>> But if the veins were formed, let's say, at 5 km of depth during
>> the development of a fold-thrust belt it becomes controversial since
>> this doesn't fit well into a flood model of sedimentary rock origin.
>
> The logical connection between the premiss and the inference escapes
> me. Taking Genesis as strict history, there is nothing in the Flood
> narrative which prohibits the development of fold-thrust belts at 5
> km depth, nor the accompanying formation of calcite veins.
>
> I am aware that some diluvialists have models of geological history
> which reject the concept of large-scale overthusting. Is this what
> you are referring to? Although I can't speak for these people, you
> may be right that they would find your field interpretations
> inconsistent with their model. But models should not be equated with
> Scripture!
I agree that "models should not be equated with Scripture" -- perhaps
you could mention that to the YEC crowd since they're always telling me
that I'm not faithful to Scripture when I tell them that I accept the
findings of modern geology with regard to the age of the earth or the
question of whether or not there was a global flood.
Let me put it this way, I have never seen YEC even attempt to explain
features such as fold-thrust belts and how such features form in a flood
(frankly, I'd be surprised if most of them even knew what one was).
You and Arthur Chadwick have now both insinuated that there are other
flood models differing from the ridiculous ones proposed by the ICR crowd.
I've yet to see one however. Please enlighten me.
>> And if I further say that I'm trying to resolve the unanswered question
>> of whether this fold-thrust belt formed during the late Devonian Acadian
>> orogeny or the Pennsylvanian/Permian Alleghanian orogeny, then it doesn't
>> fit well into an young-earth scenario.
>
> I have to make the same point. I suggest the last sentence should
> real: "it doesn't fit well with some of the proposed young-earth
> scenarios".
Something that happened a couple of hundred million years ago doesn't fit
with ANY young-earth scenario.
>> What if doing science using methodological naturalism doesn't support
>> a literal reading of Genesis? Does that mean we need to trash MN in
>> science? Does that mean MN can't arrive at the "Truth"? Or does that
>> mean that some should rethink their interpretations of Scripture?
>
> I think my post responding to Loren's article addressed these issues
> in part. MN has no coherent approach to intelligent causation -
> which is bad news for archaeologists (who would like to be considered
> scientists). This is because MN is locked into the concept of
> "unbroken law". However, intelligent causation breaks the chain of
> natural causation and constrains mechanistic explanations.
> Intelligent causation cannot be described in terms of natural law -
> for the cause is linked to the mind/will of a person. This is why it
> is important to make a distinction between empirical and historical
> science. Is the history of our planet to be constrained by "unbroken
> law" or are we to recognise intelligent causation by our Creator? If
> "science" is described/defined in terms of empirical methodologies,
> the issue of intelligent causation never gets addressed.
If MN doesn't have a coherent approach to intelligent causation then
suggest how one can do science, in the field and in the lab, which does
have a coherent approach to intelligent causation.
As a Christian, I don't necessarily disagree with you. However the
problem once again comes down to the point that there's nothing that
credibly replaces MN in science. Suppose I, as a geologist, want to
determine the age of the earth (certainly a legitimate scientific
question). The earth's formation was a unique historical event.
Should I 1) use the proven techniques of science to attempt to answer
the question, or 2) search the Scriptures and add up geneologies?
Other than to say, in faith, "God created it" how on earth (pun intended)
do we bring intelligent causation into the science of geology?
- Steve.
-- Steven H. Schimmrich Callsign KB9LCG s-schim@uiuc.edu Department of Geology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 245 Natural History Building, Urbana, IL 61801 (217) 244-1246 http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/s-schim Deus noster refugium