Re: Out-dated theory

In message <87hd68a2nl.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.McCaughan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

- that Nick wasn't claiming that Coffin's work wasn't science,
but that it wasn't "based on the evidence";

How can it be "not based on the evidence" when every point is referenced?
The fact that obscure journals are quoted merely points to the fact that
Coffin conducted comprehensive research.

- that it isn't even that Coffin entirely relied on secondary
sources, but that he seems also to have relied largely on
*bad* ones;

What was "bad" about them? The fact that they reported facts that pointed to
a contradiction with the evolutionary scenario? (This, by the way, is one
reason why evolution is so often regarded as a religion: facts must either
be consistent with dogma or they must be suppressed.)

I am struggling to find any element of truth in what you
wrote about "your own definition". Do you care at all whether
what you say is true or false, when you smell an opportunity
to mock an evolutionist?

If people make silly statements I see no reason not to draw attention to the
fact. Nick dismissed Coffin's work because one of his references came from
the Tobacco Road journal. Why is that a heinous crime? Why does that
make your entire body of work "unscientific"? Now if Nick had been able to
say that he dismissed Coffin because all (or even the majority) of his
sources were fellow Creationists, that would be a valid cause to question
the impartiality of the work. If he had been able to say that the sources
had been exposed like that Korean chappie as frauds and charlatans, that
again would be good reason. If Nick had been able to say "the obscure source
says X but mainstream geological journals say not-X", that would be pretty
damning.

In fact, he said none of those things, presumably because they are not true.
All he could say was "Coffin is not a geologist and relied upon the writings
of those who are, therefore his work is not science."

Really? I've just re-read everything in that thread that
wasn't by either you or Nick, and not found any such
complaint. But I was pretty hasty and Google's interface
is a bit poor, so maybe I missed it. Can you give me any
further information that might enable me to locate this
complaint from "someone else"?

It was, apparently, Phil. The protagonists have differing views of whether
the charge was correct.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premiere archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Out-dated theory
    ... How can it be "not based on the evidence" when every point is referenced? ... So, for instance, three of the references are to PhD dissertations ... Nick dismissed Coffin's work because one of his references came from ... sources were fellow Creationists, that would be a valid cause to question ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Explain Again
    ... Nick UK wrote.. ... >> So don't be at all surprised if a member of RGL's.. ... > of evidence that something doesn't exist. ... digital copies of the winning tickets, for those here who were interested. ...
    (rec.gambling.lottery)
  • Re: The Drunken Failures play "Here Comes the Sun" ....................!
    ... but facts ... >You can't seriously compare Webby, even at his worst, with the Ubertroll. ... >Of course, you know the reason for this, right? ... >>reconciliation with all of them and Nick as well. ...
    (rec.music.beatles)
  • Re: Explain Again
    ... > the likes of the RGL 'Human-shit Brigade' such as.. ... > false accusers are indeed proven liars who would not recognise ... Nick, that last remark was freakin' hilarious! ... of evidence that something doesn't exist. ...
    (rec.gambling.lottery)
  • Re: New home required
    ... The email "short of violating our licenses" clearly ... that written consent would have been sufficient. ... Not convincing at all Nick. ... you offered to help me multiple times and that I (for some reason I cannot ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)