XPost: alt.religion.jehovahs-witn, alt.bible, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: talk.atheism   
   From: tiffirgREVERSE@ctc.net   
      
   Pastor Dave wrote:   
      
   > On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 18:04:25 -0400, Raymond Griffith   
   >  posted thusly:   
   >   
   >   
   > And here it is folks.  While the evolutionists demand   
   > "peer reviewed articles" and CLAIM that articles   
   > submitted by creationists are not excluded due to the   
   > bias of the evolutionists, watch the attitude here...   
      
   And what is wrong is my attitude? Wanting people to be careful in   
   quoting their sources and not making their sources out to be something   
   they are not?   
      
   Of course, you have been quick with the quotes, and appear to see   
   nothing wrong with mangling a few to get the effect you desire.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >>>The author obviously doesn't know what in the hell he's talking about.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >>I wouldn't expect that he would. Please note that he is not accorded a   
   >>title, like "Dr.", but is simply a "Paleoanthropology researcher".   
   >>*ANYBODY* could be a paleoanthropology researcher if they researched the   
   >>topic.   
      
   This was the particular point. The person was quoted as an authority,   
   yet we have absolutely *no* idea what his recognized level of expertise   
   happens to be.   
      
   >>   
   >>Also please note that the publication is conveniently left out. Mehlert   
   >>publishes in creationist papers, like the CRS Quarterly (Creation   
   >>Research Science).   
      
   And if you want bias, just look at this organization's statement of   
   faith, which says in essence that the facts must always be interpreted   
   through the lens of the Christian faith, and anything that doesn't fit   
   is to be rejected. These people have limited their ability to look at   
   the world around them through a lens of "faith first". They reject   
   scientific explanations in favor of supernatural ones.   
      
   >>   
   >>Of course, in one place I looked him up he was titled "Former   
   >>Evolutionist" -- but that means nothing. Anyone can claim that sort of   
   >>thing.   
      
   Anything wrong with this statement or attitude, Dave? No worse than your   
   own regular one, I'd say.   
      
   >>   
   >>I would say that those who believe in a world flood are sincere -- but   
   >>have probably not studied the topic sufficiently to understand the   
   >>difficulties involved. Those Creation "scientists" who have a good   
   >>understanding of science -- but fudge, distort, or lie about it to fit   
   >>their religious viewpoints are guilty of fraud.   
      
   And what in the world is wrong with this statement? If you should fudge,   
   distort, or lie about a topic, you are guilty of fraud. And so a host of   
   so-called "Creation Scientists" are guilty of fraud, including Henry Morris.   
      
   >>   
   >>Unfortunately, fraud is not the sole province of the leaders of the   
   >>movement. I would suggest that, in the quote-mining business, that   
   >>failure to disclose the source of publication is an example of   
   >>intellectual dishonesty. After all, trying to make your sources appear   
   >>somehow better than they really are is fraudulent. It would merit a   
   >>failing grade on a paper at my school.   
   >>   
   >>Raymond E. Griffith   
   >   
   >   
   > Note: Anything published in a Creationist magazine,   
   > which only exists because of the bias of evolutionists   
   > censoring materials submitted to mainstream science   
   > magazines, if it appears creationist in any sense, is   
   > considered to be worse than anything else published.   
      
   Well, if a bias of mainstream science is toward honest research, then   
   were guilty. Creation science, so-called, is painfully lacking in such   
   things.   
      
   Creationists actually *do* get published in mainstream journals in the   
   fields of their expertise when they don't allow their bias to get in the   
   way of actually doing science. When they want to let their bias have   
   full control, they publish in Creationist journals, websites, etc.   
   Humphreys publishes in mainstream journal on particle physics, IIRC. But   
   he'd never submit something like his theory of a "white hole cosmology"   
   to mainstream journals. He published that through a "Christian"   
   publishing house. So even "Creation Scientists" actually know that their   
     good solid stuff can be submitted to reputable science journals, while   
   their fiction meant for popular consumption must be published in the   
   Creationist maggies -- a tacit admission of their own that Creationist   
   materials are automatically worse sources than peer-reviewed science   
   journals.   
      
   Raymond E. Griffith   
      
      
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)