------=_NextPart_000_01BE967C.04A0A2E0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> From: Steven H. Schimmrich <sschimmr@calvin.edu>
> Why should I do your work for you? Don't you feel any responsibility
to
> educate yourself on geology since you've made a career of criticizing it?
Have
> you even read any papers on diagenesis? Would you even understand them?
Yet
> you feel free to criticize the hard work of thousands of geologists while
> apparently never even bothering to learn about what you're criticizing?
While
> impuning their character at the same time (in previous posts). How
unbelievably
> arrogant!!!
While I have not yet acquired formal training in geology, I am educating
myself as fast as I can by thorough reading and studying of as many books
and articles as I can find and have time to do. I have NO criticisms with
geology, only with interpretations of the valid science being done. There
is nothing at all difficult to understanding about any field of geology. I
am not criticizing the science being done by thousands of geologist. I
only disagree with some prevailing interpretations. A scientist who hangs
his ego onto this or that interpretation can be expected to react
emotionally rather than consider thoughtfully.
> You are the one proposing a radical new interpretation of Earth history
which
> would refute most of geology, astronomy, biology, archaeology, physics,
etc.
> It's therefore YOUR responsibility to present hard evidence and data
supporting
> your ideas. It's your responsibility to show why the thousands of
studies on the
> process of diagenesis in clastic rocks are wrong. It's not the job of
everyone else
> to prove your ideas are false. Why should they bother? As far as
virtually all
> geologists are concerned, people who KNOW that what you're proposing has
no basis
> in fact, your ideas are nothing more than classical pseudoscience. And,
like all
> pseudoscientists, you claim all of science is incorrect, that there's a
massive
> conspiracy among scientists, and demand that people prove you wrong yet
you refuse
> to educate yourself on what you're criticizing and never concede that
you're wrong
> when people do refute your silly claims.
My proposal does not refute geology, astronomy, biology, archaeology,
physics in any way! I am simply proposing an alternative interpretation
using the sciences of geology, astronomy, biology, archaeology, physics,
ect. There is a big difference between actual science being done in these
fields and interpretations of the data thus acquired. Geology does not
mean Uniformitarianism. Geology does not mean Ager's Neo-catastrophism.
Geology does not mean Creationary Catastrophism. Geology is the field of
scientific inquiry concerning the earth's structure. How one interprets
the data acquired by science is determined by how one see the world.
The more I learn in scientific fields in general and in geology in
specific, the more I find that actual scientific data does not pose
insurmountable evidence against Creationary Catastrophism. It is
interpretations of that data which causes all the charges and
countercharges of pseudoscience. Anyone who cannot understand the
difference between scientific data and interpretations of that data is
severely lacking in their education regardless of their educational
achievements. I have yet to find anyone, other than yourself, who is so
certain of their theories.
> YOU SHOW US why all the work done by all the scientists over all the
years should
> be thrown out of the window because of your armchair theorizing on rock
formation
> based upon Allan Roy's special interpretation of Genesis. Why should we
not simply
> regard you as a religiously-motivated crank?
I have no interest in throwing out the scientific work done by scientists.
I only disagree with some of their theorizing. Can the results of
scientific inquiry in the field of geology be interpreted within a sensible
understand of Genesis? Of course.
Now, back to science. I have yet to hear any reason how trace element
analysis, cathodoluminescense examination, fluid inclusion analysis, and
oxygen and strontium isotopic values impact Creationary Catastrophism.
Allen
------=_NextPart_000_01BE967C.04A0A2E0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> From: Steven H. Schimmrich =
<sschimmr@calvin.edu>
> Why should I do your work for =
you? Don't you feel any responsibility to
> educate yourself =
on geology since you've made a career of criticizing it? Have =
> you even read any papers on diagenesis? Would you even =
understand them? Yet
> you feel free to criticize the hard =
work of thousands of geologists while
> apparently never even =
bothering to learn about what you're criticizing? While
> =
impuning their character at the same time (in previous posts). How =
unbelievably
> arrogant!!!
While I have not yet acquired =
formal training in geology, I am educating myself as fast as I can by =
thorough reading and studying of as many books and articles as I can =
find and have time to do. I have NO criticisms with geology, only =
with interpretations of the valid science being done. There is =
nothing at all difficult to understanding about any field of geology. =
I am not criticizing the science being done by thousands of =
geologist. I only disagree with some prevailing interpretations. =
A scientist who hangs his ego onto this or that interpretation can =
be expected to react emotionally rather than consider =
thoughtfully.
> You are the one proposing a =
radical new interpretation of Earth history which
> would refute =
most of geology, astronomy, biology, archaeology, physics, etc. =
> It's therefore YOUR responsibility to present hard =
evidence and data supporting
> your ideas. It's your =
responsibility to show why the thousands of studies on the
> =
process of diagenesis in clastic rocks are wrong. It's not the job of =
everyone else
> to prove your ideas are false. Why should =
they bother? As far as virtually all
> geologists are =
concerned, people who KNOW that what you're proposing has no basis =
> in fact, your ideas are nothing more than classical =
pseudoscience. And, like all
> pseudoscientists, you claim all of =
science is incorrect, that there's a massive
> conspiracy among =
scientists, and demand that people prove you wrong yet you refuse =
> to educate yourself on what you're criticizing and never =
concede that you're wrong
> when people do refute your silly =
claims.
My proposal does not refute geology, astronomy, biology, =
archaeology, physics in any way! I am simply proposing an =
alternative interpretation using the sciences of geology, astronomy, =
biology, archaeology, physics, ect. There is a big difference =
between actual science being done in these fields and =
interpretations of the data thus acquired. Geology does not =
mean Uniformitarianism. Geology does not mean Ager's =
Neo-catastrophism. Geology does not mean Creationary =
Catastrophism. Geology is the field of scientific inquiry =
concerning the earth's structure. How one interprets the data =
acquired by science is determined by how one see the world.
The =
more I learn in scientific fields in general and in geology in specific, =
the more I find that actual scientific data does not pose insurmountable =
evidence against Creationary Catastrophism. It is interpretations =
of that data which causes all the charges and countercharges of =
pseudoscience. Anyone who cannot understand the difference between =
scientific data and interpretations of that data is severely lacking in =
their education regardless of their educational achievements. I =
have yet to find anyone, other than yourself, who is so certain of their =
theories.
> YOU SHOW US why all the work done by =
all the scientists over all the years should
> be thrown out of =
the window because of your armchair theorizing on rock formation
> =
based upon Allan Roy's special interpretation of Genesis. Why =
should we not simply
> regard you as a religiously-motivated =
crank?
I have no interest in throwing out the scientific work =
done by scientists. I only disagree with some of their theorizing. =
Can the results of scientific inquiry in the field of geology be =
interpreted within a sensible understand of Genesis? Of =
course.
Now, back to science. I have yet to hear any reason =
how trace element analysis, cathodoluminescense examination, fluid =
inclusion analysis, and oxygen and strontium isotopic values impact =
Creationary Catastrophism.
Allen