|
 |
Am 24.08.2013 21:52, schrieb Warp:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
>> A detailed per-element list can be found in this article:
>
>> http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/sodium-chloride-abiogenesis
>
>> See table 1 there.
>
>> Yes, that's a creationists' page, and the quoted paper appears to be a
>> creationist's, too, but I see no reason to doubt the numbers they're
>> quoting, as the general order of magnitude appears to match numbers from
>> Wikipedia:
>
> Given the propensity of creationists to lie, distort and misinterpret in
> order to promote their religion, that puts into question anything that
> they write, even if they are just quoting facts.
The same thing can be said about most scientific studies as well (except
that there it's not about promoting a religion, but the sponsor's
interests).
As long as it's plain, easily verifiable numbers, I see no reason to be
wary of creationists than of anyone else (as long as it's not the type
relying primarily on populism, but rather the one trying to give
themselves an air of serious science). After all, they have no interest
in making themselves too easily refutable.
> I would avoid quoting even facts from that source, and instead quote them
> from a more reputable one.
I'd have prefered some other source myself, but either there aren't any,
or they're drowning in an overabundance of creationist sources. (Or I
just used the wrong search terms on Google.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
