>when I was a YEC I was like Art on many issues. I couldn't explain them.
>And at that time I didn't believe in any form of uniformitarianism. I was
>always having to say, "Someday science will provide answers to the problems
>Science presents to the flood position." I was converted to
>uniformitarianism (or actualism) because the data required it, NOT because I
>presumed it. There is a big, big difference.
As far as being like me (BTW I am humbled!), There are many issues I cannot
yet explain. But I didn't wait around for someone else to go get the
answers, and I didn't rely on secular geologists to get them for me. I dug
in and did the research myself, and found the answers I needed. That is a
big, big difference.
>Jim, God could do anything He wants miraculously. But Flood afficionados
>don't want to rely on miracle. They try to use science to explain the
>Flood. If they said it was a miracle, I would have no problem and no
>response to them. What they do is try to say that science supports their
>position. It doesn't.
It is not science that does or does not support anything, it is scientists,
and scientists are people, people who have ideas and opinions that affect
their attitudes and results. Some of you seem to be afraid to allow that
science can enable us to distinguish whether a deposit was produced over
millions of years in shallow water, or whether it was produced
catastrophically in deep water, etc. You should be urging more work and
supporting our results. Instead, I have to reinvent the wheel eveytime we
open a discussion, because you are willing to accept at face value the work
of secular geologists, committed to uniformitarinan views, but feel the
need to challenge everything I do that challenges them, even though it is
done to the rigorous standards of secular science, and published in the
secular scientific literature. The discussions of the last few days have
convinced me that standards are not applied equally, and that if someone
does scientific research that appears to support a global flood, even
abstrusely, it will be challenged by those who ought to want to see it,
uncritically applying references from uniformitarian sources. This is
indeed strange (and a bit amusing). And I do get some new ideas from the
interactions, in any case.
Art
http://chadwicka.swau.edu