> I asked Allan Roy:
> > Perhaps you'd like to discuss the extensive literature on sedimentary
> > diagnesis. I would particularly like to know, for example, how trace
> > element analysis, cathodoluminescense examination, fluid inclusion
> > analysis, and oxygen and strontium isotopic values (among other things)
> > support your hypothesis.
> Allan Roy replied:
> > Show how these analyses of the rocks disprove a catastrophe setting.
> No. It's not that I couldn't -- for my PhD research, I used ICP-AES to
> examine trace elements, did thin section and cathodoluminescence studies,
> fluid inclusion analysis, and isotopic analysis of calcite veins in a fold-
> thrust belt.
> It's just that I have better things to do with my time than refuting your
> idle speculations. I get no rewards, personal or professional, for debating
> young-earth creationism and flood geology with people on mailing lists.
> Why should I do your work for you? Don't you feel any responsibility to
> educate yourself on geology since you've made a career of criticizing it? Have
> you even read any papers on diagenesis? Would you even understand them? Yet
> you feel free to criticize the hard work of thousands of geologists while
> apparently never even bothering to learn about what you're criticizing? While
> impuning their character at the same time (in previous posts). How unbelievably
Let me first indicate that I am not a YEC. Yet I thought Steve was a bit too hard on
Roy. While he is critical of Roy's not knowing stuff, Roy to his credit is still on
this forum and I think that is great for communication. Secondly I know a bit about
philosophy of science and I think Steve is too critical of Roy's position simply
because the predominance of scientists are not working from his framework. Most of
those scientists have not looked at several frameworks or paradigms and then
empirically decided that one was false and the other right. This does not mean that I
think the flood model will work well in the field and in fact Davis Young has had an
impact because he understands their position and shows in a careful way geological
things that will not fit well with a young earth.
I was cleaning up unread ASA files and after reading this found Roy's response and
another by Steve. But it still struck me that the argument Steve used was a bit too
much - most scientists don't hold to your position so it must be wrong. By that
argument most of us should not be Christian since most of the world thinks it is
silly. But maybe in fairness to Steve, the YEC position is also largely a lay position
and suffers from a mixture that includes many who do not understand science and who
unlike Roy and a couple others don't even follow the ASA list. Roy, even if I think
your position won't work, we need you on the list.
-- James and Florence Mahaffy 712 722-0381 (Home) 227 S. Main St. 712 722-6279 (Office) Sioux Center, IA 51250