and Robert Gentry. Both had impeccable credentials and were praised by their collegues. Th

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

From: SCOTT FAUST Posted: 16 Sep 94 22:50 > and Robert Gentry. Both had impeccable credentials and were > praised by their collegues. The latter worked at Los Alamos > laboratory, and when he raised the issue of pleo chroic halos in > basement rocks(as evidence of fiat creation), he was dismissed. Significantly you do not say -why- Gentry was dismissed. His grant expired. It was not renewed, not due to some nefarious conspiracy, but (principally, as I understand) due to the fact that the original justification for the research did not bear out. It was thought that the presence and analysis of radio halos might aid in the location and evaluation of uranium deposits. Gentry's papers were published in _Science_ (over a period of several years as I recall). But Gentry's interpretation of his halos as indicating instantaeous creation of the rocks which contained them was simply not tenable in light of the available evidence. Indeed, the fact that Gentry's halo containing "primordial" rocks intruded and/or crosscut rocks of sedimentary origin (some even containing fossils) decisively falsified his claim. A refusal to publish scientific interpretations which are demonstrably inviable (even if Gentry had ever submitted them) is hardly "censorship". > I am rather suprised you would cite Archeoptryx. This fossil has > fallen into disrepute of late since more birdlike forms were > found in earlier strata than Archaeoptryx. Why would this (assuming it to be the case) cause _Archaeopteryx_ to fall into "disrepute"? It may show that _A._ wasn't in a -direct- line of descent between more recent birds and some reptile. But _A._ would still (and does still) maintain its status as a striking intermediate between birds and reptiles. If the actual transition had occured well before its time, _A._ could still quite sensibly represent a relatively unmodified lineage stemming therefrom. And would still demonstrate the viability of forms bridging the gap between the two classes. The other problem is that these other claimed birds are -not- indisputably "more birdlike" than _Archaeoteryx_. (Last I checked the literature, in any case.) There is a great deal of controversy about their reconstruction (remains, of Protoavis for instance, having been fragmentary, scattered and broken) and taxonomic status. > (I will get the articles on this, I don't have them in front of > me...) I would be mildly surprised if you have ever read them, unless the articles are magazine or newspaper reports printed in advance of more detailed analysis. "Creation scientists" are well known for citing newspaper articles, preliminary studies, or outdated research, and then studiously ignoring the results of subsequent studies. (The young earth arguments involving "moon dust" and the "shrinking sun" come to mind.) * SLMR 2.1a * Evolution: It's not just a theory, it's a way of life. --- FMail/386 0.98a * Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924 (1:202/212) Message #138 [Evolutionary Theory Discussion]


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank