Could bio-design and rapid geo-column be introduced in science courses?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]Edge, you show me a high school geology text or syllabus which has anything like this in it.The point is not a catastrophism issue per se but that a global flood could have generated most of the column in one hit.You want to bring up Mancos Shale in a high school 2 paragraph intro to flood geology? We can go back and forth all day rebutting each other. That is not the point of a 2-paragraph intro. The point is that multiple PhDed geologists believe that a global flood is called for by the data. It is an alternative way to interpret the data. I find it hard to believe that you can't accept that in any sense but I have to live with that.[/QUOTE]JM: I always preface the 'multiple Phd geologists' with 'multiple fundamentalist PhD geologists' just to make the point that the bible leads to the conclusions rather than the data.CheersJoe Meert

Well TB, I am not sure what you are looking for in a syllabus or a course, but I teach catastrophism and the Noachian flood every single semester for the past 8 years. I also teach it in a course I taught on pseudoscience called "How to think about weird things" for three semesters. I can point you to another college course that deals extensively with creationist versus conventional views. Do you still want to claim these courses do not exist? The bottom line clincher is when you bring a student to an outcrop and ask them to explain the features of the outcrop in terms of (a) a global flood that occurred in a years time and (b)conventional geology. The answers, even from creationists, are amazing.cheersJoe MeertCheers

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Joe

​

Do you descirbe the flood model as I did in my two paragrpahs or do you create a straw man? Why don't you post your power points or drop an excerpt of them here and we'll see. I suspect you create a straw man because I have never seen a mainstremaer not do that. I would love to be pleasantly surprised.

---

JM: Your model IS a straw man and is poorly thought out and poorly documented. It would be a great disservice to present your ideas as scientific when they are unpublished musings on a website (although it would make a great example of how NOT to do science!). We DO and I Do point them in the direction of ICR and AIG documents.CheersJoe Meert

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 07-02-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I would love to hear how you describe the model.

---

JM: Then you are free to take my course. Based on the fact that you are unable to accurately syntesize modern geologic thought on these pages, I doubt you'd get much from the course. Then again, I'm always surprised.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The actual truth of the matter is that the sorts of questions flood geologists ask about the data are not routinely asked by mainstream scientists. You don't expect non-marine beds to be correlated across a continent so you don't look for it. You don't expect layering to be primarily flood depoists so even though it looks like flood deposits you interperet it otherwise. You wont agree but that is our thesis.

---

JM: In some cases, we might expect non-marine beds to be correlated across a continent. Why do you think your claim is demonstrably false? After you answer, I will give you an example where non-marine beds are expected to be correlated on a continental scale! You are an amateur geologist and statements like this show you've much to learn.CheersJoe Meert

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]EdgeYou simply can't image a catastrophic flood. The global flood occurred in stages. It was global by the end of it. We use the same data you use to show that there were surges! [/QUOTE]JM: Ok, when was it 'global'? You won't answer because you'll have to defend non-marine strata in whatever time period you choose as 'global'.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
But TB.... you've only got a year!!!!

​

---

JM: Well, you know that many creationists now 'stretch' the flood to much more than a year (all extra-bilical of course!). Recall that in another thread, TB is claiming that surges (pre-global covering) occurred at least 50 times during the 'build-up' stages. Assuming that this pre-global stage lasted during the initial 40 days or so of rain etc, that's a bit more than 1 surge per day responsible for depositing a layer of coal in the cyclothems, receding to form continental deposits with paleocurrent indicators and then another surge. Interestingly, these daily surges do not alter the previous days deposits in any fashion. The layering stays 'razor-sharp' and the paleocurrent indicators maintain their integrity. What's even more amazing is that all this happens during the 'surge' phase. The recession phase leaves NO evidence. No wonder they call the flood miraculous.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by halcyonwaters:

quote:

---

I am familiar with some of Behe's work, but please post an example which interests you.-John

---

​

How familiar? I just finished Darwin's Black Box. I'm assuming you know his main thrust is that within living organisms, there exist irreducibly complex machines. Machines that there is no easy gradual production of. Machines that have parts, that would serve no purpose, or in fact be detrimental unless it was in it's completed form.

​

Flagella/Cilium, the Immune System, Messaging, Blood Clotting, and eye-sight.

​

Pick the one you are the most familiar with, and I'll try to outline his argument for you.

​

David

---

JM: I read Behe's book and found his arguments completely lacking in both substance and fact. I especially liked the part where he likens himself to pasteur and Einstein. From reading the book, you understand that Behe accepts macroevolution and an old earth chronology don't you? He merely says god meddles in evolution from time to time? See Intelligent designCheersJoe Meert