The Downfall of Uniformitarianism

Creation-Evolution Headlines ^ | 11/04/2003 | Creation-Evolution Headlines

[bondserv]

A corollary is: the conventional model is always wrong.

[bondserv]

Pingaroo!

[elbucko]

Whatever happens next, we have just seen that major paradigm shifts are still possible in science. Kuhnians rejoice. Darwinians beware.

I still don't see what this has to do with Genesis.

[general_re]

A corollary is: the conventional model is always wrong.

Right. The sun revolves around the earth, and the sky is green.

Some guy writes an essay - an essay, not research - proposing a new geological concept, and this is taken to be evidence that evolution is false?

The "logic" is simply breathtaking...

[bondserv]

Denial is unbecoming!

[general_re]

There's nothing here to "deny" - the reasoning is apparently "Idea 'A' may be false, therefore idea 'B' is false." If you can't see the problem with that kind of thing, then I can't help you.

[bondserv]

Does the conventional model have major problems? Will textbooks need to be changed?

Just tell the kids we know very little about the universe around us, but here are some of our guesses. We call it science.

Science: An engaging and entertaining pastime that occasionally is helpful to society, but always brings confusion to those who call it God. Capricious little Devil isn't he.

[Right Wing Professor]

Just tell the kids we know very little about the universe around us, but here are some of our guesses. We call it science.

That would be a misrepresentation. We know a great deal about the universe about us, though we don't know everything. What we know is far more than a guess.

[ClearCase_guy]

BTTT

[bondserv]

Care to place a percentage?

[elbucko]

Science:........but always brings confusion to those who call it God.

No. It is still only science. No one claims that science is God.

[bondserv]

Everything You Know Is Wrong Dept.: On Thunderstorms    11/05/2003
Time to rewrite the textbooks again, or maybe throw them away till a new theory comes along.  This time it’s about lightning.  There isn’t a big enough electric field in a cloud to make lightning possible, claims Joseph Dwyer, a Florida Tech physicist, as reported in EurekAlert.   There is a limit to how much charge a cloud can accumulate.  The triggering mechanism also “remains a mystery.”  Obviously lightning happens.  So how are we going to explain it now?  We don’t know.  “Although everyone is familiar with lightning, we still don’t know much about how it really works,” said Dwyer.

Here is a phenomenon observed for thousands of years, based on electromagnetic theory that is well understood, and we cannot explain it.  The assumptions were wrong, and what we have been taught to believe “for generations” is wrong.  The point is not that this phenomenon is impervious to scientific explanation.  But if something this observable, this physical, this amenable to real-time analysis and modeling is so baffling, how can evolutionists be cocky about processes they imagine occurred millions of years ago?

Link

[bondserv]

No. It is still only science. No one claims that science is God.

Stop teaching the children it is their pathway to salvation. It is a religion. It ought not be. Their hope is no longer in the Creator, rather the created.

"If I blow out my eardrums by the time I am old they will be able to replace them."
Or, "By the time I get old, we will just replace our body parts with newly grown ones."
Or, "The fountain of youth will be in genetic discoveries."

Denial is unbecoming.

[elbucko]

The Grand Canyon cuts through a ridge called the Kaibab uplift, which proves the flood happened.

No. It only suggests that there may have been water present. Perhaps a flood, perhaps a trickle. This, in itself, does not prove "the flood".

[BibChr]

Could the New Inquisition Priesthood just save a lot of bandwith if they all group-signed one post that says "Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain"?

Dan

[general_re]

Does the conventional model have major problems? Will textbooks need to be changed?

I don't know, and neither does anyone else at this point, to my knowledge. What's the rush? Let geologists digest this new idea, and decide how worthwhile it is. Maybe it's a good theory, maybe not. But either way, the fact that one theory might require large changes doesn't automatically mean that some other theory, in a whole other field, will also require large changes someday. Maybe it will, but there's no way to know that from this thing.

[elbucko]

Stop teaching the children it [science] is their pathway to salvation. It is a religion.

No. It's science, not religion. I don't have a problem with the Bible and "Origin of Species". I do not confuse the the two. Those that do, however, have a constant mental "wedgie".

[LiteKeeper]

YEC SPOTREP

[elbucko]

YEC SPOTREP

That's deep.

[Right Wing Professor]

Care to place a percentage?

I'm temprted to say 88.9723% as of 10:00 CST this morning, but I don't know how you'd quantify that.