Of course he hasn’t. I believe he sponsored Steve Austin’s farce of a study in the Grand Canyon. He has actively funded YEC “research” for some time now.
From these assertions, particularly “hecd’s” belief that the experiments only apply to rivers, it is evident he has not understood or perhaps even read the reports of the published work. If he had, he would recognise how inappropriate his remarks are, and that not one of the “irrelevances” he mentions applies.
There is no conflict except in your mind.
I don’t know whether the data favors an historical genesis, but I do think that it is irresponsible of the scientific community to ignore data just because they might support biblical Ideas. We live in a capitalist society; science is competitive, and it would not surprise me if "cult sciences" develop in favor of some theory or other. However…
No, I got lazy and decided to take a cheep shot instead.
The legitimate question to ask, therefore, is why, if Orogeny believes he is right he refrains from presenting his scientific case?
As Pierre Julian was co-author with Berthault of the article published in 1993 by the French Geological Society including the conclusions of the Fort Collins experiments, it is incorrect to say that there was disagreement between the authors over the conclusions.
I don’t like the title.
That is a shame. You don’t have a clue to the mind of this pope then. When has he ever tried to be PC. His non PC statements are his forte.
Thank you. So stop it.
This popel hasn’t been too worried about offending anyone. The last pope JPII the Great said that evolution is more than theory.
Who decides what is heretical? You or the pope?
How ? You are missing the point of Genesis if you think that. Genesis or any books of the bible are meant to instruct us in science. There is a day before the sun is created. How can there be a day without the sun. The four corners of the earth are talked about. Where are they? Bats are called birds for example.
It can be but isn’t all science including medicine naturalistic because it deals with nature. Do you reject medicine too? How about geography?
Are you saying you know God’s mind? “My ways are not your ways”
Unfortunately for you, Peter, that isn’t the case when it comes to Berthault. The experiments have not been dismissed. Just the opposite, in fact. I know that his critics, myself included, have stated numerous times that the experiments were valid. What has been dismissed are Berthault’s erroneous conclusions based on those experiments. The author is “vilified” just as any scientist who promotes geocentrism based on his religious beliefs would be. Berthault’s conclusions are not based on the results of his experiment but on his belief in a young earth.
See, Alec, I told you this was coming!
Whatever.
Shall I post the e-mail correspondence I have had with Dr. Julien regarding this? I did get his permission to make his e-mails public, so that would not be a problem.
I’ll tell you what. I know that Berthault will not present for the SEPM, but if he submits his work to them and has it published, I will apologize to the Academy.
Once again, just as I predicted to Alec (hecd).
Be sure to explain in your model how a petrified tree could extend up through the rock layers. The evolutionary model doesn’t seem to have an answer to this.
Maybe the Pope could use some correction and some judgement. If I made a statement that said the discussion over evolution is absurd or leaned toward an evolutionary belief in the creaion of the first man I would want someone to correct me.
The topic at hand is stratification, not fossilization. If you bothered to read Berthault’s papers, you would know that polystrate trees don’t fit into his model. Besides, polystrate fossils have good, scientific explanations, you know.
Well of course I have read and understood the papers. I have already stated that the papers (particularly the pre-millenium ones) report experimental evidence in support of some principles of sorted sedimentation in flow with velocity shear. I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is Berthault’s claim that his work revolutionises stratigraphy. It cannot possibly bear that burden, because, apart from anything else, it is irrelevant to the formation of very important elements in the geological column.
And if Peter understood any geology at all, he would know how ridiculous that statement is. I predicted in my last post: “My expectation is that he [Peter] will not want to get into detailed discusion of the objections I make, but we’ll see.” I was right. Let’s see Peter explain precisely and in detail how Berthault’s experiments are relevant to any one of the following geological strata:
I have no problem with the experiments or what they show. But the fact is that they simply cannot support the grandiose claims that Berthault makes for them, and in making the ridiculous claims that he does, he has made himself unpublishable in respectable high-impact geological journals (that, and the fact that he has had no new data to publish since his last French paper in 1993 - the most recent papers, in obscure journals, are not empirical but intepretative and speculative)
I have examined your claims for his work and found them wanting, for reasons that I have stated and that you seem curiously reluctant to discuss.
Be that as it may be, it is easy to overestimate the maverick nature of great scientists, because the fact is that most scientists who do revolutionary work, do so from within the discipline and are freely published. For every rejected genius like Wegener, there are literally thousands of cranks who think that they have an idea that revolutionises this or that discipline. And, I am afraid that Berthault simply does not have a body of work of the weight and substance that would justify him in his claims. Very rarely, scientists reject and continue to reject good ideas, (and apart from Wegener - plate tectonics - and Marshall and Warren - the role of H pylori in peptic ulcers - it’s hard to think of any notorious cases in the last 100 years) but in 999 cases out of a thousand, they are absolutely correct in rejecting the hubris and self-aggrandisement of those like Berthault. On the other hand, in most cases, good revolutionary ideas are adopted rather quickly - take the vast and rapid developments in relativity, quantum physics, quantum chromodynamics, particle physics, cosmology, molecular biology, cell biology and many other fields of science since 1900.
She provides critical (name removed by moderator)ut in scientific models used in geology such as tracking changes in the Earth’s interior structure. (1)Correct. Pope Pius IX made it clear that neither belief or research in evolution was inherently heretical even shortly after Darwin published his major work. By 1950 his successor, Pope Pius XII had put evolution as a likely truth in an encyclical (Humani Generis) and again reitererated that it is not a heretical belief.
Thanks, and I just want to mention that the scentific explaination is that the rock layers were layed down at the same time. This discredits the so called fossil record greatly.