Actually, most people are insulted when I say they are like me or I am like
them.
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.
And this is exactly what I respect very much about you, Art, You don't
simply recite the party line. You know the problems and are trying to solve
them. Most aren't even aware of the problems.
As for me, I decided that I was tired of saying "I don't know how to explain
this or that."
>
>>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.
I don't mean to make you re-invent the wheel. Unfortunately, it is part of
the territory when challenging conventional ideas. I do not want to accept
Brand's work or even Arct's work without a good thorough examination of the
issues. If they are correct about what they say, then there are so many
other things that are left unexplained. One must be very sure when going
from one paradigm which explains many things to one that doesn't very many
things. That seems to be going backwards. When the data presented by a
worker fits most of the other data one already knows, there is less reason
to make that worker re-invent things.
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
>
>
>
>
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm