Why I asked to Join This Organization:
"To continue a quest I began long ago but not too far away; that is, to do speculative geology in a Christian environment."
A short Bio. which relates to why I want to do speculative geology in a Christian environment.
As a child I attended a small Baptist church in the Texas Panhandle. It was a very conservative church whose members were exclusively trades people. There were no professionals among the membership. As far as I know the preacher was the only one who had ever attended college. I know the pianist could read music but I am pretty sure she was the only one, even the song director could not. The point of this is that it was a very conservative church where what the King James version of the Bible said was what happened and there was to be no discussion or consideration of alternatives. They were not mean people, they just did not know anything else. Some did not even know the sun was a star just like all those visible at night.
As I grew older, I heard on the radio one Sunday that a university had fired a biology professor for being an atheist and I wondered how a person could not believe in God. Then a few years later I heard another university had fired a professor for teaching evolution and I wondered how you could fire a teacher for teaching a theory which was clearly within his area of expertise. Then I began to ask questions in various Sunday School and Training Union classes and discovered that I liked to ask questions other people not only did not want to answer, they didn't even want me to ask them. This has continued through out my life. I found traditional geologists didn't want to consider, even on a speculative basis, the possibility of Noah=s flood, and the writings I saw of ACreation@ geologists were so poor that if they had been turned in as an undergraduate term paper they would certainly getting a failing grade. There is difference between speculation within the scope of the data and sheer falsehood and fabrication for the sake of telling someone what they want to hear.
About 10 years ago I started looking for Agood@ Creation Scientists. By that I mean scientists who could maintain their belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis, at least as far back as Noah=s flood, while at the same time not compromising either the geologic data, their interpretation of it, or their faith that ultimately the scientific method can be used to verify the truthfulness of those parts of the Bible which are not allegorical. I began this search because I wanted to work on this problem myself and wanted to work with others whom I respected both for their religious convictions and for their scientific credibility. I attended a three day class called AEvolution, Creation, or Both@ and found it very informative, but didn=t meet the kind of people I was looking for. Then I heard of John Baumgardner and Steve Austin, and eventually a few others. After corresponding with them reading some of their work I began to think I would eventually find someone I could work with.
Finally, (about 3 years ago?) I got acquainted with Art via email. Then I read the book Faith, Reason and Earth History by Brand. And last year I met Art and Lee in person. I liked the book and I liked these guys. Then I found the Earth History Research Center web site and realized there was a formal group of people with whom I had something in common and with whom I thought I would like to work; so I asked if I could join and was accepted.
Now, what do I hope to accomplish within this group? Several things including:
Elaboration of point 2 from above.
Some may think that in pointing out these constraints I am trying to disprove a global flood. That is not my purpose. My purpose is to define, as clearly as possible, those physical constraints with which any global flood must be compatible. Just as theories in physics must conform to the data from the experimental laboratory, any geologic theory must conform to the field data. Dr. Chadwick has already started this type work by working to develop a flood theory compatible with his paleocurrent data. But there are other constraints than paleocurrent flow direction. For instance sharp boundary between the sand and the surrounding silts of the collapse zone described on my bio page shows that the red silts and shales were solidified before the collapse happened. And consequently, since the collapse happened before the current erosional pattern was established, this pattern had to be established after the consolidation and not as a result of an initial run off period right at the end of the flood. A similar argument can be applied to the cutting of the Grand Canyon. It had to be eroded after the sands and limes and were consolidated enough to stand as near vertical walls, not cut through unconsolidated mud as some have proposed. On the other hand, if a way can be found (geochemically or otherwise) to quickly consolidate the sediments of both localities then the subsequent erosion can take place anytime thereafter. Thus these outcrops place constraints on any theory which may be proposed with out finding a mechanism for rapid consolidation of the sediments and points out an area of geologic knowledge in which Creation scientists could make a valuable contribution. No one else is likely to look for a rapid way to consolidate rock because they have no need for such a mechanism.
If I can just make people aware of what data must either be explained or reinterpreted I will consider my part of the job well done and the next several years of my life well spent.
I hope you find my writings useful and informative. I welcome correspondence, particularly from geologists and other scientists you have information relative to my postings here or from people who have questions about the topics I address.