Re: [asa] ICR's GENE project

Mistake !!!! It was my geology DEPARTMENT in the 1910s who provided one suspect Prof Sollas whom Gould does not think was involved

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Michael Roberts
  To: Robert Schneider
  Cc: David Buller ; Carol or John Burgeson ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 1:56 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] ICR's GENE project

  I am pleased to say that my geology was possibly implicated in the Piltdown hoax, and I am proud of that!

  I dearly wish I could think of a similar to hoax to play on people.

  Incidentally does Thomas Barnes' alleged decay of the magnetic field qualify as a fraud? I wouldn't honour it with the name hoax.

  Why not send examples from pigs (as ham) or even jackasses?

  Michael

  ----- Original Message -----
    From: Robert Schneider
    To: Janice Matchett
    Cc: David Buller ; Carol or John Burgeson ; asa@calvin.edu
    Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 12:55 PM
    Subject: Re: [asa] ICR's GENE project

    I would not call scientific activities of these sorts "wishful thinking." Stacked up against the numerous successes, it is not surprising that there would be a few dead ends and even fewer hoaxes. E.g., the fact that creationists CONSTANTLY use the Pildown hoax as an example of phony science is a measure of how few there are, and of course it was scientists themselves who exposed the hoax.

    I say, let the creationists have at it. Let them spend another 1.25 million on it. And I hope someone takes up David's suggestions and sends in a few anonymous samples from other species, especially primates. The donor could say, "These are from my nehpew." (Someone who delights in the phrase, "Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle.")

    Bob Schneider

     
    On 6/27/07, Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net> wrote:
      At 04:32 PM 6/27/2007, David Buller wrote:

        The president's corner also said:
         
        "The plan is to focus on analyzing the human genome, demonstrating the certainty that man and the animals have no common ancestor. A second goal is to establish the limits of the created "kind," delineating the limits of biological adaptation. I really do feel that in genomics we can conclusively show that "evolution by modification from a common ancestor" did not happen! ..."

        "..Paragraph one is merely fantasizing. .." ~ David Buller

      @ As is "a lot of science", according to lain. :)

      "..I pointed out that a lot of science was a case of wishful thinking, and that the more you wanted a thing to be true the less careful you were about the controls on your research. I gave the "Cold Fusion" fiasco as an example. Here a lot of money was wasted at Harwell labs, where I used to work, attempting to replicate Pons and Fleishmann's results. If P&F hadn't been so excited about the prospect of solving the world's energy needs maybe that money could have been saved. But it now seems ironic to me that there is now an embarrassing example of what was perhaps wishful thinking in the publication of this "flashy" result in a peer reviewed journal. " ~ Iain Strachan Wed, 25 Apr 2007 Re: [asa] Building a flagellum step by step

      ~ Janice

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jun 28 11:26:20 2007