Author: Robert Day (rpjday@ccu.manitoba.ca) Title: A Fishy Creationist Experiment The crea

======================================================================
Author: Robert Day (rpjday@ccu.manitoba.ca)
 Title: A Fishy Creationist Experiment
======================================================================

  The creationist research has been done, and examined, and it has
been shown quite clearly to be utter rubbish.  Some examples of this
were showcased in a recent issue of "Creation/Evolution."  For
example:

  One creationist, E. Norbert Smith, wanted to prove that
water-dwelling animals would have survived the flood by staying in the
water.	This is a problem as there are both salt-water and fresh-water
marine organisms.  (Stop me if I'm going too fast for you, Bob.)

  Smith's conjecture was that, despite the cataclysmic, overwhelming,
earth-shattering, mountain-forming (you get the idea, Bob?) deluge,
the salt water and fresh water would not have mixed completely, and
that there would have been pockets of salt water (that the saltwater
fishies would have somehow found and hung out in), and ditto for the
freshwater fishies.  Smith's attempt to prove this was to take a small
aquarium, put some sand in it, fill it partially with salt water, and
put a crab in this.  He then (in an attempt to simulate the conditions
during the cataclysmic, overwhelming, etc., etc. flood), FLOATED A
PIECE OF PAPER ON THE SALT WATER, filled the rest of tank with fresh
water and, finally, for realism, put a small goldfish in the fresh
water.	To his chagrin, he found that, after several days, the water
mixed quite thoroughly.

  Anyone with the sense of a urinal deodorizer disc would have
concluded that the experiment was a failure.  But not E. Norbert
Smith, oh no.  What Smith lacked in common sense, he made up for in
tenacity.  He repeated the experiment, this time LEAVING OUT THE FISH.
To his glee, there was a difference in salinity levels after several
days.  Success!  Vindication!  Bozo.

  Now, Bob, since you were the one who yapped on about the "quality of
the research," I want your opinion on Smith's experiment.  No
weaseling, now.  Was it a high quality experiment or not?  And would
you, if you were editor of a scientific journal, have accepted it for
publication?