Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Nets of Wonder...
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:46:00 -0600

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:
john.brawley@f9.n8012.z86.toadnet.org

FIDONet John Brawley, 1:100/435
PO Box 224, Eureka, MO, 63025-1134
Data (BBMsgSys) (314) 938 5285
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


Newsgroups: talk.origins