'New Calculations Melt Old Ice-Age Theory'
So will he submit a paper to Science or Nature on his claimed findings?
Hebert links to his own recent (non peer-reviewed) articles on this topic eg this one (Part 3 of 3):https://answersingenesis.org/environmen ... tracted-3/
(I've only skimmed)
Hebert tries to be positive rather than purely negative by offering a 'more excellent way' (a YEC way) as an alternative to that appalling doctrine of uniformitarianism that appears to lead scientists astray in proposing numerous (and ancient) past ice age glaciations. But get this claim: "Creation scientists have long pointed out that there is convincing geological evidence for only one Ice Age in the recent past (Oard 1990, 135–166). The main argument for multiple Pleistocene ice ages is coming, not from glacial deposits themselves, but from uniformitarian interpretations of chemical wiggles in the seafloor sediments." Er, no. Try ICE CORES. They do NOT point to just ONE 'recent' 'rapid' ice age glaciation. Which could be a problem if he does submit a paper to Science or Nature.
Hebert also wrote this article a while back:https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the ... ng-method/
Apparently real scientists have been doing things that the apostle Peter warned them not to do ...
"The apparent agreement between multiple, supposedly independent dating methods (fig. 3a) gives an undeserved aura of validity to old earth dogma. In reality, these methods are not independent of old earth assumptions, and the apparent agreement between these methods is the result of an enormous amount of circular reasoning (fig. 3b). Even with this circular reasoning, discrepancies and contradictions between the different methods do exist, although these contradictions are not well-known by the general public. Of course, underlying this entire network of circular reasoning is the assumption of uniformitarianism, against which the Apostle Peter warned us long ago (2 Peter 3:3–6)."