|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The cream of flood geology research | |||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4155 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Over in the faith thread, Buzzsaw said:
quote: This is a very simple and straight forward forum, I'd like Buzzsaw to put forward the strongest research project of this nature he is aware of and then the rest of us can use it for discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4155 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
The next post should be from a creationist (does not have to be Buzzsaw but let's give him an opportunity to provide an example) who wishes to put forward a SPECIFIC piece of research that they wish to have examined.
That's a SPECIFIC piece of research not a general statement about apologotics or flood geology - a SPECIFIC piece of research.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4155 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Hello? Hello? is this thing on?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4021 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Zipping my mouth till the other side turns up, Chas.:-p
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5018 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
The deafening sound of silence......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Hey, look at that tumbleweed going by...
*long pause* Isn't the sound of chirping crickets so very peaceful?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: |
It is tempting to post as others have done, rule number 10 does ask that we 'Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.' It is easy to see how some of the comments above could come under this.
Also - most of the posts so far have been on the topic of there not being any creationist posters in the thread. This is not a ratio of off-topicness that we'd like to encourage. Thanks all, as usual any discussion of this posting can be taken over to the appropriate thread listed in my sig. Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given. New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Observations about Evolution and This could be interesting....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5018 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
Fair enough.
Guilty as charged, m'lud.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
me too.
I have a bad character today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3625 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Dang. This is quiet thread.
How about a little music while we're waiting? This one's for Schraf. _ Edited by Archer Opterix, : HTML. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Not quite what the OP is looking for, but this seems closely enough related: a report on what a creationist has to say regarding the state of creationist sciences. From Robert Schadewald's report of the 1998 International Conference on Creationism and Dr. Kurt Wise's closing presentation (1998 International Conference):
Saturday evening, Wise gave the closing presentation for the conference, and among other things, he reviewed the state of the creation model in various fields. Astronomy? No creation model exists. Biology? Same. Paleontology (his own field)? Same. He thinks a couple of other fields, such as the development of a Flood model, are making slow progress. Despite this seemingly gloomy summary, Wise sent people away fired up. His message was that creationists have an enormous amount of work to do, and it is time for them to get cracking. He appealed to everyone present to pitch in and do whatever they could. One prominent creationist told me later that he thought the Wise windup was the best presentation of the conference. It is hard to overstate the influence of Kurt Wise in shaping modern creationism as it is practiced at its higher levels. I first met Kurt at NCC85 in Cleveland ... . He immediately impressed me with his candor in dealing with the evidence, but it didn't really sink home until the following year, when I heard him give a presentation at ICC86 entitled "How Geologists Date Things." The talk was absolutely straight Geology 101, except for a few debunking asides. ("You know how creationists often claim that geologists use circular reasoning, that the rocks date the fossils, and fossils date the rocks? Well, that's wrong." And he explained why.) That was 12 years ago. Since then, Kurt has labored tirelessly, in public and private, by example and persuasion, to convince his creationist colleagues to face the facts and find new ways to interpret them. ... One result of the higher level of ICC presentations seems to be a higher-level audience. The deep-denial school of creation science the "absolutely no evidence for evolution," dust-on-the-moon, salt-in-the-sea, evolution-is-Nazism, geomagnetico-thermoapologetic ICR parrots were mostly silent, though not entirely absent. ... On one point [Schadewald and creationists at the ICC] found complete agreement: precious little of the ICC-style creationism has filtered down to the grassroots level. Duane Gish, Gary Parker, Kent Hovind, Walter Brown, Donald Chittick, and others still spout the same old stuff in seminars and debates, and it is endlessly regurgitated at Sunday schools, Bible clubs, and on the Internet. The new-generation creationists are painfully aware that most of the popular creationist literature is dreck. Although they cannot (and should not) prevent anyone from publishing anything, a move is afoot to establish some sort of clearinghouse that will award a seal of Clean Creation Science (or whatever) to books that meet the new standards.
This at least shows that there are honest creationists out there who do realize that if they are going to try to make a scientific case, then they do have to do the science and to do it honestly. Though I don't know where that effort has gotten yet. Last I heard a about five years back, Dr. Wise was getting rather cozy with the ICR, so I'm just not sure whether he has compromised his honesty in the meantime. Working to his advantage (in maintaining his honesty) is that he based his dedication to YEC firmly and explicitly on his belief in the Bible and acknowledged that the evidence certainly does overwhelmingly indicates evolution and an old earth; IOW, he does not seek to support his faith by living in denial of the evidence. Edited by dwise1, : cleaned up conclusion Edited by Admin, : Shorten URL.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5018 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
I really don't know how Wise squares everything up in his head, but he is indeed very honest about his faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AnswersInGenitals Member (Idle past 179 days) Posts: 673 Joined: |
To help out our creationist friends, I went to the library and checked through several geology textbooks to see if they referenced any of the types of papers you are seeking in their discussions of alternative theories. I didn't find any such references, but I got interested in the early introductory chapters of these texts where they lay the physics foundations for the later development. To my surprise and horror, I found that every one of these texts based all their subsequent development on Newtonian mechanics and Newtonian gravitation theory. Can you believe it? NEWTONIAN mechanics and NEWTONIAN gravitational theory! These theories, and yes they were never more than just theories, have been proven to be WRONG, WRONG, WRONG for almost 100 years!!! They make predictions that are CONTRARY to the OBSERVED FACTS. The are NOT EVIDENCE based! And certainly no one would try to argue that a valid understanding of mechanics and gravitation are not at the very heart of geology. I sought in vain for a single book or paper on so called scientific geology that started from the valid and fully evidence supported Einsteinian mechanics and general relativity. So I would like CK 'to put forward the strongest research project of this nature he is aware of and then the rest of us can use it for discussion' (i. e., an earth geology paper reporting original work that starts from a general relativistic foundation and makes no reference to the discredited Newtonian basis). IMHO, old earth geologist (old here referring to the age of the earth, not the geologists) have a lot to answer for in their attempts to foist this antiquated and disproved so called science on America's impressionable youth. This sure raises the
Edited by AnswersInGenitals, : Edited because the vooices told me to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Absolutely! In fact as I understand it the faster the Earth moves through space the slower time progresses so the billions of years that scientists claim the Earths age to be are absolutely compatible (but still wrong obviously) with the biblical fact that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old!! It all depends on how fast you think you are going. Space time curvature explains why the Earth used to be flat but is now round and the cosmic microwave background is just Hawking radiation from the Gods first utterance!
Eureka.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024