> I am disturbed by the actions of those at the ICR, not because I've based
>my faith on their evidences, quite the contrary, but because I see Christians
>and Christianity ridiculed and mocked by my fellow geologists for this type of
>garbage. I also feel that Christians should be scrupulously honest in their
>work and I think that organizations like the ICR harm more than help the cause
>of Jesus Christ by presenting these stupid so-called "evidences" for a young
>earth.
I agree entirely, having often borne the brunt of the shoddy work of others.
Isn't the TRUTH important anymore?
Yes it is. All important.
> Who cares who Burdick's "esteemed" professor was. I'm sorry, but anyone
>with an ounce of common sense should realize that if you get pollen from
>modern trees in Precambrian shales than PERHAPS THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH
>CONTAMINATION!!! At least redo the study and guard against such contamination.
>Your excuses for Burdick's work are an appeal to authority (his esteemed
>professor thought it was science so that's good enough for you). Appeals to
>authority may work for religious beliefs but science doesn't work that way.
The issue was "was it science?" That is quite a different question than
"was it correct?". The two do not necessarily coincide, at least not at first.
Any appeal to science is by definition an appeal to authority. It doesn't
matter whether it was good enough for me (which obviously it wasn't). It
was, for whatever reasons good enough science for Kremp. Science is a
rather freewheeling operation, not some kind of monolithic straitjacket.
That you and I disagree with Burdick's findings, and Kremp agreed, does not
make you or I better or worse scientists than Kremp. If the data had been
expected, there would have not been an issue as to whether it was science or
not. It is only because you and I did not expect the outcome that we
applied the criteria of extraordinary science to Burdick's work. I my case
it resulted after several years work in a failure to confirm his findings.
> You never replied to the question as to if you actually submitted your
>research to the CSRQ and why it was published in Origins. The question
>is relevent since it would be interesting to know if the CSRQ will publish
>studies critical of YEC research.
Some of them regarded me as an evolutionist by then, but I was not
interested in publishing in that forum anyway.
Art
http://chadwicka.swac.edu