[Fwd: Steve Austin's Objectivity]

James Mahaffy (mahaffy@mtcnet.net)
Mon, 22 Mar 1999 17:06:11 -0600

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------D918B3C872DA3019CBDADCA2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> AJ Crowl wrote:
>
> 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.
>

I took a quick glance at it - and it seems well done. On the other hand, in principle, I would prefer not to base my assessment on a Talk Origins FAQ. They are hardly unbiased. To his credit, Chris Stassen, does seem
to give a fair response to a criticism of his FAQ - but I did not like the fact that a quick peek at his home page gave no indication if he really is at all qualified in science. About all I saw was a number of anti YEC
pieces. Again you can judge his analysis by what he says, but Talk Origins is hardly an objective forum and I would prefer to see something similar from Steve S. or another evangelical Christian.

Just a little caution that there is a strong biases, which also suspect is anti-Christian, on Talk Origins.

--
James and Florence Mahaffy    712 722-0381 (Home)
227 S. Main St.              712 722-6279 (Office)
Sioux Center, IA 51250




--------------D918B3C872DA3019CBDADCA2
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline


Received: from cc.dordt.edu by admin.dordt.edu id aa25997; 22 Mar 99 15:58 CST
Received: from udomo3.calvin.edu by cc.dordt.edu id aa01469; 22 Mar 99 15:55 CST
Received: (qmail 15012 invoked by uid 27); 22 Mar 1999 21:57:30 -0000
Delivered-To: asa@lists.calvin.edu
Received: (qmail 14999 invoked from network); 22 Mar 1999 21:57:29 -0000
Received: from ursa.calvin.edu (153.106.4.1)
  by udomo3.calvin.edu with SMTP; 22 Mar 1999 21:57:29 -0000
Received: from fep7.mail.ozemail.net (fep7-old.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.99])
	by ursa.calvin.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA04473
	for <asa@calvin.edu>; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 16:57:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from default (slbne14p06.ozemail.com.au [203.108.206.134]) by fep7.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA26137 for <asa@calvin.edu>; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 08:56:54 +1100 (EST)
Message-ID: <000801be74ae$31f7af80$86ce6ccb@default>
From: AJ Crowl <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>
To:   <asa@calvin.edu>
Subject: Steve Austin's Objectivity
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 07:51:45 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01BE7501.FFDF6480"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211
Sender: asa-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu
Precedence: bulk


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--


--------------D918B3C872DA3019CBDADCA2--