|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The cream of flood geology research | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I am far from a creationist but in an effort to help the debate along here is some research possibly worth discussing?
FYI all I did was type "creationist geology research" into Google and various sites pointing to this one came up. If any creationists have anything better to offer I suggest they do so http://www.creationism.org/arctur/index.htm
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5929 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Straggler
Oddly enough the evidence they are using to bolster their case still places the deposition in the 40,000 year range which is seven times longer than the model they are trying to establish.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Bona fide geologists do not publish in Creation Research Society Quarterly and the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal.
I'm assuming that when Buzsaw said "bona fide geologists" doing genuine research into flood geology that he wasn't referring to the same old ICR/CRS gang. If he was then this thread is nothing more than a rehash of how what ICR/CRS and company are doing isn't science. If that's what Buzsaw meant then we already know all about ICR/CRS and company, and it would be silly to debate this. We already know that Stephen Austin and Andrew Snelling and the rest of the ICR/CRS crew exist, and there can be no debate about this. I thought the whole reason Buzsaw's assertion was controversial and the reason it was challenged was because he was claiming that there are genuine geologists doing legitimate scientific research into the flood. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Oddly enough the evidence they are using to bolster their case still places the deposition in the 40,000 year range which is seven times longer than the model they are trying to establish.
A discussion years ago in another forum may shed some light on this apparent contradiction. A creationist was using the old sea-salt argument for a young earth and I explained to him about residence times and pointed out not only that aluminum would thus show the earth to be no more than 100 years old, but also the sodium residence time would make the earth millions of years old, instead of the 10,000-year age that his position claims. He said that he was very satisfied with an age-of-the-earth in the millions of years, just so long as it wasn't billions of years as science says that it is. In other words, his goal was not to prove or support the "creation model", but rather to show science to be wrong. And I believe that many, if not most, creationists are doing the same. ---------------------
quote: Edited by dwise1, : Had to replace non-functional dBCodes with HTML Edited by dwise1, : Missed one
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Fair enough. With my, albeit limited, research I could not find anything other than this or similarly unconvincing sources.
If there are real geologists doing flood geology they are not easy to track down. I was just trying to help the debate along but I will leave it to the creationists to provide us with the genuine research they claim there actually is. I agree that if there is not any real geological research to discuss there seems little point in this thread continuing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
In other words, his goal was not to prove or support the "creation model", but rather to show science to be wrong. And I believe that many, if not most, creationists are doing the same. In some ways I find that position a vast improvement on normal creationist methodologies which usually just set out to "prove" biblical "fact" regardless of what the actual evidence points to.I question their motives for trying to prove established sceintific theories wrong but I think science is all the better for people attempting to find genuine evidence which does not fit with established theories. That is after all how science progresses. It is that sort of attitude that I believe is one of the key differences between genuine science and anything that could be called "creationist science" However this might all be digressing from the main topic of genuine flood based geological research so I shall shut up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Bumped for the benefit of Buzsaw.
Where's the science, Buzsaw? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AnswersInGenitals Member (Idle past 172 days) Posts: 673 Joined: |
Again, I ask you, I implore you, to contact your BJU mentors, in particular the geology department if they have one (?), to provide you the the list of names and articles that Percy is asking you for. Surely, this is one area in which they would have expertice (geological foundations of creation science and flood geology).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 756 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
The BJU catalog seems to say that they have a geology course. One.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3313 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
What's the name of the course?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 756 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
"General Geology." Described, very briefly, on page 252 of their pdf'd catalog. Page not found | Bob Jones University
Be sure and read further to Biology II with its "biblical response to the theory of evolution."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Coragyps writes: Be sure and read further to Biology II with its "biblical response to the theory of evolution." Not to mention Biology I which covers "a proper Christian philosophy of science"! --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Here are some of the descriptions from their catalog:
Bachelor of Science Degree, Composite Science Education Major The major in Composite Science Education (9th-12th grade) provides preparation for teaching natural science in high school. It combines the study of biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, and geology in classroom instruction and extensive lab experience. While offering scientific refutation of the theory of evolution, our program postulates divine creation. Since the major component comprises 54 hours of science courses with an emphasis in biology or chemistry, an academic minor need not be chosen. At least 24 major hours must be in the same area. A minimum of 12 hours are required in the other two areas. Six hours of astronomy and geology are required. Bachelor of Science Degree, Biology Major The Biology major captures the breadth of biology while maintaining the necessary depth of preparation for continued study in graduate and professional schools. It provides students the opportunity to study organisms at molecular, cytological, and organismal levels. It explores the interactions of living organisms with one another and with their environment. While offering scientific and philosophical refutation of the theory of evolution, our program teaches each course within a Biblical creationist framework. This program requires 36 hours in the major and 18-25 hours in a selected minor study concentration. Bachelor of Science Degree, Physics Major The Physics major provides preparation for a career as a physicist or physical scientist; and it lays the foundation for the pursuit of graduate studies in special areas such as astrophysics, medical physics, and others. It offers theoretical, laboratory, and observational studies of the physical nature of the universe dealing with the behavior of matter, radiation, and motion. While offering scientific and philosophical refutation of the theory of evolution, our program teaches each course within a Biblical creationist framework. This program requires 40 hours in the major and 18-24 hours in a selected minor study concentration. The other thing to remembr is that BJU is a candidate for accreditation through TRACS and not through any of the generally accepted accreditation organizations. This will be the FIRST time that BJU has ever had ANY form of accreditation. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4137 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
Well that's obvious. Creationism is not designed to support its own model. It is designed to attack all others and declare itself correct by proxy. The fundemental idiocy of this is that it assumes not only that people will accept it without merit, but that it is indeed correct. My favorite mockery of this line of thinking goes like this: if the sky is not magenta-orange, it is therefore neon green.
Ask a creationist to debate the merits of literal creation. You'll need more snickers bars then the number that currently exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 858 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
I had at first thought that Chris Miller had a website, but have learned that that is not the case. However I am going to email him at CreationAndEvolution@hotmail.com and see if I can get a link to some of his flood research. Its been a week, is he on vacation or something? If you are unable to find any flood research from Chris Miller even after going the extra mile by emailing him, I hope you do the honorable thing and admit such research is at best, unavailable. That is what an honorable scientist would do, admit their hypothesis was wrong. Then go on to propose the next hypothesis, test it, and publish the results regardless of if the results supported or falsified the hypothesis.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024