Re: [asa] Denver RATE Conference (Thousands...Not Billions)_Part 2

From: <mlucid@aol.com>
Date: Thu Oct 18 2007 - 16:21:16 EDT

 Seems to me folks are trying to hang a lot on carbon dating.? Just continental drift combined with some magnetic alignment data in ocean floor rock puts us way over 6,000 years down the pike.? I mean it's not like we're arguing about a few hundred percentile here.? We're looking at a temporal factor of nearly a million.? I cannot believe that God is immanent in all things in a way that would drastically confuse us so elegantly.?

-Mike

"Michael Roberts" wrote
on 10/18/2007 04:35:38 AM:

> You have not actually said it, but are you saying that B either

> doesn't know what he is talking about or his whole approach is full

> of what Winston Churchill called terminological inexactitudes.

'Terminological inexactitudes'!
?I hadn't heard that one before. ?Churchill was great with words.
?I'll have to use that comment on some of the articles that I peer
review!

Although it was not his primary
field of research, Baumgardner probably knows more about radiocarbon than
I do. ?What I find when I hear him talk or read his articles is that
he is an advocate for his point of view (POV). ?Thus he emphasizes
those facts that support his POV and minimizes, disregards, or even ignores
those facts that do not. ?This differs from a good -- or perhaps the
ideal -- scientific journal article that dispassionately lays out a fair
summary of previous work and evidence, adds details of the new study and
findings, and then discusses the conclusions in light of all of the evidence.
?Since none of us are experts in every sub-topic for each sub-discipline
within the specialty for our chosen field of science, we depend on the
authors (and subsequent peer-reviewers) to ensure that these articles are
inclusive and balanced. ?The problem that I have with Baumgardner's
approach is that when I apply the same techniques to his articles that
I use when peer-reviewing science articles submitted for publication, I
do not find balance and fair consideration of opposing evidence and views
-- I find one-sided advocacy.

I like the way Kirk responded to
Michael's statement (http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200710/0194.html).
?I don't see willful deception but simply an invincible hold to a
preconceived POV. ?That which supports the POV is accepted; that which
does not is irrelevant.

I include a bit of doggerel that
serves as a warning to all of us.

? We are most easily deceived,

? ? ?When answers
received,

?Meet with notions preconceived,

? ?Or doctrine long believed.

Steve

??(Disclaimer: Opinions expressed herein are my own and are not
to be attributed to my employer ... or anyone else.)

??_____________

??Steven M. Smith, Geologist, U.S. Geological Survey

??Box 25046, M.S. 973, DFC, Denver, CO 80225

??Office: (303)236-1192, Fax: (303)236-3200

??Email: smsmith@usgs.gov

??-USGS Nat'l Geochem. Database NURE HSSR Web Site-

???http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/ofr-97-0492/

 

________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Oct 18 16:23:13 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Oct 18 2007 - 16:23:13 EDT