To finish up this one,
>K> True, I don't have the answers. But does lack of answers mean no science?
>K> To me, it means research opportunities. The position I hold leads me to
>K> suggest that calculations indicating that the oceans would boil away, etc.
>K> are missing some major factors. At this point I don't know what those
>K> factors are, but I am open to finding them. This is no more unscientific
>K> (and possibly less unscientific) than paleontologists looking for missing
>K> links, or astronomers looking for "dark matter". I have a different
>K> paradigm of science, but that doesn't mean it is non-science.
>
> No, lack of an answer doesn't mean it's not science. Of course not. But
>saying:
>
> "I know that my ideas (which are held only by those with the same
>religious
> views I have) are absolutely correct and any data which refutes them must
> be in error."
>
Many concepts (not just Scripture) are held to with this kind of tenacity.
Hopefully we can be open to information from new fields as they open, even
if they challenge accepted ideas. This happened to geophysics with plate
tectonics and to regular physics with QM, etc. No field can claim to be
aware of all the major factors that may come to light. I guess there is a
fine balance between being open to new information and being loyal to
accepted concepts.
> Well, that's not science. The calculations governing cooling of rock
>are pretty
>straightforward and postulating some "missing major factors" that would
>overturn
>all we know about thermodynamics and the laws of physics is simply wishful
>thinking.
Maybe so. But I am still open to the thought that something as unexpected
as plate tectonics was may come to light, that explains the earth's heat
balance in terms we haven't thought of yet. I don't want to be
closed-minded on this.
Karen