Can I get some help with a LTTE?

[Ediacara]

I'm responding to an editorial that my local paper printed called "There's scientific evidence for creation and the flood" by a Mr. Michael Oard. Unfortunately, my paper is a piece of crap and won't print its editorial page online, so I can't link what I'm responding to.

Thanks for any help!
-----
On April 2nd The Chronicle printed what I can only assume was a misplaced April Fool’s joke in the form of an opinion piece by Michael Oard, supposedly demonstrating that creationism, as described in the Bible is true. Not only does Mr. Oard spend a great deal of time claiming that biological evolution is incorrect (but never getting around to why it’s incorrect), his one example supposedly demonstrating the young age of the Earth is quite simply untrue.

Mr. Oard deceptively simplifies the study of geology by claiming that North America would erode to nothing within ten million years, completely ignoring the fact that active mountain building provides a continuous supply of new sediment to fill sedimentary basins. These basins, I might add, are under no obligation to erode so long as they are subsiding. Additionally, he claims that there is no sign of erosion within the Grand Canyon sedimentary rock sequence supposedly meaning that a global flood is the best explanation. This claim is quite simply false. There are in fact at least seven unconformities within the Grand Canyon sequence, including an angular unconformity. Unconformities demonstrate that substantial periods of time have elapsed where erosion occurred, negating his claim that the whole sequence could have been laid down in a single, giant flood.

The problem’s with Mr. Oard’s piece aren’t advanced post-doctoral revelations, but the type of things you learn in a single semester of introductory geology. If Mr. Oard is so sloppy with the facts in the one example he felt was strong enough to explain in his opinion piece, I can’t help but wonder about his thought process concerning the examples he omitted. More worrisome though, is that the Chronicle’s P. T. Barnumesque editorial board saw fit to publish such tripe in the first place.

[MissMillie]

1. I like your arguments

"problems" does not need an apostrophe.

I applaud your willingness to respond, and although I've never taken a geology course, your arguments sound very logical to me.

[Ediacara]

4. Ack, problem's!

That's like my number one pet peeve! Thanks!

[LeftyMom]

2. I would define unconformity for the reader

The typical reader won't know that that is. Other than that, good job!

[Ediacara]

5. You're right, I will work on that

[AllegroRondo]

3. "P. T. Barnumesque"

excellent choice of words!

[Ediacara]

6. I'll mention that to my boyfriend, who insisted I describe their editorial board that way

[Rhiannon12866]

7. I've never taken a geology course, either, but I have been to the Grand Canyon,

and it's well-known that it's constantly changing. I think that this is excellent, and also applaud your efforts to refute such bogus claims. I agree that "problem's" doesn't require an apostrophe and I also think that you need a comma after the word "Bible," in the first paragraph. Your explanation is a little over my head, but I used to be a proofreader, LOL. This is very well done, but I'd be willing to bet that the author of the original article won't understand a word of it...:eyes:

Great job!:yourock:

Rhiannon:hi:

[NewJeffCT]

8. A few comments

Very good letter and some great facts.

1) Since I get a lot of LTTEs published, one thing is to make sure you abide by the paper's standards. My two locals are vastly different: The Hartford Courant prefers them under 200 words, though they do publish longer ones on Saturday. The Manchester Journal-Inquirer prefers longer ones 300-500 words, though they will consider shorter ones. Your letter is 298 words.

2) Unless the Chronicle is in the habit of publishing letters that insult their editorial board, I might revise that last sentence to focus on Mr. Oard instead of the board.

3) "continuous supply of new sediment to fill sedimentary basins." I don't think you need to use sediment twice in one sentence.

4) As another poster mentioned, why does an unconformity demonstrate that the Grand Canyon was not caused by a single flood? Your explanation sounds too technical for the average person.

[Ediacara]

10. Thanks!

1) The standards for length are 300 words. Although they tend to treat the standards more as suggestions rather than rules.

2) I think you're probably right and I'll tone down the criticism of the editorial board.

3) Eh.... to my own ears it sounds just fine, although I suppose "continuous supply of new material to fill sedimentary basins" would work just as well.

4) I will add in some information as to what unconformities are and why they indicate that the Grand Canyon was not formed in a single event. Essentially unconformities show actual erosional surfaces, as well as features like soil formation. Soil can't form under water in an environment of continual deposition. Actually, I think that sentence is a pretty simple explanation and I may use it, as well as a short blurb on angular unconformities.

Thanks again!

[Orrex]

9. A suggestion for revision

Particularly in light of NewJeffCT's comments re: word-count, I offer the following 199-word suggestion:

On April 2nd The Chronicle printed what I assume was an April Fool’s joke by Michael Oard, who argues that the biblical story of creationism is true. He declares that evolution is false without supporting this assertion, and his only argument in support of the Earth's young age is simply incorrect.

Mr. Oard reveals a basic misunderstanding of geology in asserting that North America would erode completely within ten million years, because he ignores the fact that active mountain formations provide plenty of new material to fill sedimentary basins. Additionally, he claims that there is no erosion within the Grand Canyon rock sequence and that a global flood is the best explanation. In fact the sequence displays at least seven unconformities, each representing a substantial span of time during which erosion occurs. These aren't explained by a giant flood, so how does Mr. Oard think they got there?

Mr. Oard’s errors don’t require advanced education to correct; one semester of basic geology is sufficient. If he is so sloppy with his facts in the one example he provided, what about his facts in the examples he omitted?

Even more worrisome is Chronicle’s choice to publish such tripe at all.

Mostly I kept your piece intact, but I compressed the wording here and there and retooled the bit about "unconformities" so that, I hope, it comes across as slightly less esoteric. I note that you used "supposedly" three times in a relatively brief piece, and this seemed a bit excessive (especially when word-count is important).

"Barnumesque" is a clever coinage but strikes me as a little too adversarial in this context. The essence of your piece is that Oard doesn't know what he's talking about, so you should focus the piece on him. If you intend to address the board's poor standards of selection, you should write another LTTE to that effect. Otherwise, it comes across simply as a petty, drive-by zinger.

I consider these suggestions to be your intellectual property; you are free to reject, accept, or rework them however you wish.

[Ediacara]

11. Thanks for these suggestions

I've got to go back to work shortly, but I'll retool this tonight.

[Rabrrrrrr]

12. How about this rewrite?

Dear Editorial Board:

Mr. Oard is clearly is a braindead moronic shitbag who is trying, like Paris Hilton on an ecstasy bender, to cram a great big square dildo of Biblical falsehoods into the circular vagina of evolutionary truth. His scientific understanding is the intellectual equivalent of failing to empty one's colostomy bag. His unfaithful refusal to use his brain is surely making Jesus cry, or at least pound his forehead in frustration. "I gave you a brain, you imbecile," He is surely saying, "Why won't you use it?" (pound pound pound pound) The fact that you chose to print his illiterate nincompoopery just proves what a bunch of PT Barnumesque jackoffs you really are. Free Mumia!

Sincerely,

Concerned Citizen




:rofl:

[Orrex]

14. Too subtle

Readers hate it when your message is hidden too deeply beneath the poetry of your text.

[Th1onein]

13. Okay, I'll help........

The sentence in your first paragraph, beginning with, "Not only does Mr. Oard......" the words in the parentheses need to be: "but never getting around to EXPLAINING why it's incorrect". Also, it would make that sentence clearer if you put -- marks after the words "his one example" and after "the age of the Earth"

In the second paragraph, your first sentence would better read: "Mr. Oard simplifies the science of geology to the point of deception by claiming....." and then end the sentence after "ten million years" (with a period, of course). Begin the next sentence with "He completely ignores....." The next sentence in your second paragraph should read something like: "Additionally, he claims that there is no sign of erosion within the Grand Canyone sedimentary rock sequence because of a global flood." The sentence beginning "There are in fact...." should have a comma both before the "in fact" and after it. But, since most everyone is ignorant of the geological term "uncomformity," I would either take that sentence out, or explain what that term means BEFORE you talk about what they demonstrate. Also, you would need to put that in another paragraph.

Your last paragraph begins with "The problem's...." The word "problems" is not possessive tense and should not have an apostrophe in it. And, really, you ought to take out that sentence altogether. I doubt Mr. Oard prefaced his explanation by saying that it is of the caliber of "advanced post-doctoral revelation." Why berate him for something he is not claiming? Just, instead, make your letter have a "punch" with some sarcasm, by saying something like: "Mr. Oard might be justified in being proud of facts he could have gleaned in a first semester introductory geology class," but his application of this extremely rudimentary knowledge leave a lot to be desired. I'd give him an F."

I would completely leave out the remark about the editorial board.

I hope this helps. :)

[Ediacara]

15. second draft

On April 2nd The Chronicle printed what I can only assume was a misplaced April Fool’s joke in the form of an opinion piece by Michael Oard supposedly demonstrating that Biblical creationism is true. Not only does Mr. Oard spend a great deal of time claiming that biological evolution is incorrect (but never getting around to explaining why it’s incorrect), the one example that he thinks demonstrates the young age of the Earth is quite simply untrue.

Mr. Oard deceptively simplifies geology by claiming that North America would erode to nothing within ten million years. He completely ignores the fact that active mountain building provides a continuous supply of new material to fill sedimentary basins. Additionally, he claims that there is no sign of erosion within the Grand Canyon sedimentary rock sequence. This is quite simply false. There are at least seven different horizons where erosion has taken place between episodes of sediment deposition (these are known as unconformities) including an angular unconformity. Angular unconformities occur when sediments lithify, rotate, and then erode to a new horizontal surface. This needs a substantial amount of time to happen: time not afforded in a forty day long flood.

The problems with Mr. Oard’s piece aren’t advanced post-doctoral revelations, but the type of things you learn in a single semester of introductory geology. If Mr. Oard is so sloppy with the facts in the one example he felt was strong enough to explain in his opinion piece, I can’t help but wonder about his thought process concerning the examples he omitted.

[Orrex]

16. Better!

A few lingering concerns:

You use "quite simply" twice in pretty much the same way, so you can eliminate at least one of them. For that matter, "quite" is sort of redundant and doesn't add any power to your piece.

The last sentence of the first paragraph is a run-on. Insert "but" in front of "the one example," and you'll be fine.

I'd say that your explanation of unconformities is now a little too precise; is it relevant to the average reader that one of the unconformities is angular? It means nothing to me; is it sufficient to describe unconformities as a general feature without specifically detailing the angular ones? My sense is that dissenters will say "yeah, but that one angular unconformity doesn't prove anything." The particulars of geological formations won't help your argument in an open forum like an LTTE page--stick to what's clear to the average joe. By the way, "unconformity" is a horribly awkward-sounding word. Is there any other way to refer to these things?

One last thing: I'm not comfortable with the opening of the final paragraph because it sounds too deliberately smug IMO. The implication is "I have advanced post-doctoral training, but you can understand this anyway." I'm close to 100% certain that's not your intent, but that's how it's coming across. When you mention "advanced post-doctoral revelations," you're immediately going to turn off about 50% of your readership. That's why I suggested "don't requre advanced education," above; that way you keep it fairly neutral and won't risk pissing off the readers.

Good luck with your submission--let us know how it turns out!