From: smullins@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (Scott H Mullins)
Subject: Re: Darwin's Enigma
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 22:05:02 GMT

In article <387s02rJc9fU00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu (Roger Squires) writes:
>>As I recall, some time back everybody was patting Mr. Loucks on the back
>>for being incredibly reasonable about some mis-quotations.
>
>>I seem to remember that he was going to obtain and read the original works
>>himself and tell us whether or not he agreed that they actually were
>>mis-quotations, and also pin down the ICR as to what the deal was with
>>these mis-quotations.
>
>>I do not recall ever hearing about this issue being resolved by Mr. Loucks.
>>Perhaps I missed something.
>
>You didn't miss anything, Roger. Recently, I've spoken with the ICR
>staff member Bill Hoesh, who I've gotten to know over the past year
>in dealings with the ICR. I mentioned the ICR impact article in 
>question, and the response I received from y'all, he checked into the 
>matter for me. 
>
>Bill spoke with the author of the Impact article, Morris (I can't 
>remember if it was John or Henry). The next paragraph is Morris' 
>response according to Bill Hoesh.
>
> Morris was a little surprised from the reaction I received in talk.origins. 
> He was only trying to communicate that some evolutionists admit that
> there is some sort of a problem in reference to dating rocks according
> to the fossils they contain. He just wanted to say that someone
> has admitted to the problem, and that to verify the results, certain
> physical evidence must be found elsewhere in the strata. Morris didn't 
> intend to misquote anyone as he was only trying to make a point.
>
>I think the problem definition is large. Most of the blame should be
>my own, for posting the article. Also, part of the blame could be your
>(talk.origins) experience with the ICR, past articles by creationists
>that you've found irritating, and many other factors that I won't go
>into for now.
>
>For myself, after hearing Morris' response, I've come to the conclusion
>that Morris didn't communicate his motives well enough for the audience
>to understand what he was trying to say.
>
>-- 
>Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
>{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks

What!!!!! After hearing his response? What response?

"Garsh, I'm sorry guys, but I didn't mean to delete the word 'not' in
that sentence"

I do not know which misquotation _in particular_ you are talking about, but
that does not matter. There have been so many of them how could anyone keep
them straight! There are cases of one of the Morris's taking a negating
phrase out of a sentence to reverse its meaning. How could the "I'm so sorry"
response be considered a response? (the quotation I am thinking about here
pertains to an overthrust zone)

You left saying that you would check on these misquotations and that they 
bothered you also. You come back with that!?

You come back threatening lawsuits?

You come back with the same tired old creationist shit and still do not
have any evidence for the "theory of creation"? You still don't have a 
"theory of creation"?

I had high hopes that you might bring some intellectual integrity to the 
creationist side. I can see that is not going to happen.

Scott
Newsgroups: talk.origins