> 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."
Yes, as you keep repeating, Ager did indeed say this in his book. He
also said much more since it was, after all, a book. These are the only
quotes from his book you seem to know and these are the same quotes Henry
Morris reproduces in a couple of his books. Have you actually read Ager's
book Randy?
> 2. There is a difference between catastrophism and uniformitarianism.
Yes, but you have yet to define those terms for me since I don't really
know what you mean by them. I think you're using them in a non-standard
way.
> 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!
Who are these "leading geologists"? Names please.
Ager himself called this catastrophic uniformitarianism. Again, we
have different ideas of what the term uniformitarianism means. You were
referred to a journal paper by Jim Shea by both myself and another poster
(Shea, J. 1982. Twelve fallacies of uniformitarianism. Geology 10, 455-460)
and I offered to even mail or fax this paper to you free of charge. Did
you read it? The paper clearly explains what modern geologists mean by
uniformitarianism and it is most emphatically NOT what you mean when you
use the term. Again, did you read it?
> 4. Uniformitarianism, is almost always assumed in the textbook treatment
> of subjects related to earth structure and history.
Yes, but what they mean by uniformitarianism and what you mean by the term
uniformitarianism are two different things. Again, did you read Shea's
paper?
> 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.
Ager claimed, cite evidence from his book to the contrary if you disagree
(my copy is sitting on my desk so I can quickly refer to it), that the
stratigraphic record, in some areas, is a record of MANY small-scale
catastrophic events. Events like hurricanes and tsunamis, for example.
While he claimed that the individual deposits formed rapidly (and he also,
by the way, recognized slower sedimentary processes occurring as well, such
as pelagic sedimentation), he did NOT claim that all of deposits formed at
or near the same time. In other words, many small-scale catastrophic events
over millions and millions of years. This is not classical catastrophism,
a la William Buckland, which postulated a single global deluge.
> 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.
Randy, my religious views are those of one who places his faith in the
saving grace of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, not evolution. Why bring
in evolution at all? We're discussing geology, not biology. I don't really
understand your last sentence either. As a geologist, I do not believe that
all geologic deposits were formed by a sequence of rapid catastrophic events.
Some were, most were not. I think you would find this to be the mainstream
view in geology (refer to any textbook on stratigraphy and sedimentation).
> 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.
I believe in the Bible too Randy, that's why I'm a Christian. Believe
it or not, there are many Christians who are not young-earth creationists.
Let's talk about geology... Reading what you've said, you seem to be
saying that individual strata were around long enough for "various
surface features" to form, yet not so long that these features could
have been eroded. You clearly have no idea of what exists in the field.
How does one explain raindrop impressions, worm burrows, dessication cracks,
or animal footprints (a few examples of surface features) in strata deposited
quickly while a global deluge is occurring? Are you claiming that in the
middle of a flood, thousands of feet deep, dessication cracks were forming
in mud at the bottom of the sea? Or animals were strolling about? Explain
this to me because I'm clueless. Also, Randy, there are many places in
the stratigraphic record where erosional surfaces are quite clearly
preserved. These weren't quickly buried. If you want references, with
pictures of these features, let me know and I'll happily provide them.
> 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.
You were insinuating that I somehow didn't understand the geologic
arguments from Ager's book. I only meant to present my credentials.
What are yours? Why should I take you seriously when you talk about
geology? Have you studied it?
> 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?
The quotation I gave from Ager clearly shows his disdain for creationists.
Your speculation on his motives (fear of ridicule) is unfounded.
I do not believe in a global flood 4000 years or so ago because I have seen
absolutely no evidence for it in my studies in geology and in my research where
I looked at rocks in detail in the field.
>> 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.
Only in your mind! There is no "revival" back toward flood processes
in the geological community. I go to the national GSA conferences. I read
the literature. The only people who believe in the flood are evangelical
Christians, most of whom haven't studied geology.
>> 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.
Now I'm being compared to Satan. Nice. You are not simplifying, Randy,
you're misrepresenting and there is a difference. No, you don't have to
be a rocket scientist to play frisbee but would you like to have your
appendix removed by a plumber? Face it, it takes quite a few years for
people to work through graduate programs in science because there's a lot
to learn. Doing science isn't sitting around under an apple tree thinking
up theories. You have to go out and test your hypotheses and in geology
this means collecting data, doing field work, doing laboratory work, submitting
your ideas to peer review, etc. I'm sorry it isn't simple but the real world
often isn't.
>> 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?
Forget evolution, I refuse to discuss that because we're talking about
geology and these posts are long enough already. Are you, or are you not,
citing Ager to support your belief in a global flood? If so, you are wrong in
doing so because Ager (once again I'll repeat this and feel free to refute me
with quotations from Ager's work if I'm wrong) said that there were many, many
such small-scale catastrophic events preserved in the geological record, and
no record of Noah's flood.
>> 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.
It's dishonest because Ager most emphatically does NOT support such a
large-scale catastrophic event in the recent geologic past (a few thousand
years ago). You can't compare a 2 cm hurricane deposit to a global deluge!
You're equating two entirely different levels of events.
Ager supports many thousands of small scale catastrophic events, not
one large single catastrophic event. As I pointed out before, Ager himself
coined the term catastropic uniformitarianism. Did you even read Ager's
book? That's not a rhetorical question. Honest answer, before God, have
you read Ager's book?
>> 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."
Ager's book has nothing to do with the ideas in the "Genesis Flood."
I'm really beginning to doubt that you ever even read Ager's book since
you're only repeating those same two quotes from Ager that Henry Morris
used in a couple of his books.
I NEVER claimed that you said Ager was a YEC. Never. Back up that claim
with a statement from me in a previous post. I said that you were USING
Ager to support YOUR belief in YEC. There's a difference.
Ager's "rapid catasrophic events" refer to each event being rapid, not
the whole sequence being rapid. Therefore, it does not support Noah's
flood.
>> 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:
Hey, that was a direct quotation above in the quotation marks from your
words. Don't pretend you didn't say it (check out the archives for this
mailing list)!
> 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!
Once again, who are these "leading geologists"? Give me some names. I'd
like to talk to them at the GSA conference in Denver next fall. Also, I'll
ask again: Did you read Shea's paper on uniformitarianism?
> 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.
The creation movement has not cause a revolution in secular geologic
thinking Randy. That's ridiculous. Please provide me with some references
for these statements because, quite honestly, I think you're making them
up out of thin air. Give me a couple of names of these "leading geologists"
since it sounds exactly like a quote from an ICR publication. I know what's
going on in the secular geological community Randy, I'm a part of it. I
talk to them every single day of the week! There is no "revolution" going
on regarding catastrophism.
As an aside, a young-earth position in no way follows scientifically from
a global flood. The earth, with crystalline rocks, could have been sitting
here for a billion years before any flood.
>> 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?
Thanks again for the insults Randy. Those comments were totally uncalled
for and resorting to name calling is a sure sign of a poor argument.
You tell me that many leading geologists are neo-catastrophists.
All I'm asking for are some reference to this and for an explanation
of neo-catastrophism in the geologic literature. Can you provide these?
If not, maybe you shouldn't be making these claims.
> 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.
Than virtually all geologists in the world are most definitely NOT
neo-catastrophists since no geologist I know would subscribe to your
description of how the Grand Canyon formed. I can refer you to literature
explaining what geologists really think about the Grand Canyon and how
it formed but I somehow doubt that you'd read it. Would you like to?
I can refer you to something and then we can discuss this in more detail.
Are you up for that or would you rather just read ICR material and remain
ignorant of mainstream geologic thought?
>> 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.
Once again, the insinuation that those who are not YECs are not real
Christians. I honestly think YECs are the ones doing long-term harm to
the cause of Christ by their insistence on a literal interpretation of
Genesis for all Christians and their willful ignorance of the natural world.
>> 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.
Again I ask, why on earth should anyone take anything you say seriously when
you only exhibit a knowledge of YEC material and have shown or presented
absolutely no evidence of EVER having even read the literature.
It's arrogant to criticize something you don't even understand and you
have shown no evidence of understanding modern geology at all.
> 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.
Picking up pretty rocks in a creek is not geology nor what I meant by
going out into the field to look at real rocks.
I'm sorry it doesn't make sense to you. Quantum mechanics doesn't
make sense to me but I don't automatically assume it's wrong.
Let me ask you a question. Have you ever taken college-level courses
in biology where evolutionary theory was taught? Have you ever read
textbooks on evolutionary theory written by evolutionists? If so, which
ones? Maybe you don't understand it because you haven't studied it.
> "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
It would be helpful to include a year and a page number when giving
quotations especially since "Science" is a weekly publication.
I think I know why you didn't include the year. The paper was published
in the July 4, 1958 edition! 1958!!! This was almost 40 years ago Randy!
Is this your idea of doing science? Did it ever occur to you that papers
get out of date? Ever hear of Ediacara or the Vendian biota? Here's
something with references a little more up to date on the Precambrian
trilobite precursors (http://www.rt66.com/diamond/trilobites.html). Let's
talk about modern science, Randy.
> 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.
Gish. Isn't he the great scientist who claimed that:
"What do we find in rocks older than the Cambrian? Not a single,
indisputable, multicellular fossil has ever been found in Precambrian
rocks! Certainly it can be said without fear of contradiction that the
evolutionary ancestors of the Cambrian fauna, if they ever existed, have
never been found."
Gish wrote this in 1978 "Evolution, The Fossils Say No!" (I don't have the
page number handy, but if you want it let me know and I'll look it up). He
wrote this a decade after such papers as:
Anderson, M. M. & Misra, S. B. 1968. Fossils found in the Pre-Cambrian
Conception Group of South-eastern Newfoundland. Nature 220, 681-681.
Glaessner, M. F. & Ward, M. 1966. The late Precambrian fossils from
Ediacara, South Australia. Paleontology 9, 599-628.
appeared in the mainstream scientific literature. It other words, he was
flat out wrong and one can only reach two conclusions -- he purposefully
left the information out of his book or he didn't research his book.
Try doing science if you want scientific funding.
Maybe you or Dr. Gish can provide me with some concrete examples of
creationists who've applied for funding and have been refused. Perhaps
someone could show me a copy of, for example, a creationist NSF proposal
with reviewers comments on why it wasn't funded? I'm not necessarily
saying it hasn't happened, I'm just a bit skeptical.
I'd also be willing to bet that someone like ICR YEC geologist Steven Austin
is funded better than most geologists relying on research grants (NSF only
funds, I believe, 1 in 10 proposals it receives in geology).
- Steve.
-- Steven H. Schimmrich Callsign KB9LCG s-schim@uiuc.edu Department of Geology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 245 Natural History Building, Urbana, IL 61801 (217) 244-1246 http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/s-schim Deus noster refugium