Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [CreationTalk] Response to Flaws in a Young-Earth Cooling Mechanism

Expand Messages
  • nathan lawrence
    I posted my thoughts on the quote on the TalkPage of the article. The points I bring up is that:   1: Morton and Murphy omit a citation in the quote.   2:
    Message 1 of 9 , Jan 27, 2009
      I posted my thoughts on the quote on the TalkPage of the article. The points I bring up is that:
       
      1: Morton and Murphy omit a citation in the quote.
       
      2: The paragraphs around the humphreys quote goes more into detail and brings up several lines of evidence. Morton and Murphy purely attack Humphrey's model as described in the one quote. They do not tell the reader that he actually made an attempt to bring evidence to the table.

      --- On Tue, 1/27/09, Temlakos <temlakos@...> wrote:

      From: Temlakos <temlakos@...>
      Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Response to Flaws in a Young-Earth Cooling Mechanism
      To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 9:32 AM






      It's possibly more effective to make sure that the truth gets out than
      to accuse someone of lying deliberately.

      The way someone gets "excommunicat[ ed] from the community of scientists"
      (to quote the Yale College Handbook) is to be shown up for repeatedly
      asserting "facts" not in evidence. Get the truth out often enough, and
      it is enough to show that the other person is unreliable.

      But if there's a difference between what Humphreys /actually/ said, and
      what Glenn Morton and his collaborator /accused/ him of saying, then our
      article ought to reflect those differences and allow the reader to
      decide whether Glenn Morton is acting in bad faith, or just being a poor
      researcher. Either action would be damning enough in and of itself.

      By the way: does the Humphreys model have its own article on
      CreationWiki? It probably should have it.

      Temlakos

      Charles Creager Jr wrote:
      > I too noticed evidence that they were misrepresenting Humphreys' work in
      > this area. I deliberately avoided accusing them of deliberate deceit, not
      > because I did not have reason suspect it, but because I thought it best not
      > to include it.
      >
      >
      >
      > ------ Charles Creager Jr.
      >
      > Genesis <http://genesismissi on.4t.com/> Mission
      >
      > Items on eBay <http://shop. ebay.com/ merchant/ creagerjr123>
      >
      > _____
      >
      > From: CreationTalk@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:CreationTalk@ yahoogroups. com] On
      > Behalf Of nathan lawrence
      > Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 9:20 AM
      > To: CreationTalk@ yahoogroups. com
      > Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Response to Flaws in a Young-Earth Cooling
      > Mechanism
      >
      >
      >
      > I've posted some of my thoughts on the talk page of the article. The way
      > Morton quotes Humphreys is misleading and give the impression that it's pure
      > conjecture. Though Humphreys has not finished the model, he did give it more
      > thought then Morton presents.
      > Humphreys does present theoretical and experimental support for his idea.
      > Morton makes no mention of ANY of this.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      > ------------ --------- --------- ------
      >
      > ============ ========= ========= ========= =====
      > CreationTalk email listserv
      > Northwest Creation Network http://nwcreation. net/
      > CreationWiki http://creationwiki .org/
      > ============ ========= ========= ========= =====Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >


















      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Charles Creager Jr
      I did mention such a discrepancy though in a subtle manner, by simply mentioning the fact that Humphreys was giving a figure as an example which they implied
      Message 2 of 9 , Jan 27, 2009
        I did mention such a discrepancy though in a subtle manner, by simply
        mentioning the fact that Humphreys was giving a figure as an example which
        they implied was the theoretical value. Feel free to add and references you
        think are needed.



        ------ Charles Creager Jr.

        Genesis <http://genesismission.4t.com/> Mission

        Items on eBay <http://shop.ebay.com/merchant/creagerjr123>

        _____

        From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
        Behalf Of Temlakos
        Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 9:33 AM
        To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Response to Flaws in a Young-Earth Cooling
        Mechanism



        It's possibly more effective to make sure that the truth gets out than
        to accuse someone of lying deliberately.

        The way someone gets "excommunicat[ed] from the community of scientists"
        (to quote the Yale College Handbook) is to be shown up for repeatedly
        asserting "facts" not in evidence. Get the truth out often enough, and
        it is enough to show that the other person is unreliable.

        But if there's a difference between what Humphreys /actually/ said, and
        what Glenn Morton and his collaborator /accused/ him of saying, then our
        article ought to reflect those differences and allow the reader to
        decide whether Glenn Morton is acting in bad faith, or just being a poor
        researcher. Either action would be damning enough in and of itself.

        By the way: does the model have its own article on
        CreationWiki? It probably should have it.

        Temlakos



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.