At 09:39 PM 11/12/97 -0600, bpayne@voyageronline.net wrote:
>As Mooran has pointed out, when dealing with historical science, we have
>no experimental verification of our inferences. To draw rigid
>conclusions about past events that were not observed and may not be
>experimentally verified is to extrapolate beyond the support of our
>data. To present extrapolated inferences as fact rather than theory is
>to overstate our level of confidence and curtail the inquisitive nature
>of science.
Let me point out that you are busy trying to prove that coals were deposited
by moving water, i.e. a Flood. If what you say is true, then you are
wasting your time and no one should pay attention to your explanations of
coal formation because there is "no experimental verification" of your
inference. If your position is really true, then no one can know anything
about the past, including the inability to say anything about your theory of
the Global Flood.
So, if you present a theory of the Flood as a hypothesis to explain geology
and Paul Arveson presents the theory of secular geology, what is to prevent
me from presenting a theory that all the rocks were deposited by tiny elves
which change air into silica, feldspars and lime? Since this is certainly as
viable a theory as the other two to explain the world, how would you go
about saying that my theory was wrong? I would submit the following points
in support of my theory:
1. No one was there to observe the elves therefore it must be viewed as a
viable option and should be taught in college.
2. Obviously, Paul being a physicist can't really know the details of
geology therefore we can dismiss his expertise in this area (besides he is a
known old-earther who is quite attached to his view and can't see the
reality of my elves.
3. You are a geologist but are quite attached to your view and can't see the
positive side of my elf theory of geology.
4. Both of you extrapolate beyond the data. All I see is rocks. To infer
that they were the result of long or short periods of erosion and deposition
goes way beyond what you can observe. You weren't there to observe the
Flood and Paul isn't 4.5 billion years old to observe the laying down of the
entire geological column. Thus you all should be open minded to a third
alternative.
5. Neither of you can prove that such elves don't exist. With this
inability, I submit my view is viable.
Consider the position you place science, and christianity in by your
position. You remove the standard of truth. When you have removed the
standard of truth, you have no basis to tell me I am wrong.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm