Subject:
|
Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:19:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1476 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
> Let's suppose for a minute there were some evidence (albeit alternately
> explainable evidence via "regular" science) that supported the claim. The
> article I pointed at had 1 such tidbit I noticed (that geologic evidence in a
> couple places looked like certain bits happened in catastrophe's rather than
> gradually), but it had nothing else short of refutation of the "regular"
> erosionist theories. But suppose there *were* more slight bits of evidence in
> that line, which, although not numerous, and explainable in other ways by
> science, still pointed to a conclusion that just happened to mesh with the
> religious argument of being created by the Flood?
Well since any crackpot out there can make up his/her own theories, the first
step to gaining scientific credibility is to present the theory for peer review
- typically by submitting an article to "the literature" journals. This allows
for independent confirmation of results and suitability of the applied methods
by other investigators. This also serves as a good BS filter to debunk crackpot
ideas before they end up on the shelves in the science section at the local
bookstore.
In this case, I wouldn't see why you couldn't attempt to present some sort of
scientific theory for catastrophic geological events in the Grand Canyon by
supplying quality evidence for peer review. But did this author do that? Now if
you want to tie that into the global Flood, you'd better have additional
supporting evidence (of similar quality) that most of the world was underwater
some 4000 year ago. And then if you want to claim that God sent such a the
flood, then you'd better come up with some good evidence of the existance of...
Spencer
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
| (...) Although I doubt it's the case, what if the book were written using scientific methods? Let's suppose for a minute there were some evidence (albeit alternately explainable evidence via "regular" science) that supported the claim. The article I (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
21 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
