SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Remember when we discussed Rocks Request Rejection issue back in May? The discussion was nothing if not spirited.
Andrew Snelling, who got a PhD in geology before joining Answers in Genesis, continues working to interpret the canyon in a way that is consistent with his views. In 2013, he requested permission from the National Park Service to collect some rock samples in the canyon for a new project to that end.
...
The National Park Service sent Snelling's proposal out for review, having three academic geologists who study the canyon look at it. Those reviews were not kind. Snelling didn't get his permit. Snelling sued.
Well It turns out the guy gets to harvest his bag-o-rocks because the the National Park Service has decided its easier to give a few rocks than take the religious flack.
That lawsuit was withdrawn by Snelling on June 28. According to a story in The Australian, Snelling withdrew his suit because the National Park Service has relented and granted him his permit. He will be able to collect about 40 fist-sized samples, provided that he makes the data from any analyses freely available.
Further he promises to publish his findings in a peer reviewed journal. Perhaps even his own journal. Perhaps even his own peers.
(Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Thursday July 13 2017, @07:14AM (4 children)
> He will be able to collect about 40 fist-sized samples, provided that he makes the data from any analyses freely available.
Was there the need to sue, to reach this agreement? Would not help his cause if he promised to do so as a religious guy, and then broke the promise, would it? What if his analysis is bogus, would not help his opponent's cause? "Pro science" guys should have lined up to get rocks for him.
If the national park is afraid of losing too many rocks to geologists make them return those too. There are concepts like down payments that should help in this kind of situation.
All of this seems manufactured drama, the most interesting part is witnessing who looks more prone to censorship.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @09:57AM (1 child)
In return, all the scientists ask is a few samples from religious relics. Oops, already did that and found them to be fake garbage.
(Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Thursday July 13 2017, @01:47PM
Are you talking about the shroud? Here some data points.
Carbon 14 says it is around 1250ad
Controversy over the procedures involving the sampling
Shroud barely escaped a fire btw
Other analysis says it enveloped the same body of shroud of Oviedo
Shroud of oviedo dating back at least to 900ad and probably much earlier
The rational conclusion is different from the science bigots conclusion. Not that I care about artifacts, personally I only raised my eyebrow when I learned the shroud was hosted in Turin, the esoteric capital, of all places.
(Score: 2) by ilsa on Thursday July 13 2017, @05:15PM (1 child)
And what exactly are they going to do with the returned rocks?
The place they were found is a critical piece of information when studying the rocks. Also, if the samples were mishandled in some what, they would be useless for future research. The only thing they could do is unbearably costly forensic analysis on the returned samples, and even then there are no guarantees.
Once the rocks have been taken, they are no good to anyone else.
Finally, the guy has flat out said that he isn't planning on doing any genuine research. There is no reason for "Pro science guys" to line up because the guy was flat out full of shit. He wasn't being contrarian trying to evaluate a different angle. He is literally nothing more than a mentally disturbed bible thumper who thinks that a book full of mythical stories is true. Even when his "analysis" is discredited, it will provide no ammunition at all, because religious people are completely immune to things like facts and reason. If he actually cared about the scientific process, Snelling would never have gone down this path to being with.
The only thing he has and can accomplish with all this is waste the time of a whole bunch of other people who could have better spent it on something more productive. It's not censorship. It's about not wanting to waste precious resources on idiots who have absolutely nothing of value to offer.
I for one am sorry to see that they backed down. I can understand them throwing their hands up in the air and deciding that the fight was simply not worth it to them, but I'm still disappointed that they did so.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Thursday July 13 2017, @07:11PM
These days no sample is actually removed from its site without exhaustive photography, marking, gps location, and site marking (usually metal spiked installed into the surrounding rock, not to mention exhaustive field notes.
http://texasmountaintrail.blogspot.com/2013/11/speaking-same-geological-language.html [blogspot.com]
http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/local/the-pulse/98145-the-anthropocene-geologists-take-up-the-question-of-a-new-epoch [newsworks.org]
This is done precisely so that studies are repeatable.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.