Religions > Bible > TOBS: comments from a Geology Professor on evidence interpretation
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Jabriol" |
| Date: |
11 Jun 2004 11:11:11 AM |
| Object: |
TOBS: comments from a Geology Professor on evidence interpretation |
Geology professor John McCampbell once wrote: “The essential
differences between Biblical catastrophism [the Flood] and
evolutionary uniformitarianism are not over the factual data of
geology but over the interpretations of those data. The
interpretation preferred will depend largely upon the background and
presuppositions of the individual student.”
That the Flood did happen is seen in the fact that mankind never
forgot it. All around the world, in locations as far apart as Alaska
and the South Sea Islands, there are ancient stories about it.
Native, pre-Columbian civilizations of America, as well as Aborigines
of Australia, all have stories about the Flood. While some of the
accounts differ in detail, the basic fact that the earth was flooded
and only a few humans were saved in a man-made vessel comes through
in nearly all versions. The only explanation for such a widespread
acceptance is that the Flood was a historical event.
Thus, in essential features the Bible is in harmony with modern
science. Where there is a conflict between the two, the scientists’
evidence is questionable. Where they agree, the Bible is often so
accurate that we have to believe it got its information from a
superhuman intelligence. Indeed, the Bible’s agreement with proved
science provides further evidence that it is God’s word, not man’s.
_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
.
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: comments from a Geology Professor on evidence interpretation |
11 Jun 2004 03:26:10 PM |
|
|
"Jabriol" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
news:20040611161111.42C82B705@xprdmailfe14.nwk.excite.com:
Geology professor John McCampbell once wrote: “The essential
differences between Biblical catastrophism [the Flood] and
evolutionary uniformitarianism are not over the factual data of
geology but over the interpretations of those data. The
interpretation preferred will depend largely upon the background and
presuppositions of the individual student.”
That the Flood did happen is seen in the fact that mankind never
forgot it. All around the world, in locations as far apart as Alaska
and the South Sea Islands, there are ancient stories about it.
Native, pre-Columbian civilizations of America, as well as Aborigines
of Australia, all have stories about the Flood. While some of the
accounts differ in detail, the basic fact that the earth was flooded
and only a few humans were saved in a man-made vessel comes through
in nearly all versions. The only explanation for such a widespread
acceptance is that the Flood was a historical event.
Thus, in essential features the Bible is in harmony with modern
science. Where there is a conflict between the two, the scientists’
evidence is questionable. Where they agree, the Bible is often so
accurate that we have to believe it got its information from a
superhuman intelligence. Indeed, the Bible’s agreement with proved
science provides further evidence that it is God’s word, not man’s.
_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
And of course it doesn't matter that those people lived on small islands
or river basins that were frequently subject to flood does it?
There are myths about the earth either riding the back of a turtle, or
'lands' on the back of turtle. They come from places as far apart as
India and North America. Does this mean the earth sits on the back of a
turtle?
If you contend that the percentage of people in a population that believe
something determining the truth of the matter, then most north american
peoples from the Maidu to the Huron, to Lakota, to the Haudenosaunee
believed (and some still do) that their world, North America, sits atop a
giant turtle. A lot of these people were sworn enemies, yet almost all
N.A. aboriginals believed this particular myth.
I guess by your logic that this makes their myth as real as yours.
--
apatriot #23, aa #1779, Grand Pubba, EAC Department of Oxygen Deprivation
Gary Bohn
(Previously known as Pan Paniscus)
Conservatism is not about tradition and morality, hasn't been for many
decades...It is about the putative biological and spiritual superiority
of the wealthy.
Greg Bear
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jo Schaper" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: comments from a Geology Professor on evidence interpretation |
11 Jun 2004 04:15:22 PM |
|
|
Gary Bohn wrote:
There are myths about the earth either riding the back of a turtle, or
'lands' on the back of turtle. They come from places as far apart as
India and North America. Does this mean the earth sits on the back of a
turtle?
It does if you live on Discworld. The great A-Tuin.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: comments from a Geology Professor on evidence interpretation |
11 Jun 2004 04:10:39 PM |
|
|
"Jabriol" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:20040611161111.42C82B705@xprdmailfe14.nwk.excite.com...
Geology professor John McCampbell once wrote: "The essential
differences between Biblical catastrophism [the Flood] and
evolutionary uniformitarianism are not over the factual data of
geology but over the interpretations of those data. The
interpretation preferred will depend largely upon the background and
presuppositions of the individual student."
That the Flood did happen is seen in the fact that mankind never
forgot it. All around the world, in locations as far apart as Alaska
and the South Sea Islands, there are ancient stories about it.
Native, pre-Columbian civilizations of America, as well as Aborigines
of Australia, all have stories about the Flood. While some of the
accounts differ in detail, the basic fact that the earth was flooded
and only a few humans were saved in a man-made vessel comes through
in nearly all versions. The only explanation for such a widespread
acceptance is that the Flood was a historical event.
I love this argument. It torpedos the bible.
Where are these stories coming from if EVERYONE DROWNED?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Ings" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: comments from a Geology Professor on evidence interpretation |
11 Jun 2004 02:43:24 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:11:11 -0400 (EDT), "Jabriol"
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
Geology professor John McCampbell once wrote: “The essential
differences between Biblical catastrophism [the Flood] and
evolutionary uniformitarianism are not over the factual data of
geology but over the interpretations of those data. The
interpretation preferred will depend largely upon the background and
presuppositions of the individual student.”
Wrote in the peface to a book of fables authored by Whitcomb and
Morris called 'The Genesis Flood'. Gee I wonder whose side he was on?
That the Flood did happen is seen in the fact that mankind never
forgot it.
That the flood didn't happen is seen in the fact that the earth has
failed to remember it.
Thus, in essential features the Bible is in harmony with modern
science.
Not even remotely in harmony with modern science. In fact modern
science has come increasingly in conflict with biblical accounts as
more and more of its fiction has proven to be not just unsubstantiated
but actually contradicted by new findings.
Where there is a conflict between the two, the scientists’
evidence is questionable.
Only in the minds of the obstinately devout.
Where they agree,
Where would that be?
## White is really black, if the heirarchy of the Church so decides.
St Ignatius of Loyola
.
|
|
|
| User: " George" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: comments from a Geology Professor on evidence interpretation |
11 Jun 2004 03:08:48 PM |
|
|
"John Ings" <nodamned@spam.org> wrote in message
news:ll1kc0lcvl99q5rkuqrf3aktq88l41v2u2@4ax.com...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:11:11 -0400 (EDT), "Jabriol"
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
Geology professor John McCampbell once wrote: "The essential
differences between Biblical catastrophism [the Flood] and
evolutionary uniformitarianism are not over the factual data of
geology but over the interpretations of those data. The
interpretation preferred will depend largely upon the background and
presuppositions of the individual student."
Wrote in the peface to a book of fables authored by Whitcomb and
Morris called 'The Genesis Flood'. Gee I wonder whose side he was on?
And they were also wrong in their assertion, above, since they don't even have
the facts straight. You cannot properly interpret anything without accurate
data.
That the Flood did happen is seen in the fact that mankind never
forgot it.
That the flood didn't happen is seen in the fact that the earth has
failed to remember it.
Thus, in essential features the Bible is in harmony with modern
science.
Not even remotely in harmony with modern science. In fact modern
science has come increasingly in conflict with biblical accounts as
more and more of its fiction has proven to be not just unsubstantiated
but actually contradicted by new findings.
Where there is a conflict between the two, the scientists'
evidence is questionable.
Only in the minds of the obstinately devout.
Where they agree,
Where would that be?
## White is really black, if the heirarchy of the Church so decides.
St Ignatius of Loyola
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: comments from a Geology Professor on evidence interpretation |
12 Jun 2004 05:07:16 PM |
|
|
John Ings <nodamned@spam.org> wrote in message news:<ll1kc0lcvl99q5rkuqrf3aktq88l41v2u2@4ax.com>...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:11:11 -0400 (EDT), "Jabriol"
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
Geology professor John McCampbell once wrote: ?The essential
differences between Biblical catastrophism [the Flood] and
evolutionary uniformitarianism are not over the factual data of
geology but over the interpretations of those data. The
interpretation preferred will depend largely upon the background and
presuppositions of the individual student.?
Wrote in the peface to a book of fables authored by Whitcomb and
Morris called 'The Genesis Flood'. Gee I wonder whose side he was on?
so, any scientist who don't support evolution is not a scientist. got it.
That the Flood did happen is seen in the fact that mankind never
forgot it.
That the flood didn't happen is seen in the fact that the earth has
failed to remember it.
ah yes Gaia has alzheimer's
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Ings" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: comments from a Geology Professor on evidence interpretation |
12 Jun 2004 05:40:21 PM |
|
|
On 12 Jun 2004 15:07:16 -0700, wrote:
so, any scientist who don't support evolution is not a scientist. got it.
Where in this thread was evolution mentioned Jabby?
The subject is Noah's flood, and any scientist who supports it is
dishonest or ignorant or both.
That the Flood did happen is seen in the fact that mankind never
forgot it.
That the flood didn't happen is seen in the fact that the earth has
failed to remember it.
ah yes Gaia has alzheimer's
The Antarctic and Greenland ice caps have a very good memory
of 50,000 years of annual precipitation with no sign of a deluge.
And in case your knowledge of physics is as feeble as your knowledge
of biology, let me remind you that ice floats.
## The Creationist believes in the Bible! Especially in Job 13:7
.
|
|
|
| User: "Finzy Stuff" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: comments from a Geology Professor on evidence interpretation |
12 Jun 2004 07:58:24 PM |
|
|
"John Ings" <nodamned@spam.org> wrote in message
news:t41nc01ecc1hvd0sc7i0g10bmlghaq63j5@4ax.com...
On 12 Jun 2004 15:07:16 -0700, wrote:
ah yes Gaia has alzheimer's
## The Creationist believes in the Bible! Especially in Job 13:7
======================
They also believe the dead walk, sticks turn into snakes, virgins get
pregnant by invisible gods, men walk on water, animals can speak to humans
in our language......
--
Finzy....
"We look at the ancient Greeks with their gods on a mountain top throwing
lightning bolts and say, 'Those ancient Greeks. They were so silly. So
primitive
and naive. Not like our religions. We have burning bushes talking to people
and
guys walking on water. We're ...sophisticated.'"
-= Paul Provenza =-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: comments from a Geology Professor on evidence interpretation |
12 Jun 2004 09:29:42 PM |
|
|
John Ings <nodamned@spam.org> wrote in message news:<t41nc01ecc1hvd0sc7i0g10bmlghaq63j5@4ax.com>...
On 12 Jun 2004 15:07:16 -0700, wrote:
so, any scientist who don't support evolution is not a scientist. got it.
Where in this thread was evolution mentioned Jabby?
it wasn't.
The subject is Noah's flood, and any scientist who supports it is
dishonest or ignorant or both.
sound to me like the ole boy's club... eh?
That the Flood did happen is seen in the fact that mankind never
forgot it.
That the flood didn't happen is seen in the fact that the earth has
failed to remember it.
ah yes Gaia has alzheimer's
The Antarctic and Greenland ice caps have a very good memory
of 50,000 years of annual precipitation with no sign of a deluge.
and gaia told you this, no doubt.
And in case your knowledge of physics is as feeble as your knowledge
of biology, let me remind you that ice floats.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Ings" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: comments from a Geology Professor on evidence interpretation |
13 Jun 2004 09:17:58 AM |
|
|
On 12 Jun 2004 19:29:42 -0700, wrote:
so, any scientist who don't support evolution is not a scientist. got it.
Where in this thread was evolution mentioned Jabby?
it wasn't.
So we have here an example of your reasoning. The issue is the Deluge
and you draw conclusions about evolution. Non-sequitur exemplified...
The subject is Noah's flood, and any scientist who supports it is
dishonest or ignorant or both.
sound to me like the ole boy's club... eh?
We have the evidence.
All you have is stubborn faith in a book full of lies.
And your club is older than ours.
That the Flood did happen is seen in the fact that mankind never
forgot it.
That the flood didn't happen is seen in the fact that the earth has
failed to remember it.
ah yes Gaia has alzheimer's
The Antarctic and Greenland ice caps have a very good memory
of 50,000 years of annual precipitation with no sign of a deluge.
and gaia told you this, no doubt.
Another non-sequitur? So soon?
And in case your knowledge of physics is as feeble as your knowledge
of biology, let me remind you that ice floats.
So if there was a global flood, howcome that ice is still there?
## There is no creed so false, but faith can make it true.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: comments from a Geology Professor on evidence interpretation |
11 Jun 2004 04:11:18 PM |
|
|
John Ings wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:11:11 -0400 (EDT), "Jabriol"
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
Geology professor John McCampbell once wrote: “The
essential differences between Biblical catastrophism [the
Flood] and evolutionary uniformitarianism are not over the
factual data of geology but over the interpretations of
those data. The interpretation preferred will depend
largely upon the background and presuppositions of the
individual student.”
Wrote in the peface to a book of fables authored by Whitcomb
and Morris called 'The Genesis Flood'. Gee I wonder whose
side he was on?
John,
He is apparently a dyed-in-the-wool fence sitter. Another bit
from his prefatory remarks on that book is contained in this
paragraph from:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/morrish.html
"Morris replaced uniformitarianism with what he called “Biblical
catastrophism,” a framework that resulted in the wholesale
rejection of everything geologists thought they knew about
geology. Even the author of the book’s forward, John C.
McCampbell, a geology professor from the University of
Southwestern Louisiana (and presumably one of the most
sympathetic geology professors that could be found anywhere),
expressed misgivings with a framework that threw a century’s
worth of geology out the window. *“I would prefer to hope that
some other means of harmonization of religion and geology, which
retains the structure of modern historical geology, could be
found,”* he wrote. (GF, xvii) Trying hard to muster a
compliment, Professor McCampbell credits Morris with “real
independent thinking,” which he described as fast “becoming a
lost art.” (GF, xviii) "
Tom McDonald
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: " George" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: comments from a Geology Professor on evidence interpretation |
11 Jun 2004 08:29:01 PM |
|
|
"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote in message
news:10ck81b536qfa47@corp.supernews.com...
John Ings wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:11:11 -0400 (EDT), "Jabriol"
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
Geology professor John McCampbell once wrote: "The
essential differences between Biblical catastrophism [the
Flood] and evolutionary uniformitarianism are not over the
factual data of geology but over the interpretations of
those data. The interpretation preferred will depend
largely upon the background and presuppositions of the
individual student."
Wrote in the peface to a book of fables authored by Whitcomb
and Morris called 'The Genesis Flood'. Gee I wonder whose
side he was on?
John,
He is apparently a dyed-in-the-wool fence sitter. Another bit from his
prefatory remarks on that book is contained in this paragraph from:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/morrish.html
"Morris replaced uniformitarianism with what he called "Biblical
catastrophism," a framework that resulted in the wholesale rejection of
everything geologists thought they knew about geology. Even the author of the
book's forward, John C. McCampbell, a geology professor from the University of
Southwestern Louisiana (and presumably one of the most sympathetic geology
professors that could be found anywhere), expressed misgivings with a
framework that threw a century's worth of geology out the window. *"I would
prefer to hope that some other means of harmonization of religion and geology,
which retains the structure of modern historical geology, could be found,"* he
wrote. (GF, xvii) Trying hard to muster a compliment, Professor McCampbell
credits Morris with "real independent thinking," which he described as fast
"becoming a lost art." (GF, xviii) "
Tom McDonald
<snip>
And what the author fails to acknowledge is the fact that science has often in
its history made discoveries that set aside hundreds of years of previous (and
erroneous) findings. Case in point, Copernicus's revelation that the world
revolves around the sun, and not the other way around.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: comments from a Geology Professor on evidence interpretation |
12 Jun 2004 01:58:27 AM |
|
|
George wrote:
"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote in message
news:10ck81b536qfa47@corp.supernews.com...
John Ings wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:11:11 -0400 (EDT), "Jabriol"
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
Geology professor John McCampbell once wrote: "The
essential differences between Biblical catastrophism [the
Flood] and evolutionary uniformitarianism are not over the
factual data of geology but over the interpretations of
those data. The interpretation preferred will depend
largely upon the background and presuppositions of the
individual student."
Wrote in the peface to a book of fables authored by Whitcomb
and Morris called 'The Genesis Flood'. Gee I wonder whose
side he was on?
John,
He is apparently a dyed-in-the-wool fence sitter. Another bit from his
prefatory remarks on that book is contained in this paragraph from:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/morrish.html
"Morris replaced uniformitarianism with what he called "Biblical
catastrophism," a framework that resulted in the wholesale rejection of
everything geologists thought they knew about geology. Even the author of the
book's forward, John C. McCampbell, a geology professor from the University of
Southwestern Louisiana (and presumably one of the most sympathetic geology
professors that could be found anywhere), expressed misgivings with a
framework that threw a century's worth of geology out the window. *"I would
prefer to hope that some other means of harmonization of religion and geology,
which retains the structure of modern historical geology, could be found,"* he
wrote. (GF, xvii) Trying hard to muster a compliment, Professor McCampbell
credits Morris with "real independent thinking," which he described as fast
"becoming a lost art." (GF, xviii) "
Tom McDonald
<snip>
And what the author fails to acknowledge is the fact that science has often in
its history made discoveries that set aside hundreds of years of previous (and
erroneous) findings. Case in point, Copernicus's revelation that the world
revolves around the sun, and not the other way around.
Yes. But it doesn't apply here. Morris et al. are wrong out
of the gate.
Tom McDonald
.
|
|
|
| User: " George" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: comments from a Geology Professor on evidence interpretation |
12 Jun 2004 07:55:08 AM |
|
|
"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote in message
news:10clae55lgmcabd@corp.supernews.com...
George wrote:
"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote in message
news:10ck81b536qfa47@corp.supernews.com...
John Ings wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:11:11 -0400 (EDT), "Jabriol"
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
Geology professor John McCampbell once wrote: "The
essential differences between Biblical catastrophism [the
Flood] and evolutionary uniformitarianism are not over the
factual data of geology but over the interpretations of
those data. The interpretation preferred will depend
largely upon the background and presuppositions of the
individual student."
Wrote in the peface to a book of fables authored by Whitcomb
and Morris called 'The Genesis Flood'. Gee I wonder whose
side he was on?
John,
He is apparently a dyed-in-the-wool fence sitter. Another bit from his
prefatory remarks on that book is contained in this paragraph from:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/morrish.html
"Morris replaced uniformitarianism with what he called "Biblical
catastrophism," a framework that resulted in the wholesale rejection of
everything geologists thought they knew about geology. Even the author of
the book's forward, John C. McCampbell, a geology professor from the
University of Southwestern Louisiana (and presumably one of the most
sympathetic geology professors that could be found anywhere), expressed
misgivings with a framework that threw a century's worth of geology out the
window. *"I would prefer to hope that some other means of harmonization of
religion and geology, which retains the structure of modern historical
geology, could be found,"* he wrote. (GF, xvii) Trying hard to muster a
compliment, Professor McCampbell credits Morris with "real independent
thinking," which he described as fast "becoming a lost art." (GF, xviii) "
Tom McDonald
<snip>
And what the author fails to acknowledge is the fact that science has often
in its history made discoveries that set aside hundreds of years of previous
(and erroneous) findings. Case in point, Copernicus's revelation that the
world revolves around the sun, and not the other way around.
Yes. But it doesn't apply here. Morris et al. are wrong out of the gate.
Tom McDonald
I think that that is essentially what I was saying, was it not? So why does it
not apply?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: comments from a Geology Professor on evidence interpretation |
12 Jun 2004 08:19:15 AM |
|
|
George wrote:
"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote in message
news:10clae55lgmcabd@corp.supernews.com...
George wrote:
"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote in message
news:10ck81b536qfa47@corp.supernews.com...
John Ings wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:11:11 -0400 (EDT), "Jabriol"
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
Geology professor John McCampbell once wrote: "The
essential differences between Biblical catastrophism [the
Flood] and evolutionary uniformitarianism are not over the
factual data of geology but over the interpretations of
those data. The interpretation preferred will depend
largely upon the background and presuppositions of the
individual student."
Wrote in the peface to a book of fables authored by Whitcomb
and Morris called 'The Genesis Flood'. Gee I wonder whose
side he was on?
John,
He is apparently a dyed-in-the-wool fence sitter. Another bit from his
prefatory remarks on that book is contained in this paragraph from:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/morrish.html
"Morris replaced uniformitarianism with what he called "Biblical
catastrophism," a framework that resulted in the wholesale rejection of
everything geologists thought they knew about geology. Even the author of
the book's forward, John C. McCampbell, a geology professor from the
University of Southwestern Louisiana (and presumably one of the most
sympathetic geology professors that could be found anywhere), expressed
misgivings with a framework that threw a century's worth of geology out the
window. *"I would prefer to hope that some other means of harmonization of
religion and geology, which retains the structure of modern historical
geology, could be found,"* he wrote. (GF, xvii) Trying hard to muster a
compliment, Professor McCampbell credits Morris with "real independent
thinking," which he described as fast "becoming a lost art." (GF, xviii) "
Tom McDonald
<snip>
And what the author fails to acknowledge is the fact that science has often
in its history made discoveries that set aside hundreds of years of previous
(and erroneous) findings. Case in point, Copernicus's revelation that the
world revolves around the sun, and not the other way around.
Yes. But it doesn't apply here. Morris et al. are wrong out of the gate.
Tom McDonald
I think that that is essentially what I was saying, was it not? So why does it
not apply?
I though by 'the author' you were referring to the observations
about McCampbell in the snippet I quoted. If you meant Morris,
then I misunderstood. Sorry.
Tom McDonald
.
|
|
|
| User: " George" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: comments from a Geology Professor on evidence interpretation |
12 Jun 2004 10:05:34 AM |
|
|
"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote in message
news:10cm0o51sfvflb1@corp.supernews.com...
George wrote:
"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote in message
news:10clae55lgmcabd@corp.supernews.com...
George wrote:
"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote in message
news:10ck81b536qfa47@corp.supernews.com...
John Ings wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:11:11 -0400 (EDT), "Jabriol"
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
Geology professor John McCampbell once wrote: "The
essential differences between Biblical catastrophism [the
Flood] and evolutionary uniformitarianism are not over the
factual data of geology but over the interpretations of
those data. The interpretation preferred will depend
largely upon the background and presuppositions of the
individual student."
Wrote in the peface to a book of fables authored by Whitcomb
and Morris called 'The Genesis Flood'. Gee I wonder whose
side he was on?
John,
He is apparently a dyed-in-the-wool fence sitter. Another bit from his
prefatory remarks on that book is contained in this paragraph from:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/morrish.html
"Morris replaced uniformitarianism with what he called "Biblical
catastrophism," a framework that resulted in the wholesale rejection of
everything geologists thought they knew about geology. Even the author of
the book's forward, John C. McCampbell, a geology professor from the
University of Southwestern Louisiana (and presumably one of the most
sympathetic geology professors that could be found anywhere), expressed
misgivings with a framework that threw a century's worth of geology out the
window. *"I would prefer to hope that some other means of harmonization of
religion and geology, which retains the structure of modern historical
geology, could be found,"* he wrote. (GF, xvii) Trying hard to muster a
compliment, Professor McCampbell credits Morris with "real independent
thinking," which he described as fast "becoming a lost art." (GF, xviii) "
Tom McDonald
<snip>
And what the author fails to acknowledge is the fact that science has often
in its history made discoveries that set aside hundreds of years of previous
(and erroneous) findings. Case in point, Copernicus's revelation that the
world revolves around the sun, and not the other way around.
Yes. But it doesn't apply here. Morris et al. are wrong out of the gate.
Tom McDonald
I think that that is essentially what I was saying, was it not? So why does
it not apply?
I though by 'the author' you were referring to the observations about
McCampbell in the snippet I quoted. If you meant Morris, then I
misunderstood. Sorry.
Tom McDonald
I should have been more concise. I was referring to morris et al.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
