Should intellectually honest fundamentalists live like the Amish?

This thread is based on kind of a silly proposition, but if the point is that there are modern technologies that would not be possible if everyone had a fundamentalist view of the Bible, the most glaring example is oil exploration. Oil is found in predictable places in strata. Geologists find this oil by looking at core samples that contain part of the geologic column. The fossils in the geologic column are sorted according to their age - young fossils in upper layers, older fossils in lower levels. The identity of these fossils is crucial for predicting where the oil deposits will be located. Without them geologists would be "drilling blind", a highly wasteful practice. If the geologic column had been constructed by a global flood, as the fundamentalists believe, the fossils would have sorted according to sedimentation rates within a relatively brief period of time and the current method of finding oil deposits would not work. So at some level an oil geologist cannot believe the flood story to be literally true or he could not do his job.

Well we will just have to agree to disagree on that and on whether it makes a difference because I am convinced otherwise on both points.

I read Jar's post and I could see no "ad hominum" attack. It was a harsh attack on your beliefs but no harsher than your post he was responding to. "That straw man you are whipping must be in tatters from abuse by people who don't follow the argument."
"Heat, kitchen, etc."

And the implication is, most on the "evo side" can't think? As I said, Faith, you are in no position to complain about tone and "ad hominum" attacks as long as you wish to allow yourself the luxury of a little "evo" bashing now and then.

Really? Then what was all that about accusing Jar of personal attacks? And "beating the strawman", etc. And secondly, no, even if I can't follow the argument doesn't mean I deserve to be labeled by whatever you are thinking. Furthermore, because someone disagrees with what you think the "facts" are doesn't mean they can't follow the argument. You yourself admitted that you don't know a great deal about stratiography. So how can you be so sure that the predictive value of an evolutionary understanding of the geological layers wouldn't give someone an "edge" over someone who had just memorized all of the historical data but may not be able to relate that historical data to newly discovered data. Drilling through the earth's crust is an expensive undertaking. It is quite possible that some stratiogaphic fossil associations could be observed that have never been observed before and that only a thorough understanding of evolution and yes, dating mechanisms will allow an accurate interpretation of the data. I do believe that a dogmatic belief in YEC and the Flood would hinder someone's ability to attain that understanding - maybe not impossible for them to attain it - but hinder it. The fact that you may disagree with that doesn't mean that I can't think or follow the argument.

Oh I see. Faith thinks it. Faith said it. That settles it.
Well ok then. Why didn't I see that before? What happened to "we will just have to agree to disagree?"

And you know this how?
In some cases, yes, maybe in most cases, but not in all cases.
And by the way, you don't need to keep repeating your arguments in different ways. I get your argument and I suspect the others do also (as hard as that is for you to believe), I just don't agree with you.Edit: accidentially posted before finished.This message has been edited by deerbreh, 08-09-2005 03:11 PM

Holmes, you made some good points about shorelines, folds and nonconformities. Hard to see how a YEC/Flood model could make sense of the complex geological structures found in many locations. To suggest that a static model based on the original locations of fossils is somehow going to be enough to find oil/gas in many locations is naive at best. If that were true oil companies wouldn't even need geologists, just a computer program and a good technician.

There you go again. Reading my mind. How do you know I didn't understand your objections? As to not giving reasons, I gave some argument in message 42. I see no reason to duplicate the arguments others have made quite effectively, particularly Holmes. And it certainly isn't true that "all I've done, etc". I also objected your characterization of "evos" as not thinking. Remember that? You seem to be able to dish it out but will not admit when you have also violated the rules by resorting to ad hominum attacks and name calling.

Not what I said at all. I said it was an example of namecalling and an "ad hominum" attack on your part. I raised it in response to you distorting what I had posted. Misrepresentation of other people's points is also against the rules, is it not? Not to mention unChristian.

I will probably regret this but let me give this a try. The science of geology is about explaining the minerals, rocks, formations, etc. that make up the earth's crust. To be able to explain and understand geological formations a sense of geologic time is absolutely necessary. If one does not accept geologic time, which young earth creationists don't, it is absolutely impossible for them to have a good understanding of geological formations - some of which contain oil. Now, granted, a person could kind of "suspend their disbelief" of geologic time and use the models and understanding based on geologic time to successfully prospect for oil. But to say that supports your position is kind of like saying one could be a successful physician without actually believing the germ theory of disease - and believing that disease is caused by sin and/or demons. Sure it is technically possible - but at some point the physician is subconsciously going to say to himself/herself -"well, I don't believe in germs anyway, so when no one is looking I will just not bother to take the time to thoroughly scrub my hands between patients." Theory and practice go hand in hand. In the same way there will come a time when the YEC oil prospector is going to subconsciously think "The model says there is a slim possibliity of finding oil here but flood geology suggests that it is here so I think we should drill here." When working with scientific models there is always a degree of uncertainty - scientific models use probablility to deal with the uncertainty and quantify it. So there will be times when certain predictions are a "close call". It is those times when it is absolutely imperative that the scientist not be influenced by some sort of bias, religious or otherwise.On edit: The history of the world is full of examples when some kind of bias influenced what should have been a decision based on scientific understanding - and tragedy resulted. The Titanic sinking (ship owner's hubris) and the Challenger disaster (desire to stay on schedule) are two examples which come to mind. And of course there are many examples of tragedy resulting from Christian Scientists not fully accepting the germ theory of disease.This message has been edited by deerbreh, 08-12-2005 05:36 PM

What you are really asking for is a geology course.That is kind of beyond the scope of a discussion board. If you really want answers to your questions I suggest you sign up for a basic undergraduate geology course.

No, this will not do. If you are going to make assertions like these you are going to have to do better than to say, "There are explanations as to why the last 100 years plus of conventional geology is wrong, not only wrong but impossible in a funny kind of way but I can't tell you what they are because you wouldn't believe it anyway."
You might as well say there are explanations as to why Copernican solar theory is wrong, not only wrong but impossible in a funny kind of way. There may well be but they are worthless in light of what we actually know, aren't they. You see Faith, you are making an extraordinary claim - The last 100 years plus of conventional geology is wrong. So you must come up with some kind of evidence to support that claim - or withdraw the claim. To do anything less is exceedingly dishonest. If you had real evidence you would be willing to subject it to scrutiny on this board. If you do not have the evidence you should not say that you do. If you are not accepting OE geology because it doesn't square with the Biblical account - fine. But don't claim that it is anything more than it is - a belief based on the Bible that is not supported by current geological science.

1) I fail to see the humor.
2) "I was just joking" is not a defense, it is a "face saving" device to avoid a real apology or retraction.
3) Dishonesty in a debate needs to be exposed whenever it crops up. There is nothing more dishonest than saying "I have the evidence but I am not going to show it to you because you wouldn't accept/understand it.
4) If it was so trivial to the "central point", why include it? If one really wants the reader to focus on the "central point", the way to do it is to avoid including "little taunts". Taunts, "little" or otherwise, don't advance debate, they stifle it.
5) There is no such thing as a "little taunt" in civil debate.
6) Please support the statement with evidence or retract it.On edit:
Just so there is no doubt as to the dishonesty you are continuing to perpetuate here Faith, I have included the original point you were responding to and your complete response. You will note that in no way was your unsupported assertion "added on at the end". This message has been edited by deerbreh, 08-15-2005 10:06 AM

And therein lies the crux of the problem.If it is going to be science, the premise has to be based on science as well. For example a scientist will never propose a hypothesis just because he has a "hunch" or a "feeling" about something. He will propose a hypothesis based on: (1) direct observation (2)How that observation is related to his own research and (3)his understanding of the scientific liturature. The premise is not the hypothesis, the premise is that he is interpreting (1), (2) and (3) correctly. So the scientist is well aware that the premise itself could be flawed and he will seek out peer review of his interpretation before he even embarks on the study (this is what a research proposal does). You and other YECs short circuit this part of the scientific process because you allow no room for the possibility that the premise itself will be wrong. Thus you can never have a testable hypothesis, thus you can never do science (or imo argue about science in a meaningful way) this way.