Posted on 05/22/2009 8:44:07 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
A FAST Model for Underwater Debris Flows
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.*
Geologic research continues to play a significant role at the Institute for Creation Research, as it has since its founding. Recognizing that the great Flood of Noah's day accomplished significant geologic work opened the door to groundbreaking research. This insight provided solutions to many plaguing difficulties in creation thinking, and continues to inform it today.
ICR's latest geologic research has gone under the banner of FAST, or Flood-Activated Sedimentation and Tectonics. Numerous FAST projects are currently investigating specific questions under the sponsorship of the National Creation Science Foundation (NCSF), the research wing of ICR. Some are field studies, and others are vital theoretical and computer simulation projects, which together have the potential to add much to our understanding of Flood geology.
One funded project is already underway...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Ping!
Thanks for the laugh-of-the-day!
So, what is it precisely that you find laughable?
-Rapid sediminetation cause by large, catastrophic flooding, such as that of Tsunami?
-Plate techtonics on a continental scale, such as that posited by Pangea? Continental drift?
What do you find so funny?
The fact that the “math professor” will ignore many man-years of research by sedimentologists, hydraulics engineers, etc to write a program. I’ll guess the program will confirm his desired conclusion. Hooray! Theory proved!
And if I had to choose between a theory lacking physical evidence (the Big Flood) and one with a great deal of supporting evidence (Tectonics) I’ll go with the latter.
I posit that the evidences found that support tectonics also can be supportive of the flood event recorded in Genesis. Since scientists scoffed at tectonics before it became the accepted ideology, the flood event in Genesis should be given the same benefit of doubt.
What this mathemetician may be doing is attempting unbiased logic, not reliant upon anothers conclusions. Not certain as the article does not go into depth, but it is a possibility that is common amongst researchers.
“What this mathemetician may be doing is attempting unbiased logic, not reliant upon anothers conclusions. Not certain as the article does not go into depth, but it is a possibility that is common amongst researchers.”
No, this mathematician is attempting to create a model to meet a conclusion specified in Genesis.
What may be happening is that his faith is so weak, that he has to invent a model so that God can exist.
And you know this for certain? Are you involved in his research? Or are you allowing your bias to slander his research before it is published?
I concur that this MIGHT be what the mathematician is doing, but without proof, idle allegations like this do nothing to advance science. If, on the other hand, people such as yourself are so against independent research, then we have identified a larger issue.
Lord help me. I thought that said
"A FAST Model for Underwear Debris Flows"
And I was thinking "WTF?"
“And you know this for certain? Are you involved in his research? Or are you allowing your bias to slander his research before it is published?”
Creation “Science” is self-slandering.
One can presume that any research published on a creation science website has as a final conclusion “Just like it says in the Bible”. It is, afterall the only conclusion possible in creation science.
Pure, unadulterated, bigotry. Congratulations, you just stepped into the realm of those who condemned Galileo. Proud?
One can presume that any research published on a creation science website has as a final conclusion “Just like it says in the Bible”. It is, afterall the only conclusion possible in creation science.
Only when you are filled with prejudice and bias against something could you even post this drivel. Unless you happen to be involved in his research PRIOR to publishing would you be able to formulate an opinion of such blindness.
Mathematicians are always searching for the truth. I know first hand what can go wrong when some preconceived notion or bias is unintentionally incorporated into my work. I worked on a problem for 20 years that I could not solve. I made one simple mistake based on some of my previous work. Later, working on a completely different type of problem I discovered my logical error. I was then able to solve the problem that had frustrated me for such a long time. The point that I am trying to make is that to a mathematician our work is more important to us than any bias or preconceived notion that we may have.
Gosh, I have been looking for a numberaid
Especially the big one the teacher used.
Only the closed-minded bias of an evolutionist would produce such a bigoted statement.
Here we have an independent researcher doing a mathematical analysis without the biased predilections of evolutionists, and he is slandered for it, just because he doesn't succumb to uniformitarian assumptions.
The truth is, there is nothing about uniformitarian models that is better than catastrophic models - they're all based on untestable assumptions. You'd think that modern "scientists" would think the consequences of that through, but "thinking" doesn't seem to be the strong point of anyone in secular "science".
It wouldn't surprise me if this cutting-edge research completely overturns all of evolution-based hydraulics and fluid flow dynamics. Either way, the scientific case in support of the Flood is just about closed - that's what the evoatheists are scared of. Persecute away - the truth will be exposed by creation research.
LOL! Glad we both have a sense of humour!
I didn't know there is such a thing as "creation thinking," or that it is even required. And how could it possibly be wrong if it does exist?
The fact that you are so clueless about Creation/ID—the only real alternative to materialist evolution—explains why you keep hearing that high-pitched whistling sound between your ears everytime you give the subject a moment’s “thought.”
When it comes to ignorance there are many alternatives, not just Creation/ID.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.