Michael Roberts wrote (on Mortenson's reply):
> He talks nonsense to claim his beloved "scriptural
> geologists" were competent geologically. They are laughable to read today
> and evangelical geologists like Sedgwick, Conybeare and Miller scorned them
> in the 1830s to 1850s.
>
It might be worth adding that _even if given_ that they
were competent (for that time period), we would still
depend on the consensus of views held by geologist *today*
regardless of what was thought to be true 160 years ago.
That is surely that case when the economic incentive is
to find oil or other valuable minerals. It is generally
thought that if you understand the process, you are more
likely to find the oil (or whatever you're looking for).
It's true that a theory that has withstood the test of
time is to be taken more seriously than the latest news
flash on some sensational or provocative finding. However,
it does *not* follow that a theory that is older is
therefore more reliable than a recent discovery.
by Grace we do proceed,
Wayne
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 06 2002 - 19:10:49 EST