Freethought & Rationalism Archive

S2Focus · 10-16-2002, 08:12 PM

...over at the theologyonline.com c/e board.

"bob b", the not-so-terribly-bright-moderator of the theologyonline.com c/e board, started a thread about <a href="http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-352.htm" target="_blank">this ICR Impact article </a> about two weeks ago. The ICR article cites a paper written by Peter Reiners, et. al. to support the notion that He retention in zircons demonstrates that the Earth is just a few thousand years old. (The theologyonline.com discussion thread begins <a href="http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3598" target="_blank">begins here.</a>)

Well, it just so happens that someone over at talk.origins contacted Peter Reiners, asked for his comments about that Impact article, and then posted Reiners' comments to t.o. (see message ID 86b7ec04.0210161541.6d34fa9@posting.google.com).

Yours truly was kind enough to reproduce Reiners' comments over at the theologyonline.com c/e board. It will be interesting to see how (or if) "bob b" responds. For maximum enjoyment, take the time to start at the beginning of the thread and read through all of the exchanges between "bob b" and "wehappyfew" before you read Reiners' comments at the end.

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: S2Focus ]</p>

Xeluan · 10-17-2002, 01:31 AM

Over at Arn when I got involved in the whale evolution thread, I emailed <a href="http://www.neoucom.edu/Depts/ANAT/Thewissen.html" target="_blank">Hans Thewissen</a> with some questions and he kindly replied as mentioned <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001518" target="_blank">here</a>.

I don't want to start a trend of Infidels emailing every misquoted scientist under the Sun but most (from following the evo-creo debate online over the years)seem happy to answer questions re their work.

I wonder why creationists never bother to check their facts?

That is what pissed me off so much with Behe's DBB tome. From pages 26 to 31 Behe (who I though would have of had a little more integrity) does some serious quote mining. It is superficial (punk-eek gets equated with serious saltation) and is one example of serious lack of research and understanding of the issues by Behe.

But we all know that and I'm ranting after a long day so ta ta for now.

Xeluan

MrDarwin · 10-17-2002, 05:10 AM

Twice I have directly contacted scientists whose work was used or quoted (or quoted out of context) in creationist literature. In both cases they replied at length and were happy to set the record straight. A short, concise, to-the-point question, along with a link to the offending website or discussion, usually seems to do the trick (and let's face it, most scientists love to talk about their own research!). But as a courtesy, always ask their permission to quote their reply.

10-16-2002, 08:12 PM	#1
S2Focus Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: 1162 easy freeway minutes from the new ICR in TX Posts: 896	It will be interesting to see how "bob b" responds to this... ...over at the theologyonline.com c/e board. "bob b", the not-so-terribly-bright-moderator of the theologyonline.com c/e board, started a thread about <a href="http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-352.htm" target="_blank">this ICR Impact article </a> about two weeks ago. The ICR article cites a paper written by Peter Reiners, et. al. to support the notion that He retention in zircons demonstrates that the Earth is just a few thousand years old. (The theologyonline.com discussion thread begins <a href="http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3598" target="_blank">begins here.</a>) Well, it just so happens that someone over at talk.origins contacted Peter Reiners, asked for his comments about that Impact article, and then posted Reiners' comments to t.o. (see message ID 86b7ec04.0210161541.6d34fa9@posting.google.com). Yours truly was kind enough to reproduce Reiners' comments over at the theologyonline.com c/e board. It will be interesting to see how (or if) "bob b" responds. For maximum enjoyment, take the time to start at the beginning of the thread and read through all of the exchanges between "bob b" and "wehappyfew" before you read Reiners' comments at the end. [ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: S2Focus ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-17-2002, 01:31 AM	#2
Xeluan Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Some Pub In East Gosford, Australia Posts: 831	Over at Arn when I got involved in the whale evolution thread, I emailed <a href="http://www.neoucom.edu/Depts/ANAT/Thewissen.html" target="_blank">Hans Thewissen</a> with some questions and he kindly replied as mentioned <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001518" target="_blank">here</a>. I don't want to start a trend of Infidels emailing every misquoted scientist under the Sun but most (from following the evo-creo debate online over the years)seem happy to answer questions re their work. I wonder why creationists never bother to check their facts? That is what pissed me off so much with Behe's DBB tome. From pages 26 to 31 Behe (who I though would have of had a little more integrity) does some serious quote mining. It is superficial (punk-eek gets equated with serious saltation) and is one example of serious lack of research and understanding of the issues by Behe. But we all know that and I'm ranting after a long day so ta ta for now. Xeluan

10-17-2002, 05:10 AM	#3
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	Twice I have directly contacted scientists whose work was used or quoted (or quoted out of context) in creationist literature. In both cases they replied at length and were happy to set the record straight. A short, concise, to-the-point question, along with a link to the offending website or discussion, usually seems to do the trick (and let's face it, most scientists love to talk about their own research!). But as a courtesy, always ask their permission to quote their reply.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.