From: Glenn Morton (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Dec 19 2002 - 01:02:51 EST
>There are three postures one may take, of course.
>1. The Black Sea theory (that it sparked the flood legends) is correct.
>2. The theory may, or may not, be correct.
>3. The theory is incorrect.
>And, of course, one may have the posture 1.01, or 1.99, or 2.01, or 2.99,
>or, indeed any posture at all inbetween the extremes above.
>"Sitting up," (how else to address the PC god?), I only claim that my own
>position is probably about 1.75. I'd guess yours to be at 2.99 or so. The
>fact that you are a lot more the expert in this area than me, and that I
>highly respect your expertise, keeps me from being about a 2.00.
With respect, this reminds me a bit of the way the YECs treated the Eddy and
Boornazian report from the late 1970s that the sun's diameter was shrinking
at a rapid rate. The YECs took the data and calculated that the sun would
have swallowed the earth only a few million years ago if that rate had
continued into the past. Eddy and Boornazian never actually recanted their
suggestion but they ceased mentioning it or referencing their own paper
after contradictory data proved them wrong. Several papers were published in
the early 80s trashing the shrinking sun idea. The entire astronomical
community rained on the concept. Yet the YECs continued (indeed do so
until today) supporting the original (erroneous) report. The fact that the
original authors no longer defended that suggestion didn't seem to affect
the way the YECs approached the topic.
Ryan and Pitman seem to be following an Eddy/Boornazian model. One
geologist I was discussing the issue with a few months back dared me to send
my objection (concerning the details of planktonic foraminifera) to them in
an e-mail. He figured that they would have an answer. I sent the e-mail
identifying myself as manager of geophysics for an oil compnay. That
usually gets me a response from the academic community. Neither author
responded to the e-mail. My freind was surprised. Now, clearly they are not
required to dance to my tune and answer any old e-mail I send, but the fact
that they didn't respond to a rather serious challenge to their view from a
member of the geoscience community on a technical topic says something. My
friend gave up the idea when they didn't respond. And as I pointed out, the
recent article by Pitman in an issue of Maring Geology devoted to the Black
Sea flood doesn't seem to mention the Black Sea Flood. That is kind of
interesting to me. All the other articles in the issue were negative and the
author of the idea doesn't defend his baby. Yet you are apparently a bit
more supportive of the concept than any of the experts of late or indeed
possibly more supportive than the guy who originated it. With respect, I
would suggest it is dangerous always to go against the experts in the area.
While I may know more geology than you, I am less expert in the area than
those who appear in that Marine Geology issue. I won't contradict their
conclusions unless I go see the data myself to see where they are wrong.
Failing that, I will accept what those experts say in the matter.
for lots of creation/evolution information
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Dec 19 2002 - 02:31:53 EST