The Watchmaker - story

[David Koot]

But, at any rate, let's cut to the chase. Not so quickly, there, sneaking out the back door. Here, now, this is a professional scientist's statement on the merits:

"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."

Now, then, I invite response. Admit or deny that the foregoing is true.

Dave

[John317]

I would be particularly interested to read Bevin's response to this because he has stated that creationists don't have a plausible explanation for the existence of the White Cliffs of Dover.

When do evolutionists say the White Cliffs were formed? No doubt their dating for the origins of the Cliffs is much different from Creationists, but it sounds as if sedimentologists are in agreement on the way the cliffs were formed: some sort of catastrophic event which caused rapid, nearly instantaneous deposition of the coccoliths.

[Bravus]

bevin indicated to me in a PM that he has left CA

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

I would be particularly interested to read Bevin's response to this because he has stated that creationists don't have a plausible explanation for the existence of the White Cliffs of Dover.

The naturalist philosophy is based on different assumptions so the differences are irreconcilable. When creationists look at the world, they see a world destroyed by a global flood. When naturalists look at the world, they see an old planet destroyed by millions of years of catastrophic events. The two philosophies can be summed up as LOTS OF WATER OR LOTS OF TIME.

There are some people that can see both perspectives but most people cannot. So when a person looks at a specific phenomenon, what he or she sees is often determined by the assumptions he or she has accepted.

[David Koot]

That is regrettable and truly unfortunate. However, it does not address the merits of the question. As to this statement, then, that "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."

Agree or disagree?

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

bevin indicated to me in a PM that he has left CA

I wouldn't be surprised to see him back in a week or so. Although most non-Adventists or ex-Adventist members do not maintain their membership here as long as he did.

[David Koot]

The two philosophies can be summed up as LOTS OF WATER OR LOTS OF TIME.

Except that in this case, the 'lots of time' theory doesn't fit the empirical evidence--the remarkable purity of the deposits, which is consistent with a catastrophic event but not with 'lots of time.'

[John317]

Quote:

bevin indicated to me in a PM that he has left CA

I wouldn't be surprised to see him back in a week or so. Although most non-Adventists or ex-Adventist members do not maintain their membership here as long as he did.

I'm sorry to hear that he's left. I hope he comes back. Did he indicate any particular reason for leaving that can be told to us?

[melvin mccarty]

Try to imagine that catastrophic event with mountain ranges rising and volcanos everywhere and mighty tidal waves and continents moving and unimaginable debris tossing around on the surface of the earth! And a pure deposition in the midst of that! Really?

mel

[Dr. Shane]

Both the naturalist and creationist philosophies involve catastrophic events. One takes place over millions of years and the other takes place over hundreds of years. I think Dr. Kennedy's point is that the pure product is more likely to have been produced during a quick formation than an extended formation. That certainly seems to be a reasonable consideration. The "unimaginable debris" that got caught up in the White Cliffs would account for the fossils there.

I have seen the creationist models in computer animation and that helps out the imagination quite a bit. In the creationist models, from the beginning of the flood to the end of the ice age that followed, about 700 years occurred.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Shane

The two philosophies can be summed up as LOTS OF WATER OR LOTS OF TIME.

Quote:David Koot

Except that in this case, the 'lots of time' theory doesn't fit the empirical evidence--the remarkable purity of the deposits, which is consistent with a catastrophic event but not with 'lots of time.'

>>Try to imagine that catastrophic event with mountain ranges rising and volcanos everywhere and mighty tidal waves and continents moving and unimaginable debris tossing around on the surface of the earth! And a pure deposition in the midst of that! Really?<<

Given that, it really seems that Empiricity argues for a “LOTS OF TIME” scenario, does it not?

Neatly done.

[Bravus]

(since I've been trying hard to bury the White Cliffs ever since they emerged, I won't be participating further)

[Bravus]

Argh, who am I kidding, I can't help myself! The deposition is one half of the equation: and I'm happy to bow to Dr Kennedy's comments on that issue. The issue of where the stuff came from is the other half: if there was no death until a few hundred or couple of thousand years before the Flood, whence the trillions of dead critters that provided the calcium?

[Dr. Shane]

My point has been there are two different world views based on two different set of assumptions. Each side has intelligent, well-educated people that embrace it. The only logical reason why each side comes up with different conclusions is because they have different assumptions - not because one side is less intelligent or purposely ignoring the evidence in question.

In this thread we have had bevin, melvin and jasd try to discredit Dr. Kennedy's observations. Dr. Kennedy has a PhD in science, actually visited the White Cliffs and was an evolutionist before she was a creationist. Certainly she is qualified to comment on the issue. I don't know if any of these three even come close to her qualifications. However I suspect the reason they disagree is because their beginning assumptions are different than Dr. Kennedy's are.

Different assumptions = different theories = different conclusions

[Bravus]

Yep, I agree (in fact, I said so about 10 pages ago). Guess the thread is finished.

[LifeHiscost]

There are some people that can see both perspectives but most people cannot. So when a person looks at a specific phenomenon, what he or she sees is often determined by the assumptions he or she has accepted.

The one other group of people who are not making assumptions are those who take God at His Word, be they scientist or spiritual leader.

"Paul, a bondservant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect and the acknowledgment of the truth which accords with godliness, in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie , promised before time began, but has in due time manifested His word through preaching, which was committed to me according to the commandment of God our Savior." Titus 1:1-3 NKJV

Regards!!

[jasd]

>>...jasd try to discredit Dr. Kennedy's observations.<<

Error, error -- jasd does not try to discredit Dr. Kennedy’s observations. I never visited the “Origins” thread. I did not subscribe to its parameters, clique-claque and that -- so ignored it. Therefor,

I haven’t the foggiest who the good Doctor was/is. I suspect she was/is thoroughly qualified to pronounce upon matters to which I can only contribute opinions, assumption, and s’posin’s – as I often do elsewhere.

>>Certainly she is qualified to comment on the issue.<<

It was specifically to this issue, and this only, that I commented. The fact, that is, the so-called purity of the chalk deposits in the cliffs of Dover (the only thing I know of them is contained in a song by Vera Lynn) argues vigorously against a deposit laid down in tumultuous waters. Were that so,

there must have been deposited at the same time an enormous amount of debris and detritus -- to adulterate. Purity of deposit argues for relatively pristine conditions, long-ages, and cessation of life.

>>I don't know if any of these three even come close to her qualifications.<<

Can’t speak for anyone else but – absolutely not, not even close. Matter-of-fact, comparatively, I’m just a shuckin’ and jivin’ ignoramus. That ought to satisfy recesses, ought it not?

>>However I suspect the reason they disagree is because their beginning assumptions are different than Dr. Kennedy's are.<<

My beginning assumptions are derived from the text of Genesis. That ought to be of little consequence as

the purity of the chalk deposit speaks for itself.

By the way, what do you think of the deposits of huge depth of chalk that has been cored from beneath the floor of the Mediterranean?

[David Koot]

No, the purity of the chalks is not consistent with being laid down over a long period of time. Quite the opposite. Take a look at what Dr. Kennedy said about it. She is a professional geologist. She knows about the subject. Different people can have opinions, of course. How much weight to assign to a particular opinion is an important question. In this case, Dr. Kennedy is a professional scientist, a geologist, who has made personal observations and is familiar with the subject. That has weight. I am not aware of others on this thread who can bring to bear the same level of credibility. Much speculation, however. I don't see a lot of merit in attempting to carry on a technical discussion when the participants don't have the credential to do so.

I would, however, like to comment generally that it may be more than assumptions--and that may be why the empirical evidence of the purity of the chalk deposits is a fly in the ointment for long-age evolutionists. But having said that, I don't see much utility in carrying forward a protracted discussion when we here are novices in this field.

Dave

[jasd]

>>No, the purity of the chalks...<<

Pristine vs tumultuous waters squares the circle.

>>She is a professional geologist.<<

As are many so-called evolutionists -- yet, the argument goes... "They are wrong."

>>She knows about the subject.<<

I suspect she does. That, of itself, does not translate to

Sine Qua Non.

[David Koot]

the purity of the chalk deposit speaks for itself.

As Dr. Kennedy pointed out.

[David Koot]

Jasd, I am going to say this as politely as possible . . . but I am not aware that you have credentials in this field. Serious discussion would be pointless, and I am not going to expend more time at this level.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

jasd does not try to discredit Dr. Kennedy’s observations. I never visited the “Origins” thread.

I was making an observation about comments in this thread - not ones made in the Origins forum.

Quote:

Given that, it really seems that Empiricity argues for a “LOTS OF TIME” scenario, does it not?

This comment goes back to Dr. Kennedy's assessment of the phenomenon.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

As are many so-called evolutionists -- yet, the argument goes... "They are wrong."

Well, not entirely.

The argument goes, their assumptions are different. Naturalists assume uniformatarianism so they will obviously come up with a different conclusion for the chalk's purity. Creationists assume God's Word is true. Those two assumptions are not compatible. They will never come up with the same conclusion in the study of origins.

[Bravus]

Quote:

Creationists assume God's Word is true.

Sorry, but I can't let you get away with it as baldly as that, because the obvious corrolary of that is that those of us who are not young-earth creationists do not believe that God's Word is true, and that is neither true nor fair. Your statement above can more fairly be stated as:

"Young earth creationists assume that their specific literal interpretation of God's Word is definitive and presents the correct interpretation for all the empirical evidence."

I am a Christian who absolutely assumes that God's Word is true.

[Bravus]

To expand, as long as people are willing to stick with Shane's 'two philosophies' as a *descriptive* framework, I'm very happy to let it stand. As soon as they start adding that moral/political/religious force of 'and of course, my side is the only side any true Christian could adhere to', then I have to come back into the discussion. LHC did some of that above but I bit my tongue. There are sincere believers in all of the many camps on this issue, and I suspect all of them will be surprised by some facet of what God reveals about origins when we all get to heaven. But I also believe we'll all be there to be surprised: that God is not gonna say "Well, those who said creation was between 9am and 11am on Tuesday morning, 4013BC can come in, the rest of you depart from me".