At 10:23 AM 11/4/97 -0600, Eduardo G. Moros wrote:
>But of course Deacon calls it like he does. After all he "believes" it.
>This is a typical case of orthodoxy blocking progress in science because all
>must be molded to some type of darwinian derivative.
Why is this a blockage to progress? How can you support the statement that
more progress is to be made by making other assumptions? Has there been an
experiment performed which shows that 5% more progress comes from
I am not trying to be facetious here. I hear this statement in the
Christian literature all the time, how evolutionary orthodoxy stifles
progress. I have been told that a global flood model ought to be able to
find oil more efficiently and that it is not used only because of the bias
of the geologists. My company spent $12 million on a dry hole this year.
Let me assure you that if they saw benefit from a global flood perspective
at stopping a dry hole, they would most assuredly use it. but some people
think we would rather spend that kind of money rather than accept a global
flood. Of course this is ridiculous. (See David R. McQueen, The Chemistry of
Oil explained by Flood Geology, Impact 155 May 1986,)
Foundation, Fall and Flood