood was there for just a few days until the lake emptied and the glacier and the lake no longer exist. The small streams that now occupy the valleys are incapable of creating the oversized features created by the ancient floodwaters.
