>Two comments: First, the last generation of flood geologists had Stephen
>Austin(He is older than I), Clifford Burdick, Rupke (who rejected the global
>flood and became an old-earther) and Davis Young started as a global flood
>advocate. Why were they unable to see the necessity of a scientific
>approach to the flood? They claimed that what they were giving us was
If they were not actively doing scientific research and publishing the
results in the peer reviewed scientific literature, then they are
philosophers. I don't know that Rupke or Young ever worked seriously on a
flood model. Burdick is part of the generation that has passed (or is
passing) from the scene. Few of them had actual training or experience in
geology. I would not put Austin or Rupke in that generation.
>Secondly, why is the data that has been gathered by all the normal
>geologists unacceptable? Why must new data be gathered? As it is, the flood
>of geological literature, articles, books and seminars make it impossible
>for any of us in the geosciences to understand all the data. How is more
>data gathering going to help?
I don't necessarily mean data de novo. But if you don't know the data that
is available you can't construct a meaningful model.
>>While I agree that if I were a nuclear physicist or a trained
>>geochronologist these problems might be formidible challenges to me. Since
>>I am not, for the present I just have to assume the methods are telling us
>>something besides calendar time and go about dealing with issues i am
>>trained to tackle. I know that might be difficult to you as a physicist
>>though. So go for it!
>I will go for it. I hope I haven't misunderstood you, though. What I find
>far too often is a willingness for Christians of both young and old earth
>perspectives to compartmentalize what they believe. Thus they can believe
>anything they want about the other fellow's area of expertise, with no
>constraint at all. By this means one can believe that radioactive dating
>doesn't mean a thing because the individual freely admits he knows nothing
>about radioactive dating. I know nothing about automobiles, so do I get to
>believe that they run on the magical power of elves? Since I know nothing
>about automotive engineering, I can assume that the engineers are incorrect.
> What sort of sense is this?
Did I say that??? You yourself may be able to challenge every area of
science (in fact, you probably could!). I have to deal with one area at a
time. That may just be a difference between you and me. I am well aware
of the data, but am willing to hold it in abeyance while I test, using the
methods and tools of empirical science, the areas I am trained to tackle.
>Art, There are only three types of global flood theories possible. The
>first, and most widely believed is that ALL the geologic column was
>deposited during a one year flood and a few centuries of post flood
>activity. The second, with almost no adherents, say that only a restricted
>part of the geologic column is due to the flood. The rest of the column
>accumulated in another fashion. The third is that NO sediment is due to the
>flood. The last is purely miraculous albeit possible. But in either of the
>first two, the laws of sedimentation should have applied during the flood,
>meaning that the larger/denser material should be at the bottom. Are you
>suggesting that Stoke's law was repealed during the flood?
Naw, not at all. But the idea that the flood was like a bucket filled with
sediment is fantasy. I think the laws of sedimentology were just as they
are today. Stuff had to be eroded, transported and deposited. It was
never all in the bucket at one time, so I fail to see the point you are
trying to make about denser (not necessarily larger tho) stuff settling
first. When it got to the bucket, denser settled faster than less dense,
smaller stuff that got to the bucket at the same time. Thus there would be
a continual interposition of denser and less dense material throughout the
sedimentary process. That's what we see in the rock record.