I have been trying to follow your interesting discussion with Steve as time
permits. I was reviewing the exchanges and saw something here that I wanted
to get your response to. You mention certain "unknown" factors that would
affect the ocean boiling/not boiling while certain heat processes were going
on. Are these natural factors? Or are they divine intervention? Since you
defend a YEC view (please forgive me if I misunderstand your position) why
are you trying to find natural factors to explain dinosaur deposits (they
way they are sorted etc). Given the model that you hold why not chalk it up
to God and have done?
My concern is twofold. If you are able to give explanations of the sorting
and deposits within a YEC flood model would that not result in this: we now
have a fully understandable cataclysm. A natural one to boot. Is that what
YEC wants? If we have a flood that is completely understandable in terms of
natural processes, would not have simple done nothing more than a paradgm
shift in science. How would that assert the reality of God's judgement on a
sinful world? And if you allow divine intervention to get you over the
gaps, how do you control that so that the appeal to divine intervention is
principled ? In other words, how does one allow the divine into a theory of
history (natural or otherwise) and still be assured that appealing to divine
action is not used simply to overcome theory weaknesses? I understand that
many defenders of ID or YEC say that this problem has an answer, but I have
yet to find it. Can you point me to what you think is a good response to
the problem.
-----Original Message-----
From: evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu
[mailto:evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Karen G. Jensen
Sent: Monday, February 08, 1999 5:51 PM
To: evolution@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Flood Model, batholiths, and science
Dear Steve,
You wrote:
>>> 2. The occurrence of igneous plutons and batholiths within Phanerozoic
>>> sedimentary strata of such a size as to require, using standard
>>> thermodynamic calculations, that the bodies would take tens of
>>>millions
>>> of years to cool (depending upon their size, of course). How does
>>> one have rapid sedimentation with a thick gabbroic sill in the
middle
>>> of the package of sedimentary rocks?
>>
>> Glenn has shared some of his calculation on this, and others have offered
>> alternative viewpoints. I am no geophysicist, but I know that water
>> conducts heat well, and there are many earth processes that require
>> tremendous amounts of heat. Clearly the oceans have not boiled away in
>> the past. The marine environment has been stable enough to maintain
life,
>> despite extensive extinctions. And land areas (if they took tens of
>> millions of years to cool, would they be devoid of life all that time?)
>> have supported its biota as well. I don't think we have all the
answers
>> about heat balance.
>
> You can't address this. Fair enough but it HAS to be addressed. Where
are
>the young-earth creationist or flood model creationist igneous
petrologists?
>This is a real (and fatal, in my opinion) problem with your idea about a
>global
>flood. Bottom line - it ain't science without the numbers.
>
True, I don't have the answers. But does lack of answers mean no science?
To me, it means research opportunities. The position I hold leads me to
suggest that calculations indicating that the oceans would boil away, etc.
are missing some major factors. At this point I don't know what those
factors are, but I am open to finding them. This is no more unscientific
(and possibly less unscientific) than paleontologists looking for missing
links, or astronomers looking for "dark matter". I have a different
paradigm of science, but that doesn't mean it is non-science.
Karen