On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 09:31:34 +1000 Jonathan Clarke
<jdac@alphalink.com.au> writes:
> I think Gastaldo's statement about Austin is probably quite correct.
Austin
> probably believes (along with almost every neo-diluivialist geologist I
have
> ever met) that coal formed during Noah's flood not because of
scientific
> evidence, but because their theology requires them to.
That may be true, but you cannot demonstrate that from his thesis:
"Depositional Environment of the Kentucky No. 12 Coal Bed (Middle
Pennsylvanian) of Western Kentucky, with Special Reference to the Origin
of Coal Lithotypes", The Pennsylvania State University, The Graduate
School, Department of Geosciences, August 1979. Why don't you order a
copy via interlibrary loan (if they'll send it down under)?
This does not mean
> that his ideas on coal formation are without merit, they are ideas with
many
> antecedents in the scientific literature of the 19th and early 20th
century.
> However I am satisfied from reading what little he has published on
them,
> that Gastaldo (whose expertise you must respect, even if you personally
> dislike him) has refuted them.
I couldn't disagree with you more, but Ok, then please explain why tree
stumps commonly up to 2+ feet in diameter are virtually *never* found in
coal seams in the eastern US. If these seams were swamps inundated by
high water and smothered with sediment, why is there *no* evidence of the
trees which were supposedly growing there? Why do we only see
continuous,thin-bedded, horizontal structure in these banded coals? I
know we've hashed this over before, but like Keith with people who
haven't read the KS Science Stds., I get weary of people criticizing
these ideas who refuse to address the fundamental empirical data.
> With respect let me say I think that your treatment, on the evidence
you were
> given, was unjustified and unjust. It goes a great deal to explain you
anger
> towards Gastaldo which is very clear in your critique of him in the
> archives. However, make sure you don't make the same mistake that you
accuse
> Gastaldo of, judging someone on the basis of prejudice rather than the
facts
> of the case.
I'll work on purging my heart of any residual anger towards Bob. I
thought with my review/critique of his 1984 paper I had objectively shown
it's fatal weaknesses, but you obviously disagree.
> Kenyon still has his job, I note. How can he a case of a professional
losing
> his job because he challenged the ruling paradigm?
He would have lost his job but for being rescued by his contemporaries,
as I understand it. He may have been tenured and therefore not firable,
but I remember PEJ saying Kenyon was demoted to teaching freshman
classes.
> George has dealt with the Arp case. When someone has been as widely
> published as Arp it is hard to say he is a case of scientific
persecution.
I don't think George has read his books.
> As for the unnamed high school teacher, may be this is the case, but
maybe
> not also. People can lose their jobs for all sorts of reasons. It is
always
> easy to claim prejudice, but we don't have the facts on this one.
And because of the way the system is set up, we never will.
> In the end, what matters is how we cope with the injustices that are
done to us.
As a Christian I believe God uses adversity to either break or strengthen
us, depending upon our reaction. I attempt to live guided by principle
regardless of the possible consequences. I figure that God will control
the consequences based upon my heart attitude. It is hard to see where
I'm going though, with all these darned logs sticking out everywhere.
:-)
God bless,
Bill
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 06 2001 - 00:44:03 EDT