rlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley) (12/11/84)
(Ray Miller) > ps. I repeat: where are the SOR #3 pamphlet criticisms? I'm almost > ready with #4 and I don't want to post it until I've seen the results > of #3. I don't quite see the point of commenting on the SOR pamphlets. All the arguments they contain have been posted to the net before and most have been rebutted quite well. However the SOR pamphlets do not reflect this; arguments containing fatal flaws are reproduced in exactly their original form even though the flaws have been repeatedly pointed out. It seems that you are more interested in converting people to YOUR point of veiw than you are in providing people with complete and accurate information. You seem to think that winning the argument is more inpotant than discovering the truth. I suspect that is is because of this attitude that creationist papers never get published in scientific journals and are often returned without being read. Note that even wilder theories (such as Hoyle's) DO get published sometimes. The problem with creationists (and UFO nuts) is that they have not interest in evidence that contradicts their theory. How can you publish something written by someone you cannot trust? By the way, There is an interesting out of context quote in SOR #3. > Derek Ager, past president of the British Geological Association, > wrote: ``It is a problem not easily solved by the classic methods of > stratigraphical paleontology, as obviously we will land ourselves > immediately in an impossible circular argument if we say, firstly that > a particular lithology is synchronous on the evidence of its fossils, > and secondly that the fossils are synchronous on the evidence of the > lithology'' [3]. The interesting point is that you quote the statement of the problem and totally ignore the rest of the book which deals with it's solution. Clearly having read the book to find the above quote (assuming that you DID read the book and didn't just copy the quote from some other creationist) you should know the answer as well. It is also interesting that you interpret the quote incorrectly. Ager says If were not careful we would be guilty of circular reasoning. So let us take care. And you iterpret this to mean The reasoning of geologists is circular. What it proves is exactly the oposite Geologists are carefull to avoid circular reasoning. If only creationists would take equal care they might be taken more seriously. (or there might not BE any creationists) Ralph Hartley seismo!rlgvax!cvl!rlh rlh@cvl