> Rhubarb! Rhubarb!
>
> >At 04:04 PM 2/9/99 -0500, Steve wrote:
> >
> >> The problem I have with people like you or Austin bringing this stuff up
> >is that
> >>you NEVER mention the negative evidence! You guys selectively report the
> >data in
> >>order to bolster your case -- a tactic which is definitely frowned upon in
> >science
> >>(but not, evidently, among young-earth or flood geologists). I think I
> >clearly
> >>documented that Austin did indeed do that in my last post and I think you
> >were
> >>trying to get away with it now.
> >
> >Look at your last publication, and tell me how much paper you devoted to
> >attempting to disprove your thesis. I am sorry, but science doesn't work
> >like that, and you ought to know it. We are attempting to present a case
> >which has 1000 detractors for every supporter. Why should you expect me to
> >do your homework for you. What keeps science advancing is the interactions
> >of the community, not the individual scientists, each of which labors under
> >some paradigm or other. Every scientist is attempting to advance some
> >thesis, not to shoot one of his or her own down. Be realistic, Steve, quit
> >grousing and name-calling, and expecting me to do your homework for you!
> >
>
> Actually, in all the papers I have written I spend half the discussion
> talking about the problems of my paradigm (my PIs insist on it!). This is
> partially to admit that there are problems, partially to beat my detractors
> to the punch. However, I will admit that in every case I tried to put the
> best possible spin on the situation: I either explained that the problems
> were not serious or described what experiments I planned to do next to
> resolve those problems. Most of the biochemical papers I read do much the
> same. Is geology different?
Not in my experience!
> Kevin L. O'Brien
Jonathan Clarke