Jump to content


Photo

Scientist Refused Access To Grand Canyon


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#21 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 525 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 17 May 2017 - 10:46 AM

I don't see any problem either.
 
Regardless of who he works for, Snelling is a degreed biologist.  I can think of no legitimate academic or scientific reason he shouldn't be allowed to collect a few dozen fist size rocks.
 
(BTW, what if, it looks like NAIG is back.  When I searched "Snelling creationist," their website was the first hit and the link worked.)

 
If he wasn't allowed to take samples because he personally believes in YEC I agree that is wrong, but I am curious as to what the proposal looked like. If the proposal was something like 'let me take samples to show that they are thousands of years old', then I could see why they would reject his proposal as pseudo-science.
 
Considering that he is a geologist and has successfully taken samples before, it seems unlikely that he would have worded his proposal like that. However, if the Park Services had reasonable suspicion that that was his intention even if he didn't explicitly write it I can see why they would still refuse him access.

there is only one valid reason to refuse this man access to the rocks, and that is if he attempts to use invalid methods in his research.
snelling is perfectly willing to lay all of his research on the table for all to see.

you know, if i was so positive that snellings work would be outright refuted, i wouldn't have any problem at all in letting him have access to said rocks.

refusing snelling access is just outright wrong . . . period.

#22 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 917 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 17 May 2017 - 12:13 PM

there is only one valid reason to refuse this man access to the rocks, and that is if he attempts to use invalid methods in his research.

snelling is perfectly willing to lay all of his research on the table for all to see.

you know, if i was so positive that snellings work would be outright refuted, i wouldn't have any problem at all in letting him have access to said rocks.

refusing snelling access is just outright wrong . . . period.

 

Ideally, yes, if you're positive that Snelling's work would be fractally refuted there's no harm in letting him do his work. Assuming he doesn't lie about his work which some creationists do.

 

However, I can see the point in not allowing someone access if their work is clearly pseudo-science because you don't want to open the flood gates to every fringe pseudo-science idea out there; it would just be a waste of resources and fuel pseudo-science ideas. I suspect this is where the Park is coming from, but with the little information we have (and only one side, the creationist side) it is impossible to say what is really going on or whether the Park is justified in their decision. That they sued means they think they have a real legal case on their hands; I doubt AIG would sue unless they felt they had a real shot at winning.



#23 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 525 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 17 May 2017 - 01:32 PM

Ideally, yes, if you're positive that Snelling's work would be fractally refuted there's no harm in letting him do his work. Assuming he doesn't lie about his work which some creationists do.
 
However, I can see the point in not allowing someone access if their work is clearly pseudo-science because you don't want to open the flood gates to every fringe pseudo-science idea out there; it would just be a waste of resources and fuel pseudo-science ideas. I suspect this is where the Park is coming from, but with the little information we have (and only one side, the creationist side) it is impossible to say what is really going on or whether the Park is justified in their decision. That they sued means they think they have a real legal case on their hands; I doubt AIG would sue unless they felt they had a real shot at winning.

there IS NO REASON to deny this man access, none whatsoever.
he is WILLING to lay his research in front of EVERYONE.
correction, there IS a reason, fear.

#24 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 917 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 17 May 2017 - 02:46 PM

there IS NO REASON to deny this man access, none whatsoever.

he is WILLING to lay his research in front of EVERYONE.
correction, there IS a reason, fear.

 

If his research is valid and his intentions are honest then I agree he should be allowed access. I guess what I am saying is that I reserve judgement until I hear both sides.



#25 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 525 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 17 May 2017 - 03:28 PM

If his research is valid and his intentions are honest . . .

who cares what his "intentions" are.
who cares what he believes.
who even cares if he is a sot laying around drunk all day.
what matters is the research, his methods, and the standards he uses, and he is WILLING to lay this stuff right on the line.

#26 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 524 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 26 May 2017 - 11:07 PM

Are you kidding me? What a rambling, long-winded explanation, covering the personalities of the people of the tour he took. I gave up after reading to a point where I would find an argument somewhere in there, and I never did find one.
 
Perhaps if he has some important points you could highlight them, so I can refute them for you, in my sleep. He starts with the usually propagandist type rhetoric, referring to creation, "scientists" or, "science" in quotes, as if to imply an obtuse no-true-Scotsman fallacy which he has likely never heard of.
 
The point is, "What If", you can present as many articles and blogs saying creation isn't science, as you want, but this won't change the fact that it is a scientific fact that we have seen strata, facies, and canyons cut out within weeks on this planet, and we have seen none of those things happen slowly.
 
Flume experiments have confirmed what Austin argues, that hydraulic sorting can indeed create facies quickly, laminated and stratified. 
 
This is proven scientific fact.
 
So now show me science showing a canyon forming over millions of years, show me science showing strata with fossils forming slowly, show me different type of rock morphology happen slowly, like at Mt St Helens, where you have stratified rock cut off by a flow and create cliffs on top of it that were not stratified.
 
This is what evolutionists are too DUMB to realise - that while they are giving their lengthy rhteorical PHLEGM concerning creation not being science, they haven't actually got any science to show us, proving their absurd MOY story.
 
No direct facts at all - but we have, which is why they can only attack us personally and call us false scientists, because friend, that's the only weak hand they have to play. But one hand they haven't got to play, is any example of these features happening slowly like they claim happened, but we have scientific proof the same features happened quickly. That is our claim, juxtaposed with their story - our claim is proven, that these features can and indeed did happen quickly, so why can't they on a larger scale? But their claim remains a story.


"This is what evolutionists are too DUMB to realise"

Take it easy there Mike...
Hate the sin, Love the sinner..

REMEMBER

"It is not that Evolutionists are not intelligent..

It is just that they know so much that isn't so"..

J Thinnsen




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users