news:slrndfb4bu.6hq.mightymartianca@nobody.here...
> On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 12:10:13 +0200,
> Uncle Davey <noway@jose.com> wrote:
> >
> > Uzytkownik "lizzard woman" <kimosabeRMOVE@shaw.ca> napisal w wiadomosci
> > news:akJIe.120050$%K2.50321@pd7tw1no...
> >>
> >> "Dave" <horndw@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1123246059.815681.309470@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> | lizzard woman wrote:
> >> | > "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
> >> | > news:dcv6md$nu9$0@pita.alt.net...
> >> |
> >> | Snip
> >> |
> >> | > | I have observation, and a world view that fits my
> >> | > | observation of the world.
> >> |
> >> | And we *still* haven't been given any specific "observation" to
> >> | consider...
> >>
> >> Maybe he would consider the Green River Formation. I'll quote form the
> >> talk.origins.org web site since we know Davey likes that site...
> >
> > It's my favorite bedtime reading.
> > Yeah, right.
> >
> >>
> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH210.html
> >>
> >> "In seasonal areas, sedimentation rates vary across the year, so
sediments
> >> often show annual layers (varves) distinguished by texture and/or
> >> composition. We can be confident that the layers are seasonal because
we
> > see
> >> the same sorts of layers occurring today. Even if they were not
seasonal,
> >> the fineness of the sediments is often such that each layer would
require
> >> several days, at least, to form. Some formations have millions of
layers,
> >> such as the varve record from Lake Baikal with five million annual
layers
> >> (Williams et al. 1997), and the 20,000,000 layers in the Green River
> >> formation. They must have taken hundreds of thousands of years to form
at
> >> the very least."
> >>
> >
> > If even Frank Zindler, editor of the American Atheist,
>
> Is Mr. Zindler a geologist?
>
> >has admitted that the
> > Green River shale does not demonstrate "true varves" (
> > http://www.rae.org/Varves2.htm for details ) then I don't see that we
know
> > what accounts for the structure of the shale in question. He says in
> > correspondence with Brother Paul G. Humber in March 1999 that they are
not
> > "true varves" - well, when is a varve not a varve? When it's good for a
> > larve?
> >
> > Either something is a varve or it isn't. There is no "true varves", as
there
> > is no "try". Did he chain them up to a lie detector and discover they
were
> > lying? Shale on them! Varvarian varves!
> >
> > If they are not varves, as we can conclude from his own admission, then
they
> > show us no conclusive evidence about the age of the earth.
> >
> > But thanks for bluffing, anyway.
>
> I still don't get why any of this matters to you? Your theological
leanings
> make even considering this sort of thing meaningless. It might as well be
> layers of doughnuts for all it matters to someone who believes in
omphalism.
>
That would be full omphalism. With omphalism lite the idea is that the Flood
accounts for a lot as well. That and Babel, in other areas.
Omphalism lite won't go to the full extreme that Gosse did, and is if you
like a philosophical halfway house between omphalist creationism and young
earth creationism as practiced by Americans.
Some aspects of YEC are true and some parts of Gosse are true, in my view.
I don't think I'm sitting on the fence for the sake of it, I simply find
that a blend of them makes best sense to me, and avoids on the one hand the
charge of last Thursdayism and the deceptive God, and on the other it is
still pretty robust about some of the evidence issues that YEC could be
shakey on.
I have not however seen a convincing disproving of either the Gosseist or
the modern YEC position.
Uncle Davey
|
|