Re: ICR scientists at the Geological conference

From: <Cmekve@aol.com>
Date: Tue Jan 20 2004 - 12:30:55 EST

In a message dated 1/17/2004 1:29:32 PM Mountain Standard Time,
jwburgeson@juno.com writes:

> Recently I noted that there were three papers presented at a recent
> geological conference on the RATE project by ICR scientists.
>
> I found a reference to these -- they were not presentatons, but
> "posters." In my field, posters were often a lively part of conferences;
> they could be put up by anyone with no peer review. That did not make
> them invalid, of course, but most of them got little attention by
> attendees. Walk by, read a line or two, say "hmm," and go on.
>
> Burgy
>
> www.burgy.50megs.com/shadows.htm (Into the Shadows)
>

Burgy-

I assume you are referring to the American Geophysical Union (AGU) meeting;
this along with the Geological Society of America (GSA) are the two major
professional organizations for the earth sciences in the U.S. The posters at these
meetings are "peer reviewed" or at least reviewed as much as can be expected
when there are several thousand abstracts for oral and poster presentations.
As I recall, those abstracts were mostly descriptive of there "experiment" and
ended with some vague statement that the theory they were supposedly testing
may need another look.

This seems to be the modus operandi for YEC contributors at GSA and AGU
meetings. Steve Austin and Kurt Wise regularly give talks and posters at GSA but
they are strictly "scientific" in nature. When Austin describes a sedimentary
bed covered by ammonite fossils, he makes no mention of the "Flood" as the
presumed cause of the "mass kill". Nevertheless, YEC's can then say that they
are publishing with respected organizations. Whether they say that or not I
can't say; I refuse to waste my time slogging through the drivel they produce.

Note as well that both AGU and GSA at least have the integrity to publish
legitimate scientific abstracts by YEC's. The ICR address is routinely used by
these guys and it would be very easy for reviewers to merely look at the
address at the head of the abstract and reject it.

Karl
***************************
Karl V. Evans
cmekve@aol.com
Received on Tue Jan 20 12:31:59 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jan 20 2004 - 12:31:59 EST