> No. Ager was arguing that catastrophic episodes in the earth's history
>should be regarded as a part of uniformitarianism. In other words, the
>earth is so old (4.6 Ga) that rare catastrophic events will show up in
the
>stratigraphic record. What did Ager mean by catastrophic events? Things
>like hurricanes, local floods, turbidity currents, tsunamis, etc. Ager
>recognized many thousands of such events and his ideas can in no way be
>taken to support the idea of a single global flood.
1. Ager said "The hurricane, the flood or tsunami may do more in
an hour or a day than the ordinary processes of nature have
achieved in a thousand years...In other words, the history of
any one part of the earth, like the life of a soldier, consists
of long periods of boredom and short periods of terror."
2. There is a difference between catastrophism and uniformitarianism.
3. Ager insists, as do many leading geologists of today, that
many of the geologic deposits are actually a sequence of rapid
catastrophic deposits, usually water related. It is you who are
attempting to place the misguided notion that this is
uniformitarianism!
4. Uniformitarianism, is almost always assumed in the textbook treatment
of subjects related to earth structure and history.
5. Ager's statment seems to me to suggest that it is more likely
that many or most of such deposits were formed rapidly in a
relatively short period of time, This idea is catastrophism.
> Also, I really think it's the other way around Randy. Young-earth
>creationists try to force-fit science into harmony with their
theological
>beliefs. As a matter of fact, many YECs (Ken Ham and Henry Morris come
>to mind) are very candid about this in defining "good" science as science
>which supports a literal hermeneutic of the Bible.
It's too bad you must resort to discredit rather than arguing
your views on their own merit. Does not say much for your
agenda. I think you are guilty of the same thing you accuse Ken
Ham and Henry Morris of by forcing the religious view of
evolution into scientific evidence that geologic deposits are
actually a sequence of rapid catastrophic deposits.
>> The fossil record is best understood as the result of a marine
cataclysm
>> that utterly annihilated the continents and land dwellers (Genesis
>> 7:18-24; II Peter 3:6)
> No, it is not. No way and no how. A prediction of what you would see
in
>a single global flood would be all types of organisms jumbled together.
That
>is most emphatically NOT what you see. We can discuss this if you wish, and
>I can give concrete examples from the paleontological literature which show
>that you're absolutely wrong. Quoting Scripture doesn't change what's
>actually found in the rocks (and I read the Bible and know the verses).
Well, I believe in the Bible. I believe what it says and believe
there is scientific evidence to prove it. One way to show that
only a short time elapsed between the deposition of one bed and
the deposition of an overlying bed is that the various surface
features present on the top surface of the lower bed would not last
very long if exposed. Therefore, these features had to be covered
rather quickly, before they had a chance to erode or be destroyed.
> Yes, go slow with me Randy. I am, after all, only six months away from
>a Ph.D. in geology so these concepts might be over my head. I understand
>perfectly fine, I just think you're totally wrong.
Congratulations, a Ph.D. is something to be very proud of. I hope
you will not let it go to your head when you achieve such an
honor. And once you hang that little frame on your office wall, I
will make sure and not play in your sandbox unless you say it is
ok for me to.
> It's taken out of context if you're quoting Ager to support your belief
>in a young earth and global flood (which I think you are).
I am not saying that Ager believes in either YEC's as you put it
or the biblical flood, in fact I thought I made it clear in my
previous post that Ager (most likely out of ridicule from the
scientific community), is attempting to distance himself from
creationist geologists who believe in Noah's Flood. Do you
believe in the Biblical Flood?
> I'm saying several things Randy, and I think you're missing my points as
>well...
I am not missing any of your points, I just dispute them.
> 1. Ager does indeed recognize catastrophic events in geology.
etc.
Agreed, and although Ager may not believe in creation or a young
earth. His views point to a revival back toward flood processes.
> 2. This whole catastrophism/uniformitarianism that you and other YECs
> love to talk about is a gross oversimplification and caricature of
> modern geology. It was an 19th century debate and no modern geologist
> supports your simplistic ideas of uniformitarianism.
I do try to make things simple, Satan is the author of confusion,
not God. I think you are confusing the issue to support your
belief. The more complicated you try to make things the better
you can sell your misguided theories. You do not have to be a
rocket scientist to be able to play frisbee, you just need to understand
how to make it fly. You look at the evidence and make a few theory's
if your right it works, if your wrong you find out real quick.
> 3. None of this has ANY bearing on a single global flood! I fail to see
> how Ager, or any one else identifying catastrophic events in the
> earth's history, supports YEC in any way.
Then you're not looking, catastrophic events support rapid
changes not slow gradual changes that are necessary for evolution
to occur. Do you deny that almost every sedimentary rock layer
was deposited under water?
>Ager says that a centimeter
> of sandstone may represent a single hurricane deposit, and not
years of
> slow gradual deposition, in a formation that may be hundreds of
meters
> thick! Reread that last sentence. YECs say "Oh, this reputable
> geologist was a catastrophist" and imply that this somehow supports
> their idea of a single global flood. I think that's dishonest Randy.
Ager supports catastrophic events. The flood was a catastrophic
event since when is that dishonest Steve? I think you are being
dishonest by confusing catastrophic events with uniformitarianism.
>> Now you are putting words in my mouth or post that were never
intended.
>> Never did I say or imply that Ager is a strict creationist. But then
>> again his statment as I hope you can grasp that there is some belief
that
>> nearly all of the rock material was laid down rapidly, as sediments,
by
>> catastrophic processes. He may believe that these events were
separated
>> by great lengths of time.
> Randy, you were quoting Ager to support your beliefs in a young earth
>and a global flood. Ager himself stated that his work does not support
>such conclusions (which you conveniently ignored). Even a casual
reading
>of Ager's books shows that his ideas can in no way support a young earth
or
>a single global flood.
I quoted Ager because at the very least he has adopted many of
the "radical" positions espoused in the Genesis Flood. I quoted
Ager because his statment "The hurricane, the flood or tsunami
may do more in an hour or a day than the ordinary processes of
nature have achieved in a thousand years" supports catastrophism.
I never said Ager was a young earth creationist although you have
tried to say that I did. I did not say that Ager believed in the
Genesis Flood as you have dishonestly alluded. What I did say was
that "Ager insists, as do numerous leading geologists of today, that
many of the geologic deposits are actually a sequence of rapid
catastrophic deposits, usually water related."
> You say "there is some belief that nearly all of the rock material was
laid
>down rapidly, as sediments, by catastrophic processes" and that's misleading
>if you're arguing for a single global flood.
What I said was:
Ager insists, as do many leading geologists of today, that
many of the geologic deposits are actually a sequence of
rapid catastrophic deposits, usually water related. It is you who
are attempting to place the misguided notion that this is
uniformitarianism!
>Ager claimed thousands, if not
>millions, of these catastrophic events are recognized in the stratigraphic
>record, not one single event.
Never said that he didn't, do you remember the term neo-catastrophist?
>> I am supprised that you made that mistake given question about the
>> "Neo-catastrophist". I thought you would have understood that being
one
>> does not make one a young earth creationist.
> I disagree with the term "neo-catastrophist" as would, I think, most
>geologists. There's nothing new about catastrophism, and geologists have
>always accepted that there were catastrophic events in the earth's past.
The flood really happened, and the evidence for catastrophism in
geology abounds. The young-earth position directly follows from
the global Flood, just as belief in an old earth by otherwise
Bible-believing Christians necessitates a belief in the
local-flood idea. The Creation movement has even caused a
revolution in secular geologic thinking toward catastrophism.
Many leading geologists now even identify themselves as
neo-catastrophists.
>>> Do you deny that Dr. Ager has spearheaded a revival in geology back
>>> toward flood processes?
>>
>> I absolutely deny it. Ager did not support a global flood -- reread
>> the above quotations. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ not what I said
> It's not what you explicitly said but you are a young-earth creationist
>who believes in a global flood.
Well then get it right! When you make subtle changes when quoting
someone you show your dishonesty. Geologists who live in glass
houses should not throw rocks.
> Tell you what Randy. Give me a reference to a paper in a mainstream
>geologic journal explaining neo-catastrophism and I promise to read it.
>I can't recall any in the past few years and I don't learn my science
>from ICR publications.
So what your saying is any evidence that points to creation as
told in the Bible from ICR you will ignore? Do you Hate the
people at ICR or are you just afraid of them? The uni-bomber
mentality is going around I guess. I hope you don't result to
sending UPS packages! Seriously though, you have never heard of the term?
A neo-catastrophist is a geologist who advocates that geologic deposits
are actually a sequence of rapid castastrophic deposits, usually water
related. For instance, many would argue that each horizontally bedded
layer of fossil-bearing strata in Grand Canyon was laid down by a
catastrope of one sort or another. They would claim that each
sequence of catastrophes was separated by millions and millions
of years.
> Define uniformitarianism Randy. I want to know what you mean by that
>term because, quite frankly, I think you're clueless when it comes to
>what modern geology is all about and how geologists study the natural world.
More insults? I must be starting to get under your skin all
that education must be very stressful. You should try to mellow
out a little.
I could give you a simple explanation which from Morris or one
of the other geologists on your hit list and suffer more ridicule
but on second thought I would like to quote Michael Denton in
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis page 27:
"Darwin's theory of coral reef formation, which he worked out
while still on the west coast of South America, is further
evidence that he had rejected the six thousand-year old Earth and
was already, eighteen months before he returned to England, a
convert to Lyell's theory, Coral grows very slowly and will only
grow at a depth of about twenty feet below the surface of the
sea, yet in some parts of the world vast reefs have been built
up, some of them several hundred feet in height, reaching from
the ocean floor to a few feet below the surface, consisting of
myriads upon myriads of shells of minute and long dead coral
polyps. Darwin noted that they were invariably found in regions
where either land subsidence had occurred or where there was
strong circumstantial evidence that it had probably occurred. He
argued that if land subsided sufficiently slowly then the reef
could grow upwards at the same rate and over a course of an
unimaginable span of time an immense reef, perhaps several
hundred feet in depth, could be gradually built up. Such a
process would require that geological change, in this case land
subsidence, occurred very gradually and over immense time span,
were the two fundamental pillars upon which the whole
uniformitarian thesis of geology was based.
The twin concepts of gradualism and immense time are also crucial
to the idea of biological evolution and, as many biologists
later acknowledged, geological uniformitarianism, more than
anything else, eased the way for their acceptance of evolution.
Whether Darwin himself made the transition while on board the
Beagle is difficult to assess from his own writings. Precisely
when he came to believe in evolution, whether it was a gradual
dawning, or a sudden realization, we will probably never know.
What is certain, however, is that the biological observations he
made on the voyage, particularly those relating to geographical
variation, played a crucial role in the development of his
evolutionary thinking."
> If all the evidence points toward a rapid, catastrophic flood process than
>virtually all geologists are liars, including myself and the many Christian
>ones belonging to organizations like the ASA and Affiliation of Christian
>Geologists. I'm glad we have you to set us straight by by quoting
someone who
>doesn't even support your position.
'For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in
unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is
manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the
invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even
His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God,
neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and
their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be
wise, they became fools'
Romans, chapter 1, verses 18-22
Glad to help.
> I find your statements a little arrogant. Tell me this... What is
your
>degree in? How many years have you spent studying geology? How many
days in
>the field have you spent studying rocks? Hours in the lab? Credits of
formal
>classwork? Number of journal articles read this week? Textbooks?
Papers
>published? Students taught? In other words, why should we take your
word
>for this over that of the entire geological community (including many
>Christians) of this past century who've actually done the hard work of
>getting a degree, doing geology by studying the rocks, and publishing their
>results in peer-reviewed journals? If you want to be taken seriously, at
>the very least you need to exhibit a familiarity with the current geological
>literature.
Don't you just hate it when people start to get arrogant and
throw around their credentials in an attempt to intimidate people
who are less fortunate.
> Your position reminds me of the perhaps apocryphal story of the
churchmen
>who refused to look in Galileo's telescope because the Bible and
Aristotle
>told them the truth about the heavens so there was no need to actually
look
>at the natural world. That it's somehow sufficient to read the ancient
>authorities and create convoluted philosophical arguments.
Really? Your position reminds me of Aristotelian cosmology that
was shaken to the core by Copernicus. Only by imposing
Aristotelian thought on the Bible did the Church mistakenly,
misguidedly, censure Galileo in 1632 Schaeffer elaborates:
"The foundation for modern science can be said to have been laid
at Oxford when scholars there attacked Thomas Aquinas's teaching
by proving that his chief authority, Aristotle, made certain
mistakes about natural phenomena...
When the Roman Church attacked Copernicus and Galileo
(1564-1642), it was not because their teaching actually contained
anything contrary to the Bible. The church authorities thought it
did, but that was because Aristotelian elements had become part
of church orthodoxy, and Galileo's notions clearly conflicted
with them. In fact, Galileo defended the compatibility of
Copernicus and the Bible, and this was one of the factors which
brought about his trial."
Francis Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? (Old Tappan, NJ:
Fleming H. Revell, 1976),p 132.
> I'd love to actually go out into the field with some young-earth
>creationists sometime and show them, for example, a crinoidal limestone and
>ask how all these millions of crinoids were able to share such a small
plot of
>seafloor, or how a seafloor with millions of crinoids happened to be in the
>midwest, or how you happen to get coral reefs stratigraphically above the
>crinoidal limestone (which take years and years to grow). It would be
>interesting.
I grew up in the midwest and as a child I remember picking up
rocks in the creek I played in. There was an underground spring
which fed the little stream. I loved to look at rocks just for
their beauty. On several occasions I would find some rocks with
impressions of marine invertebrates. Even though I was taught
evolution as a small child it didn't make sense to me then and it
still does not.
"One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution is
the occurrence of diversified multicellular marine invertebrates
in Lower Cambrian rocks and their absence in rocks of greater
age. These early Cambrian fossils included porifera,
coelenterates, brachiopods, mollusca, echinoids, and arthropods.
Their high degree of organization clearly indicates that a long
period of evolution preceded their appearance in the record.
However, when we turn to examine the preCambrian rocks for the
forerunners of these Early Cambrian fossils, they are nowhere to
be found."
Daniel I. Axelrod, "Early Cambrian Marine Fauna" Science,
Vol.128
I know this post is rather long but there were many facets to
your spiders web. I would like to end this response by quoting one
of those men who you hold is such high disdain Duane T. Gish, Ph.D.
"Evolution is the dogma of the scientific and educational
establishments. Many millions of dollars from government sources
are spent each year on research that is oriented and correlated
within the framework of evolution theory. On the other hand, as
far as I know, not a single tax dollar has been available, or is
available, for research by scientists who openly attempt to
correlate their results within the concept of special creation.
Perhaps this virtual "shut-out" is due in part to lack of
ingenuity and aggressiveness on the part of creationists, but
there is little doubt that the most ingenious and sustained
action of creationists would do little to weaken the
stranglehold evolutionists have on public funds." -DUANE T. GISH, Ph.D.
Randy