Two comments:
- I don't propose new ideas on this listserve, only react to posts which I
think are in error or misrepresent mainstream geology.
- I'm not the one making extraordinary claims which seek to overturn all of
modern geology (all of modern science actually). Extraordinary claims
require a very rigorous and critical examination of the evidence.
>> Think twice about working like that Art, it will result in people
>> not believing your work without extensive fact checking. Science operates
>> on trust and you don't want a reputation as someone who isn't trustworthy.
>> It's also not a good Christian witness to non-believing geologists.
>
> I could not agree more. Complete honesty demands multiple working
> hypotheses be used in all research. However, I know of no scientists who
> do so sucessfully, because it is too much work. That is a tragedy for
> which we all pay, but the enterprise still succeeds because the property of
> the community amounts to multiple working hypotheses, so long as the
> community is open to all ideas. However I do not labor under the illusion
> that any scientist has tested every conceivable idea before publishing a
> paper. Do you?
Of course not. But lets not cloud the issue. What we're talking about, in
my opinion, are ideas that are rooted in a particular religious belief system,
not ideas which suggest themselves by a fair reading of the observational data.
- Steve.
-- Steven H. Schimmrich, Assistant Professor of Geology Department of Geology, Geography, and Environmental Studies Calvin College, 3201 Burton Street SE, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546 sschimmr@calvin.edu (office), schimmri@earthlink.net (home) 616-957-7053 (voice mail), 616-957-6501 (fax) http://home.earthlink.net/~schimmrich/