A scientific theory for creation

So-~- I guess you would hold Croizat's version on the splitting of the western hemisphere without tectonics doubtfullness as well?

Its for free here? Ill take at look. DO you need an adress? you can address me at bsmcfall@hotmail.com[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-16-2003]

I think LRP embodies what I *expected* to find in chating on c/e sites. LUX on the MSN borad came closest to this IDEAL for me. I did not have a long enough time on the ICR board to find this there.If one was able to tame Gould's rhetorical use of creationist pictures it may be possbile to see LRPs attItude the actual c/e repose for which the number of excess postings may diminishined then when but alas this is not the day before yesterday.I may disagree with his "theology" ( I do not know becuase I also have to read TCs' posts more closely) but coming from bidirectional critical position such as this seems to me the best starting point to engage others even if one actually has a "bias" one way or the other (as if there were only two). Incidentally the response on MSN was to create slots for any concievable religious category a practice that in fact prooved less than useflul as the new categorzations were seldom used. The opposite of this seems to be the ads problem here.

Hey LRP; THANKS,Ijust got your book!!!!I have gone thru the MODERN CREATION TRILOGY once and it will be interesting for me to now read the four volumes TOGETHER.Ill let you know what I think. As for biogeographic evolution realtive to drift on land etc Morris still have this in faith. Some day the science will catch up with the SPIRIT. God Bless.

P, I have not got all the way thru the book but there seems to be a "good" reason for LRP's needing to know this. You may be thermodynaically arguing against his veiw, which indeed was new to me as I began to read. And I am not yet writing any thing critically as of yet. Which would have to invovle Kant 175~5 etc...The PICTURE he presents of continental drift IS at variance with my own viewing of comptuer modeling but beacuse LRP is arguing for a BINARY origin as the the effect the THEORY has on biogeography *this* would be testable insofar &any& info from history is reliable.It seems he has managed to write witout heeding Einstein's NEED to have physics (transition to general relativity) within a total conception of gravity as physicists such as Feynman have been happy with. I am not yet making this kind of criticism of his work as I have not read all the book and LRP quotes the Stein any way as to choice.The issue with disargeing with LRP's work is LESS material as I see it and indeed kinematical in the good sense. As this binary hypotheiss of the solar system thickness indeed means that certain dynamics will be external to biogeographi migrations. So it seems to me that his ILLUSTRATION of continental drift is NOT at variance with the perhaps newly to be finally done creationst biogeography that on another thread others had slammed as not yet in existence but indeed my to a certain explanation already understood of the THEORY be affirmed if not also confirmed.My posts in the cosmology section were meant to address some of these larger things but I had not in 87 expanded my concept of "fundamental particle" above the ecosystem level. LRP's book enables me to foil my utility and facitlity once again in this kind of dispute that continues to plauge the non-determinst upset with the almost total probalism of current/modern science.