#80659 - 05/20/06 08:32 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Craftsman
Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 3513
Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m
|
I have received this response from Dr. Kennedy:
"Just so you know, I retired because I have a genetic disorder that has resulted in physical disability and I am unable to work.
"Apparently, the writer of the post disregards the purity of the deposit as empirical evidence supporting rapid, nearly instantaneous deposition of the coccoliths. Sedimentologists agree that such purity is remarkable and possible only in a catastrophic event.
"There are long age arguments for the chalk promoted by a small group of individuals in England; however, their arguments relate to diagenetic alterations post deposition.
"I was under the impression that the Adventist Forum was moderated. The writer's assessment of me and my motives was an insult to the Lord I serve. He never laid a burden on my heart to make the White Cliffs a project. An apology would be appreciated.
Yours in Christ,
Elaine G. Kennedy, Ph.D.
Geology"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80660 - 05/21/06 03:35 AM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 4699
Loc: New England
|
Invite her to post here and clearly state and defend her position. Quote:
empirical evidence supporting rapid, nearly instantaneous deposition of the coccoliths
Hmmm - most people don't regard 35 MILLION years as "nearly instantaneous".
http://www.geologyshop.co.uk/chalk.htm
Quote:
The Chalk is part of the Upper Cretaceous and ranges in ages from about 100 million years to 65 million years
Quote:
Sedimentologists agree that such purity is remarkable and possible only in a catastrophic event.
It is obvious from the following description that there are wide variations in the contents of the chalk. "A catastrophic event"??? She wants to claim all this stuff was laid down by the Flood?
http://www.geologyshop.co.uk/chalk1.htm
Quote:
The writer's assessment of me and my motives was an insult to the Lord I serve.
Since I don't know what you sent her, I won't comment on her reaction.
Quote:
An apology would be appreciated.
I see nothing in my remarks to apologise for.
/Bevin
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80661 - 05/21/06 04:02 AM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matte
[Re: Mandy]
|
Husband and Father
Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 7120
Loc: Brisbane, Australia
|
OK people. And we were doing so well.
Bevin, if Dr Kennedy feels insulted, then in my opinion you ought to apologise to her, but of course I can't force you to do so and wouldn't if I could. But the fact that she has clearly been hurt means, IMO, that courtesy and your own integrity require some reconciliation.
David, you should know that people write and phrase their contentions differently when they are writing directly to people versus in a web forum discussion, and that you should really have sought bevin's consent before sending his comments to Dr Kennedy. Again, that's a matter of courtesy rather than of rules or netiquette, so what you do about it from here is up to you.
I'm going to e-mail Dr Kennedy personally with an apology on behalf of the forum, since I am the moderator.
This needs to be sorted out, gentlemen - I've been enjoying the open discussion here, and an open moderation environment, but when bystanders get hurt we have to erect bigger fences around the track...
_________________________
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80662 - 05/21/06 04:57 AM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matte
[Re: Billy Dennis]
|
Craftsman
Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 3513
Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m
|
Quote:
David, you should know that people write and phrase their contentions differently when they are writing directly to people versus in a web forum discussion, and that you should really have sought bevin's consent before sending his comments to Dr Kennedy.
Ordinarily, I would wholeheartedly agree, and would most definitely follow those protocols. However, the post in question appeared to speak authoritatively about Dr. Kennedy, about her career and some of her personal issues. Upon reflection, it seemed to cross a line--so egregious that fundamental fairness demanded that Dr. Kennedy be made aware of what had been said about her under color of some personal knowledge--when apparently there was no personal knowledge. And, even if there was, (which there was not) some of what was said should not have been said, as being very personal to Dr. Kennedy, and not appropriate for someone else talking about her on a public forum.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80663 - 05/21/06 06:05 AM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matte
[Re: ]
|
Husband and Father
Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 7120
Loc: Brisbane, Australia
|
Agreed: but perhaps a better response - and one that would have been less hurtful to Dr Kennedy - would have been a PM to bevin or to me as moderator to address the situation here in the forum rather than going outside it.
Anyway, Humpty has fallen, so let's all get to work on picking up the pieces.
Edited by Bravus (05/21/06 06:06 AM)
_________________________
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80664 - 05/21/06 06:23 AM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matte
[Re: Billy Dennis]
|
Craftsman
Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 3513
Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m
|
Quote:
Agreed: but perhaps a better response - and one that would have been less hurtful to Dr Kennedy - would have been a PM to bevin or to me as moderator to address the situation here in the forum rather than going outside it.
You have a good point. In retrospect, I can see that I could have PM'd you. At the time, I was simply indignant. A gross injustice had been done, and I responded on an emotional level. Indeed, the party could have been given an opportunity to retract what had been said, following the procedure you mentioned. I do request that the usual proprieties be observed in carrying forward the discussion--including not to personally demean either those posting on the forum, or others who are discussed. For the most part, things seemed to be going well, until this episode.
Following the same principle, I would also like to know if, when you emailed Dr. Kennedy, you made any reference to me. If my name was mentioned, then please let me know the content. Thanks.
Edited by David Koot (05/21/06 06:37 AM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80665 - 05/21/06 01:12 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matte
[Re: ]
|
Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 4699
Loc: New England
|
Quote:
However, the post in question appeared to speak authoritatively about Dr. Kennedy, about her career and some of her personal issues
Look at the nmote you object to
Quote:
I think it is reasonable to assume she saw the Cliffs, realised how big a conflict she was facing, found a couple of hooks to hang her preconceptions on, and gave up on the issue.
She would have become famous if she could have shown that the White Cliff's must have formed quickly. They presented a huge opportunity - and apparently she walked away with a hand wave.
Like I say, she faced a huge conflict between two things that both appealed to her - science and and overly literal interpretation of Genesis.
authoritatively?
This is a gross mischaracterisation of my remarks.
/Bevin
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80666 - 05/21/06 06:14 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matte
[Re: Mandy]
|
Husband and Father
Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 7120
Loc: Brisbane, Australia
|
Moderator hat on.
Bevin's comments were intended kindly, whether they felt that way or not. David over-reacted in the moment, but heck, let the one who is without that particular sin cast the first stone - sure won't be me.
But if this thread is to continue we need to get past this. So, moderator hat on, I suggest we simply drop it and move on. Anything else that needs to be said can be done in private, by PM or e-mail.
If the contention goes on in this thread, I *will* lock it.
_________________________
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80667 - 05/21/06 11:01 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matte
[Re: Billy Dennis]
|
Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 4699
Loc: New England
|
ok - back to the science. As I wrote about a week ago... Quote:
No credible short-age explanation for the White Cliffs has been advanced, by her or anyone else.
The explanation needs to cover
- Where the material comes from
- Why it has the fossils in it that it does
- Why it has the placement in the world that it does
- Why it has the variations in its material that it does
The evolutionists have a reasonable explanation for these - given in the sites I have previously provided URL's for.
We have yet to be pointed to the short-age deposited-by-the-Flood people's credible explanation.
/Bevin
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
SEARCH OUR SITE
|
|
This full membership income helps pay for hosting, advertising, domain names, software support etc etc
|
|
|
58 registered (aldona, Beryl, Bravus, Bruno, bygjymbo, CoAspen, Contented, darlene, Daryl Fawcett, dgrimm60, Doug, Dr. Lorraine Day, Ellen, fccool, Gladussee, Grace3, Gregory Matthews, Heather Cummings, Jerry D Thomas, John317, Kevin H, Kountzer, LifeHiscost, Liz, LynnDel, magilly46, melvin mccarty, mikeyswen79, Morning Glory, Nan, Neil D, Norman, olger, pkrause, Redwood, Robert, Suzanne Sutton, Taylor, TeensMom, truthseeker007, Vera, 17 invisible),
493
Guests and
198
Spiders online. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Registered: 11/24/04
Posts: 62
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index
