Bible Discussion: TOBS: Comments From A Geology Professor On Evidence Interpretation

TOBS: Comments From A Geology Professor On Evidence Interpretation
Posts: 17

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

Jabriol
2004-06-11 12:11:11 EST




Geology professor John McCampbell once wrote: �The essential
differences between Biblical catastrophism [the Flood] and
evolutionary uniformitarianism are not over the factual data of
geology but over the interpretations of those data. The
interpretation preferred will depend largely upon the background and
presuppositions of the individual student.�

That the Flood did happen is seen in the fact that mankind never
forgot it. All around the world, in locations as far apart as Alaska
and the South Sea Islands, there are ancient stories about it.
Native, pre-Columbian civilizations of America, as well as Aborigines
of Australia, all have stories about the Flood. While some of the
accounts differ in detail, the basic fact that the earth was flooded
and only a few humans were saved in a man-made vessel comes through
in nearly all versions. The only explanation for such a widespread
acceptance is that the Flood was a historical event.

Thus, in essential features the Bible is in harmony with modern
science. Where there is a conflict between the two, the scientists�
evidence is questionable. Where they agree, the Bible is often so
accurate that we have to believe it got its information from a
superhuman intelligence. Indeed, the Bible�s agreement with proved
science provides further evidence that it is God�s word, not man�s.

_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!

John Ings
2004-06-11 15:43:24 EST
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:11:11 -0400 (EDT), "Jabriol"
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:

> Geology professor John McCampbell once wrote: “The essential
>differences between Biblical catastrophism [the Flood] and
>evolutionary uniformitarianism are not over the factual data of
>geology but over the interpretations of those data. The
>interpretation preferred will depend largely upon the background and
>presuppositions of the individual student.”

Wrote in the peface to a book of fables authored by Whitcomb and
Morris called 'The Genesis Flood'. Gee I wonder whose side he was on?

>That the Flood did happen is seen in the fact that mankind never
>forgot it.

That the flood didn't happen is seen in the fact that the earth has
failed to remember it.

>Thus, in essential features the Bible is in harmony with modern
>science.

Not even remotely in harmony with modern science. In fact modern
science has come increasingly in conflict with biblical accounts as
more and more of its fiction has proven to be not just unsubstantiated
but actually contradicted by new findings.

>Where there is a conflict between the two, the scientists’
>evidence is questionable.

Only in the minds of the obstinately devout.

>Where they agree,

Where would that be?

## White is really black, if the heirarchy of the Church so decides.
St Ignatius of Loyola


George
2004-06-11 16:08:48 EST

"John Ings" <nodamned@spam.org> wrote in message
news:ll1kc0lcvl99q5rkuqrf3aktq88l41v2u2@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:11:11 -0400 (EDT), "Jabriol"
> <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>
>> Geology professor John McCampbell once wrote: "The essential
>>differences between Biblical catastrophism [the Flood] and
>>evolutionary uniformitarianism are not over the factual data of
>>geology but over the interpretations of those data. The
>>interpretation preferred will depend largely upon the background and
>>presuppositions of the individual student."
>
> Wrote in the peface to a book of fables authored by Whitcomb and
> Morris called 'The Genesis Flood'. Gee I wonder whose side he was on?


And they were also wrong in their assertion, above, since they don't even have
the facts straight. You cannot properly interpret anything without accurate
data.

>>That the Flood did happen is seen in the fact that mankind never
>>forgot it.
>
> That the flood didn't happen is seen in the fact that the earth has
> failed to remember it.
>
>>Thus, in essential features the Bible is in harmony with modern
>>science.
>
> Not even remotely in harmony with modern science. In fact modern
> science has come increasingly in conflict with biblical accounts as
> more and more of its fiction has proven to be not just unsubstantiated
> but actually contradicted by new findings.
>
>>Where there is a conflict between the two, the scientists'
>>evidence is questionable.
>
> Only in the minds of the obstinately devout.

>>Where they agree,
>
> Where would that be?
>
> ## White is really black, if the heirarchy of the Church so decides.
> St Ignatius of Loyola
>



Gary Bohn
2004-06-11 16:26:10 EST
"Jabriol" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
news:20040611161111.42C82B705@xprdmailfe14.nwk.excite.com:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Geology professor John McCampbell once wrote: \ufffdThe essential
>
> differences between Biblical catastrophism [the Flood] and
>
> evolutionary uniformitarianism are not over the factual data of
>
> geology but over the interpretations of those data. The
>
> interpretation preferred will depend largely upon the background and
>
> presuppositions of the individual student.\ufffd
>
>
>
> That the Flood did happen is seen in the fact that mankind never
>
> forgot it. All around the world, in locations as far apart as Alaska
>
> and the South Sea Islands, there are ancient stories about it.
>
> Native, pre-Columbian civilizations of America, as well as Aborigines
>
> of Australia, all have stories about the Flood. While some of the
>
> accounts differ in detail, the basic fact that the earth was flooded
>
> and only a few humans were saved in a man-made vessel comes through
>
> in nearly all versions. The only explanation for such a widespread
>
> acceptance is that the Flood was a historical event.
>
>
>
> Thus, in essential features the Bible is in harmony with modern
>
> science. Where there is a conflict between the two, the scientists\ufffd
>
> evidence is questionable. Where they agree, the Bible is often so
>
> accurate that we have to believe it got its information from a
>
> superhuman intelligence. Indeed, the Bible\ufffds agreement with proved
>
> science provides further evidence that it is God\ufffds word, not man\ufffds.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
> The most personalized portal on the Web!
>

And of course it doesn't matter that those people lived on small islands
or river basins that were frequently subject to flood does it?

There are myths about the earth either riding the back of a turtle, or
'lands' on the back of turtle. They come from places as far apart as
India and North America. Does this mean the earth sits on the back of a
turtle?

If you contend that the percentage of people in a population that believe
something determining the truth of the matter, then most north american
peoples from the Maidu to the Huron, to Lakota, to the Haudenosaunee
believed (and some still do) that their world, North America, sits atop a
giant turtle. A lot of these people were sworn enemies, yet almost all
N.A. aboriginals believed this particular myth.

I guess by your logic that this makes their myth as real as yours.

--
apatriot #23, aa #1779, Grand Pubba, EAC Department of Oxygen Deprivation
Gary Bohn
(Previously known as Pan Paniscus)

Conservatism is not about tradition and morality, hasn't been for many
decades...It is about the putative biological and spiritual superiority
of the wealthy.
Greg Bear

Denis Loubet
2004-06-11 17:10:39 EST

"Jabriol" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:20040611161111.42C82B705@xprdmailfe14.nwk.excite.com...
>
>
>
>
> Geology professor John McCampbell once wrote: "The essential
> differences between Biblical catastrophism [the Flood] and
> evolutionary uniformitarianism are not over the factual data of
> geology but over the interpretations of those data. The
> interpretation preferred will depend largely upon the background and
> presuppositions of the individual student."
>
> That the Flood did happen is seen in the fact that mankind never
> forgot it. All around the world, in locations as far apart as Alaska
> and the South Sea Islands, there are ancient stories about it.
> Native, pre-Columbian civilizations of America, as well as Aborigines
> of Australia, all have stories about the Flood. While some of the
> accounts differ in detail, the basic fact that the earth was flooded
> and only a few humans were saved in a man-made vessel comes through
> in nearly all versions. The only explanation for such a widespread
> acceptance is that the Flood was a historical event.

I love this argument. It torpedos the bible.

Where are these stories coming from if EVERYONE DROWNED?


--
Denis Loubet
d*t@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet



Tom McDonald
2004-06-11 17:11:18 EST
John Ings wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:11:11 -0400 (EDT), "Jabriol"
> <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>
>
>> Geology professor John McCampbell once wrote: “The
>> essential differences between Biblical catastrophism [the
>> Flood] and evolutionary uniformitarianism are not over the
>> factual data of geology but over the interpretations of
>> those data. The interpretation preferred will depend
>> largely upon the background and presuppositions of the
>> individual student.”
>
>
> Wrote in the peface to a book of fables authored by Whitcomb
> and Morris called 'The Genesis Flood'. Gee I wonder whose
> side he was on?

John,

He is apparently a dyed-in-the-wool fence sitter. Another bit
from his prefatory remarks on that book is contained in this
paragraph from:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/morrish.html


"Morris replaced uniformitarianism with what he called “Biblical
catastrophism,” a framework that resulted in the wholesale
rejection of everything geologists thought they knew about
geology. Even the author of the book’s forward, John C.
McCampbell, a geology professor from the University of
Southwestern Louisiana (and presumably one of the most
sympathetic geology professors that could be found anywhere),
expressed misgivings with a framework that threw a century’s
worth of geology out the window. *“I would prefer to hope that
some other means of harmonization of religion and geology, which
retains the structure of modern historical geology, could be
found,”* he wrote. (GF, xvii) Trying hard to muster a
compliment, Professor McCampbell credits Morris with “real
independent thinking,” which he described as fast “becoming a
lost art.” (GF, xviii) "

Tom McDonald

<snip>

Jo Schaper
2004-06-11 17:15:22 EST
Gary Bohn wrote:

> There are myths about the earth either riding the back of a turtle, or
> 'lands' on the back of turtle. They come from places as far apart as
> India and North America. Does this mean the earth sits on the back of a
> turtle?


It does if you live on Discworld. The great A-Tuin.


George
2004-06-11 21:29:01 EST

"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote in message
news:10ck81b536qfa47@corp.supernews.com...
> John Ings wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:11:11 -0400 (EDT), "Jabriol"
>> <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Geology professor John McCampbell once wrote: "The
>>> essential differences between Biblical catastrophism [the
>>> Flood] and evolutionary uniformitarianism are not over the
>>> factual data of geology but over the interpretations of
>>> those data. The interpretation preferred will depend
>>> largely upon the background and presuppositions of the
>>> individual student."
>>
>>
>> Wrote in the peface to a book of fables authored by Whitcomb
>> and Morris called 'The Genesis Flood'. Gee I wonder whose
>> side he was on?
>
> John,
>
> He is apparently a dyed-in-the-wool fence sitter. Another bit from his
> prefatory remarks on that book is contained in this paragraph from:
> http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/morrish.html
>
> "Morris replaced uniformitarianism with what he called "Biblical
> catastrophism," a framework that resulted in the wholesale rejection of
> everything geologists thought they knew about geology. Even the author of the
> book's forward, John C. McCampbell, a geology professor from the University of
> Southwestern Louisiana (and presumably one of the most sympathetic geology
> professors that could be found anywhere), expressed misgivings with a
> framework that threw a century's worth of geology out the window. *"I would
> prefer to hope that some other means of harmonization of religion and geology,
> which retains the structure of modern historical geology, could be found,"* he
> wrote. (GF, xvii) Trying hard to muster a compliment, Professor McCampbell
> credits Morris with "real independent thinking," which he described as fast
> "becoming a lost art." (GF, xviii) "
>
> Tom McDonald
>
> <snip>

And what the author fails to acknowledge is the fact that science has often in
its history made discoveries that set aside hundreds of years of previous (and
erroneous) findings. Case in point, Copernicus's revelation that the world
revolves around the sun, and not the other way around.



Tom McDonald
2004-06-12 02:58:27 EST
George wrote:

> "Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:10ck81b536qfa47@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>John Ings wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:11:11 -0400 (EDT), "Jabriol"
>>><Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Geology professor John McCampbell once wrote: "The
>>>>essential differences between Biblical catastrophism [the
>>>>Flood] and evolutionary uniformitarianism are not over the
>>>>factual data of geology but over the interpretations of
>>>>those data. The interpretation preferred will depend
>>>>largely upon the background and presuppositions of the
>>>>individual student."
>>>
>>>
>>>Wrote in the peface to a book of fables authored by Whitcomb
>>>and Morris called 'The Genesis Flood'. Gee I wonder whose
>>>side he was on?
>>
>>John,
>>
>>He is apparently a dyed-in-the-wool fence sitter. Another bit from his
>>prefatory remarks on that book is contained in this paragraph from:
>>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/morrish.html
>>
>>"Morris replaced uniformitarianism with what he called "Biblical
>>catastrophism," a framework that resulted in the wholesale rejection of
>>everything geologists thought they knew about geology. Even the author of the
>>book's forward, John C. McCampbell, a geology professor from the University of
>>Southwestern Louisiana (and presumably one of the most sympathetic geology
>>professors that could be found anywhere), expressed misgivings with a
>>framework that threw a century's worth of geology out the window. *"I would
>>prefer to hope that some other means of harmonization of religion and geology,
>>which retains the structure of modern historical geology, could be found,"* he
>>wrote. (GF, xvii) Trying hard to muster a compliment, Professor McCampbell
>>credits Morris with "real independent thinking," which he described as fast
>>"becoming a lost art." (GF, xviii) "
>>
>>Tom McDonald
>>
>><snip>
>
>
> And what the author fails to acknowledge is the fact that science has often in
> its history made discoveries that set aside hundreds of years of previous (and
> erroneous) findings. Case in point, Copernicus's revelation that the world
> revolves around the sun, and not the other way around.
>
>

Yes. But it doesn't apply here. Morris et al. are wrong out
of the gate.

Tom McDonald

George
2004-06-12 08:55:08 EST

"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote in message
news:10clae55lgmcabd@corp.supernews.com...
> George wrote:
>
>> "Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote in message
>> news:10ck81b536qfa47@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>>John Ings wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:11:11 -0400 (EDT), "Jabriol"
>>>><Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Geology professor John McCampbell once wrote: "The
>>>>>essential differences between Biblical catastrophism [the
>>>>>Flood] and evolutionary uniformitarianism are not over the
>>>>>factual data of geology but over the interpretations of
>>>>>those data. The interpretation preferred will depend
>>>>>largely upon the background and presuppositions of the
>>>>>individual student."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Wrote in the peface to a book of fables authored by Whitcomb
>>>>and Morris called 'The Genesis Flood'. Gee I wonder whose
>>>>side he was on?
>>>
>>>John,
>>>
>>>He is apparently a dyed-in-the-wool fence sitter. Another bit from his
>>>prefatory remarks on that book is contained in this paragraph from:
>>>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/morrish.html
>>>
>>>"Morris replaced uniformitarianism with what he called "Biblical
>>>catastrophism," a framework that resulted in the wholesale rejection of
>>>everything geologists thought they knew about geology. Even the author of
>>>the book's forward, John C. McCampbell, a geology professor from the
>>>University of Southwestern Louisiana (and presumably one of the most
>>>sympathetic geology professors that could be found anywhere), expressed
>>>misgivings with a framework that threw a century's worth of geology out the
>>>window. *"I would prefer to hope that some other means of harmonization of
>>>religion and geology, which retains the structure of modern historical
>>>geology, could be found,"* he wrote. (GF, xvii) Trying hard to muster a
>>>compliment, Professor McCampbell credits Morris with "real independent
>>>thinking," which he described as fast "becoming a lost art." (GF, xviii) "
>>>
>>>Tom McDonald
>>>
>>><snip>
>>
>>
>> And what the author fails to acknowledge is the fact that science has often
>> in its history made discoveries that set aside hundreds of years of previous
>> (and erroneous) findings. Case in point, Copernicus's revelation that the
>> world revolves around the sun, and not the other way around.
>
> Yes. But it doesn't apply here. Morris et al. are wrong out of the gate.
>
> Tom McDonald

I think that that is essentially what I was saying, was it not? So why does it
not apply?


Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron