Diane Roy wrote:
> Glenn accepts Actualism. As a Creationary Catastrophist, I
> accept Actualism up to the point that it conflicts with
> Biblical witness evidence. Witness evidence has
> more authority than any philosophical tenet (not the other
> way around).
Your last sentence is correct but then one needs to study the texts
to discern, among other things, whether they have to be read as accurate scientific &
or historical accounts. Glenn & I have debated this repeatedly in the past. Of course
I've been right :).
> As a Creationary Catastrophist I make no
> appeals to unknown physics or miracles concerning Noah's
> Flood catastrophe. You apparently missed previous posting
> which proposes that the catastrophe was caused by a series
> of asteroid impacts similar to comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 on
> Jupiter. I'm not at this point going to reiterate what I
> said before. I believe that there are archives for that.
No, I read the previous posts & know your asteroid impact idea.
It attempts to make use of known natural processes but then tries to avoid
the difficulties that idea encounters by saying (to quote your previous post)
"their heat loss calculations are not going to be comparable to catastrophic
conditions" - which I take to mean that their heat loss calculations aren't
valid under catastrophic conditions. There is no reason to believe that our present
understanding of mechanics, thermodynamics, radiation transfer &c aren't valid
under the conditions which would obtain with an asteroid impact. If you think that
there _are_ such reasons, or that the known laws have been applied incorrectly, state
the reasons for such claims explicitly. Until you do you are appealing precisely to
"unknown physics."
George
under
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 15 2000 - 20:37:31 EDT