NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/origins/16777

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-26 | 3.5 KB

From: [e-mail] (John Brawley)
Sender: [e-mail]
Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!cheswicks!fredgate
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Nets of Wonder...
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:46:00 -0600
Lines: 66

New to you and the INTERNET, I have a specific question, applicable to
the creation/evolution 'discussion,' but first:  Uh... I, and possibly
others who have long wished for access to talk.origins (having seen its
name mentioned in many other echoes and in many other messages) thought
when I finally gained access for interactive conversation, I'd find
myself among rather high-level professional personalities...  Uh... Have
I been ...misled?         <this requires a gentle grin>

Having written into the FamilyNet echo BioGenesis for more than a year
now, I experienced much--very much--of the creation/evolution argument
there, but far less of the sort of ...uh... "personal" innuendo that I
find here.  Is this "normal" for talk.origins?  I see a gentlebeing
named Kalki being abusive and abused, Mr. Johnson alternately drubbed
and praised, and other indications of somewhat confusing behaviour...

Am I in the right place for discussing issues, or am I to expect
personal diatribe and irrelevant approbation?

Having said that, (doubtless inviting offensive/defensive response), I
ask the specific question:

     Does _anybody_ out there know of any funding agency willing to
spring for a few thousand bucks, to aid in the refutation of the claims
of Dr. (hon.) Robert V. Gentry?  That is, having spent every cent I
could afford, in gathering point-source pleochroic radiohalo samples
from North Carolina and South Dakota (Black Hills) pegmatites and their
mines, I'm at a standstill for lack of working funds.  Mr. Wakefield of
Canada has addressed the issue from the geological perspective, but to
my knowledge, no one is doing the precise work that I am doing, to
determine what these "Polonium" three-ring halos actually are, and I
have both an elegant hypothesis and considerable observational support
for it, but no way to continue without some funding.  Does anybody fund
new work like mine, which is specifically aimed at resolving "creation-
science" conflicts in the purely material hardware observational
scientific sense?  Perhaps an evolutionistic philanthropist?  Perhaps a
public-service-type .org which realizes the potential debate power of
the argument Dr. Gentry presents?
(It _is_ an elegant argument, and only falls apart under one's own
microscope, with one's own samples.  It seems the creationists can't
really get any mileage out of it primarily because it's too abstruse for
general audiences, not because it has an _obvious_ flaw like the "Second
Law" fallacy...)

Any helpful guiding minds out there?  I have the explanation (I
believe), and I have the method by which it works (seemingly), and I
have the pounds of biotite samples from specific locations, chock-full
of these gorgeous little round multiple-ring halos, and it'd be a _real_
shame if such an elegant explanation went a) unfunded and therefore b)
unpublished...  ...uh...  ..help?   ...please?

Please post public or
Email directly to:
[e-mail]

FIDONet John Brawley, 1:100/435
PO Box 224, Eureka, MO, 63025-1134
Data (BBMsgSys) [phone]
Adding another '.' soon, as a 'Point' system.

"Sit down before Fact like a little child...."
                        --T.H. Huxley

... First Rule of Debate: "Never let 'em see ya sweat!"
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12