Monday, January 25, 2010
ICR's Bogus Science
I emailed the man who had done the research that ICR distorted. Here is my email to him:
Hi Dr. Brennecka,
Are you aware that some young earth creationists from the Institute for Creation Research are citing your latest work? You can view what they've written about it here:
http://www.icr.org/article/5161/
Also, there was a youtube user who made a video about the incident and cited the ICR article as distorted:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFozOBz7eig
My question is: How do you feel about the article and the video? Which, if either, is accurate?
Sincerely,
Ryan
He responded to me:
Hi,
The YouTube video pretty well sums it up. The ICR article is a horrible twisting of our study and if I thought they would listen to reason and logic (which creationist are by definition not going to do) I would send them a note to try to straighten them out. That ICR author is paid to twist real science so it fits an agenda. That is all. Websites and articles like his are really frustrating because it takes so much time (years and years of research) to do things right and think them through, but any moron can put up a website with whatever lies he or she wants.
Thanks for your email, and hope that helps.
Greg
(He also gave me permission to post his email.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Cool. Interesting video I hadn't heard ofthis one before.
When I first saw this article on the ICR website I found it hard to believe that even creationists do not know there are no such things as lead 235 and lead 238 and that lead is the stable end product of Uranium decay sequences and lead 238 does not decay into lead 235.
These are the same people who brought us the RATE project that was supposed to invalidate radiometric dating. It is hard to see how they can accomplish that without the most fundamental understanding or radioactive decay and what isotopes exist and which do not.
Post a Comment