From: "Darryl Maddox" <dpmaddox@arn.net>
> After spending a few years researching the physical geology aspects of this
> topic rather carefully I would say about 90% of the sedimentological data,...
One summer, several years ago, my family and I were at Dinosaur ridge just outside Denver. We just happened upon a small group being led by a Christian geologist. Someone in his group asked about evidence in the rocks for Noah's flood. He said that as a geologist he could find no evidence for Noah's flood anywhere.
As I have done more study, I think I have found a possible reason why he could not do so. As you know, all sedimentary rocks are classified according to depositional environment. The current classification system has been developed by scientifically studying current depositional environments and applying them to the rocks within the philosophical tenet of Actualism (Non-uniform Uniformitarianism). Accordingly, there are three everlasting depositional environments, 1; Marine, 2; Non-marine and 3; Transitional. By accepting the philosophy of Actualism, one assumes that these three environment have always existed together and are the only environments to have existed. While some catastrophic depositions are allowed within these environments (Mt. St. Helen's, asteroid impacts, etc.), the acceptance of Actualism automatically precludes any kind of global catastrophe on the scale envisioned by Creationary Catastrophists. It is impossible, therefore for the above Christian geologist to find evidence for Noah's flood because the classification system automatically precludes any such possibility.
Is it science which precludes Creationary Catastrophism? Is it not the philosophical tenet of Actualism, a corollary of Naturalism, which eliminates Catastrophism? To be sure, the study of current deposition environments does seem to provided correlation between the present sediments and the sedimentary rocks. But, are these the ONLY possible correlations. As a Creationary Catastrophist I am convinced that there are catastrophic means by which even supposed 'quite' and 'slow' deposits can occur. Tsunami and turbidite deposition is a part of the sedimentary record. It is quite likely that even more of the geologic record can be interpreted within a catastrophic classification system if more geologists were looking for and experimenting with catastrophic ideas.
It seems to me that the difference lies in ones philosophical assumptions. If you accept Naturalism and its corollary of Actualism, then one will automatically look for interpretations which fit within that philosophy. However, a Catastrophist, rejects Actualism and naturalism, and associated interpretations.
In Darryl's complex and incomplete sentence the ">90% of Sedimentology" supports old age only if one accepts the current interpretive classification system based on Actualism, a corollary of the religious philosophy of Naturalism. Creationary Catastrophists need to use a non-interpretive classification system of develop a new interpretive classification system.
Allen
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 26 2000 - 16:28:22 EDT