Sometimes Glenn can be pretty blunt is his comments, but I think all he was
getting at is that when evaluating controversial and allegedly revolutionary
geological arguments, it's wisest to do so with -reference-, not -blind
subjugation-, to the best of current geological data and theories.
After all, in about any field, it's easy to come up with revolutionary
interpretations of data if one isn't familiar with the broader data and
theories developed to this point.
Rarely, such revolutionary interpretations prove correct. But probably 99
times out of 100, and more in the hardest sciences, they don't. The best
innovations in science are almost always from those intimately and
accurately familiar with the current data and theories who -then and only
then- are in a position to critique and surpass them.
--John
> -----Original Message-----
> From: evolution-owner@udomo2.calvin.edu
> [mailto:evolution-owner@udomo2.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Joseph
> Mastropaolo
> Sent: Saturday, August 29, 1998 1:14 PM
> To: Glenn R. Morton
> Cc: evolution@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: Petersen's New Insights, Morton's Reply
>
>
> Glenn,
>
> You wrote:
> >... please list the articles and books you have
> >read concerning the formation of loess...
>
> Perhaps, I misunderstood the purpose of this discussion group. I
> thought it was to examine evidence and the fidelity of conclusions
> compelled by the evidence. Your answer suggests that you intend
> neither; rather you wish to enthrone authority and subjugation to it.
> If that is your intention, I leave it in your hands.
>
> I repeat, I am anxious to hear from anyone who has read Petersen's
> evidence.
>
> Joseph
>