Steve Austin's Objectivity

AJ Crowl (ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au)
Tue, 23 Mar 1999 07:51:45 +1000

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BE7501.FFDF6480
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi ASA,

In our floating vegetation mat debate I mentioned Steve Austin's other =
contributions to science as being questionable. Here's an example that I =
found at Talk.Origins of his less-than-objective approach to his =
science:

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html

This discusses his approach to objectively assessing the accuracy of =
Rubidium/Strontium dating in the Grand Canyon. Very revealling, and =
rather representative of my experience of Creation Science.

Adam

PS I don't want to start an exercise in character assassination, just to =
question the needed objectivity of a high-profile YEC scientist.

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BE7501.FFDF6480
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">

Hi ASA,
 
In our floating vegetation mat debate I = mentioned=20 Steve Austin's other contributions to science as being questionable. = Here's an=20 example that I found at Talk.Origins of his less-than-objective approach = to his=20 science:
 
http://talkorigins.= org/faqs/icr-science.html
 
This discusses his approach to = objectively=20 assessing the accuracy of Rubidium/Strontium dating in the Grand Canyon. = Very=20 revealling, and rather representative of my experience of Creation=20 Science.
 
Adam
 
PS I don't want to start an exercise in = character=20 assassination, just to question the needed objectivity of a high-profile = YEC=20 scientist.
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BE7501.FFDF6480--