So what now do we do?

Hello guys and gals.

You know, I am not one of the theologians -- or even a person of worldwide
fame like Glenn Morton, etc.

I am just a "rock thrower " at best. At times I think about stopping all
posts and becoming a simple Lurker.

(All those who wish to vote for such, please let me know off line.)

Meanwhile, I worry about what all this means to the next generation.

My granddaughter is 15 years old and she thinks that all these predictions of
"gloom and doom" are misstated by a bunch of old F-rts who don't know what
technology will bring.

Let's suppose that she is wrong.

What do we do to prepare that generation for what is to come. Glennn's
wishful thinking about fusion reactors is not going to work, so it is back
to nature.

Now is that all so bad?

We survived for up to the last hundred without all that oil.

So is the Christian issue to see what we do without Glenn's supply of oil?

Or not ??????

.

bpayne15@juno.com wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:46:46 -0500 <glennmorton@entouch.net> writes:
>
> > And I see nothing in the geologic record to require water move
> > faster so it can deliver carbonate to a marine bloom which is only
> > required because someone wants a rapid depositional model for
> > theological reasons. Theology should not drive our science because
> > we then make God that superSanta I spoke of above.
>
> You need to take your blinders off, Glenn. There is, as is often the
> case, another possibility you haven't considered. Volcanoes can, and
> often do, throw dust up into the air, which can move a little faster than
> those serpentine oceanic currents. When Mt. St. Helens blew at 8:32 the
> morning of May 18, 1980, it threw a cloud of dust and debris into the air
> for the next 9 hours, which had traveled about 600 miles to the
> east-southeast by that afternoon. That's somewhere between 60 and 100
> miles per hour, or about 12 to 20 times faster than your 5 mph ocean
> currents.
>
> You typically make some assumptions in line with your model, and then
> calculate some rather precise parameters, "proving" how foolish YEC is.
> In this case you said I must claim that "God changed the friction and
> viscosity values for water," which "is to make God dance to your whim."
> "That too is a theological mistake the YECs make--calling on God to
> change physical constants willy-nilly at the YEC whim." By focusing on
> the ocean, you missed an obvious alternate method of transport for
> nutrients able to sustain a marine bloom of phytoplankton.
>
> The theological mistake the OECs make is to try, with limited
> information, to construct a box to contain the infinite God. Sounds
> kinda silly when you think about it.
>
> Bill
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
> Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
> Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

walt

===================================
Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>

In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)

You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
===================================
Received on Tue Dec 2 01:22:24 2003