Re: Mountains

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
Date: Sat Apr 16 2005 - 14:37:52 EDT

Wayne wrote, in small part:

I suggest the following:
Rather than pointing out petty faults in the current
scientific model, you need to find a clear way to show
that the scientific data points to a 6000 year old earth
in every aspect of study: astronomy, geology, anthropology,
history, and economics. You have not done that. In
isolation, some of the YEC models __might__ be consistent,
but viewed holistically, they are simply not. The greatest
error seems to be that whereas the YEC folk can find petty
discrepancies in the scientific model, they never admit to
the enormous discrepancies in their own model. At least
admitting that you have serious problems with your model
would be more earnest than what I see.

Wayne,
This, and other items in your post, show that you don't get it. Because
Baumgartner said it, with years M=k. Indeed, G=k, but he did not assert
this equivalence in the part cited from this work. In terms of the energy
involved in the rapid movement of plates, PJ=pJ (or whatever). Because a
YEC said it, it is true beyond all doubt. How can you argue with ABSOLUTE
TRUTH? What's so difficult to understand? Of course, you adopt the view
that science is tentative, a prejudice not held by YECs.

I was present when Gish declared that there was no evidence that could
make him change his view. Others have reported similar statements from
YEC stalwarts. I would term this invincible ignorance. Your evidence may
affect those on the periphery, but not the entrenched.
Dave
Received on Sat Apr 16 14:43:50 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Apr 16 2005 - 14:43:53 EDT