Bill Payne (bpayne15@juno.com) wrote:
> Date: Wed Jun 06 2001 - 01:29:09 EDT
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 09:31:34 +1000 Jonathan Clarke
> <jdac@alphalink.com.au> writes:
>
> > I think Gastaldo's statement about Austin is probably quite correct.
> Austin
> > probably believes (along with almost every neo-diluivialist geologist I
> have
> > ever met) that coal formed during Noah's flood not because of
> scientific
> > evidence, but because their theology requires them to.
>
> That may be true, but you cannot demonstrate that from his thesis:
> "Depositional Environment of the Kentucky No. 12 Coal Bed (Middle
> Pennsylvanian) of Western Kentucky, with Special Reference to the Origin
> of Coal Lithotypes", The Pennsylvania State University, The Graduate
> School, Department of Geosciences, August 1979. Why don't you order a
> copy via interlibrary loan (if they'll send it down under)?
Two comments:
Jon said in the above,
> > ever met) that coal formed during Noah's flood not because of
> scientific
> > evidence, but because their theology requires them to.
May I suggest we all believe things because our theology and or faith
requires us to. That is why I believe in a Creator. The difference is
that a number of Christians are not required by their faith to take a
stand against the current geological models with their supporting
scientific evidence.
May I suggest that Bob G. reaction to Bill (which was unjust) is also
faith based and seen as an attack on the foundations of his commitment
to a type of science that does NOT use the supernatural. It is clear
that the YEC folks taking a faith based stand that clashes with the
established paradigms are more apt to be unfairly picked on. I feel for
them beause while not YEC, my position (which I don't always share)
sometimes clashes with established paradigms. It would be easier to be
a dualists or TE but my faith commitment does not let me be either.
Second comment:
Now that I have picked a bit on Jon, let me suggest to Bill that Steve
Austin was trying to see if he could explain the coal he was looking at
from a flood model (rafted peat). It was not just an emperical study -
his faith commitment was involved in the model he applied. That was I
think clear to the scientific community and they did laugh a bit at it
down at the coal departments at the University of Illinois (where I
was). But I think it was commendable for YEC to try and apply his model
to an actual coal. I know of only one other Ph. D. thesis (in
palynology under Chadwick at Loma Lima - I read this one) that at its
heart applies a YEC model. While I don't think either (I have not
carefully read Austin's [but I know the coals in question well]) is an
exceeding strong thesis, both used a YEC model in their thesis and that
is to be commended. The YEC camp really needs to do a lot more of this.
But I suspect it is harder to get a thesis with a model that much of the
department thinks is wacky. There is a current paleontology grad
student who I think was unfairly treated because of his YEC position.
Things have settled down and I think he will get his degree but it was
nasty for a time.
-- James and Florence Mahaffy 712 722-0381 (Home) 227 S. Main St. 712 722-6279 (Office) Sioux Center, IA 51250
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 06 2001 - 14:46:58 EDT