> 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.
No doubt there is much valuable information in his book that I
could quote, however the above statement which you admitted is
accurate, supports a belief in catastrophism. That you you agree
that he said this concludes my argument.
>> 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.
You ignored the statement entirely. Do you deny that leading geologists of
today believe that geologic deposits are actually a sequence of rapid
catastrophic events?
In 1961, Hurricane Carla devastated the central Texas coast. As if retreated,
it laid down a recognizable layer of sediments on the shore and far out into
the Gulf of Mexico. These graded sediments contained within them many
"sedimentary structures," such as buried ripple marks and cross-bedding.
These internal sedimentary structures were well studied in the years after
Hurricane Carla, and were recognized as rapid deposition features.
M.O. Hayes "Hurricanes as Geological Agents: Case Studies of Hurricanes
Carla, 1961, and Cindy, 1963,"University of Texas, Bureau of Economic
Geology, Reportof Investigation No.61,p.56
Based upon a limited literature search and a few field trips to the site,
geologist David B. D'Armond (1980, pp.88-105) has published a preliminary
report in which he presents evidence contradicting the generally accepted
notion that the limestone deposit of the Thornton Quarry is an ancient fossil
coral reef. D'Armond suggests that this deposit was formed due to
catastrophic wave-action generated during the Genesis Flood.
>Yes, but what they mean by uniformitarianism and what you mean by the term
>uniformitarianism are two different things.
What is your definition of uniformitarianism?
The American Heritage Dictionary College Edition states the following:
Uniformitarianism n. Geology. The theory that all geological phenomena
may be explained as the result of existing forces having operated
uniformly from the origin of the earth to the present time.
>Again, did you read Shea's paper?
No, I have not read it, if you wish you can private email me it to me. I
would be happy to read any information that you feel would better help me to
understand your position.
>> 5. Ager's statement 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.
Yes, as a "neo-catastrophist" geologists he advocates a position that a
series of catastrophes which laid down the Tapeats Sandstone were not the
same catastrophe or catastrophes that laid down the overlying layers up
to the rim of the Canyon. They would claim that each sequence of
catastrophes was separated by millions and millions of years. But by
doing so , they recognize catastrophism in geology, but still hang on to
the concept of the old earth and retain the time necessary for evolution,
presumably, to occur. I hope you can grasp clearly what they are
advocating. They would say that nearly all of the rock material was laid down rapidly, as sediments, by catastrophic
processes. These events were separated by great lengths of time. But
while the evidence points toward rapid catastrophic deposition which took
very little time, great amounts of time supposedly passed between the
layers where there is no evidence! The "evidence" for time is the lack of
physical evidence. All the evidence points toward rapid, catastrophic
flood processes.
> 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
You may believe parts of it but not all of it, otherwise you
would accept Noah's Flood.
>> or not, there are many Christians who are not young-earth
creationists.
I will leave that judgement up to God! I would hope that you would give
Christians like Morris, Ham, Witcomb, Gish, Austin, the same courtesy you
desire for yourself. No one is asking that you agree with them but what
scripture verse do you base your ridicule and slander of them on?
> You clearly have no idea of what exists in the field.
That would depend on what field you are talking about. What
scientific facts do you base this conclusion on?
>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
>formingin mud at the bottom of the sea? Or animals were strolling about?
>Explain this to me because I'm clueless.
Surface Features:
One way to show that only a short time elapsed between the deposition of one
bed and the deposition of an overlying bed is to show 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. One very common
feature, seen in many rock layers in many locations, is the presence of
"ripple marks," formed as water moves over a surface. These can
frequently be seen on a beach after the tide has receded, and can also be
seen on the ocean bottom where a particular current direction dominates.
In many other situations we see what have been called "raindrop
impressions," although these "raindrop marks" may actually be blisters
formed as air bubbles escaped from rapidly deposited sediments under
water. Animal tracks are also common. In any case, these features, which
had to be formed in soft sediments, are very fragile, and if present on
any surface, unconsolidated material or hard rock, will not last very
long. Keep in mind that almost every sedimentary rock layer was
deposited under water. -John Morris Ph. D.
>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.
That would be great! What places are you talking about? Do you have
scientific proof that these places you were talking about were a result
of slow gradual processes?
>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
>whereI looked at rocks in detail in the field.
So your a Christian who does not believe in the Bible? Or do you just believe
in parts of the bible? What parts do you believe in? You have said you do not
believe in the Biblical flood. Do you believe that Jesus Christ is a
historical person? If so what evidence in the field do you base this
assumption on?
>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.
That would depend on the scientist. Science deals in facts not belief
systems.
>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.
How do you go out and test Global Floods?
Atheists, agnostics and revelationists (and theists) hold to religious
positions; and what they do with the evidence will again be determined by the
assumptions (beliefs) of their religious positions.
But faith is simple, either you believe or you don't if everyone had to
have a Ph. D. to be saved. Christianity would have died along with every
other atheistic society that has fallen.
>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 indoing 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.
How can you trust the author (with your eternal soul) of the book you
do not believe in?
>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.
>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.
Let's both stop the insults.
>> 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.
You do not know any geologist who believes that the Grand Canyon
was formed by some sort of catastrophic event? How then was it
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.
Not true I would be happy to read any information you wish to share. I would
hope you be as open to Geologists such as Morris, and other ICR
scientists.
Since you are a self proclaimed expert in the field maybe you
could answer a few questions.
What happens to the soil as the land surface submerges beneath the
sea? Whether the land is covered rapidly by a catastrophic process,
or slowly by transgression of the sea, certainly some of the soil
would be preserved.
>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?
What I would rather do is discuss this in a mature manner instead of being
called ignorant.
>> 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
> 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 can see that my ignorance along with creation scientists like:
Joseph Lister, Louis Pasteur, Isasc Newton, Johannes Kepler, Robert Boyle,
Georges Cuvier, Charles Babbage, Lord Rayleigh, John Ambrose Fleming, James
Clark Maxwell, Michael Faraday, Lord Kelvin, Herni Fabre, George Stokes, Sir
William Herschel, Gregor Mendel, Louis Agassiz, James Simpson, Matthew Maury,
Blaise Pascal, William Ramsey, John Ray, Bernard Riemann, David Brewster are
beneath your superior wisdom and knowledge.
>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 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 was sure those pretty rocks were real! What class did you take that
allowed you to tell the difference between the pretty rocks and the real
ones?
> 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.
I am sorry that the Bible does not make sense to you. It is a shame that a
self proclaimed Christian does not believe that the Bible is true.
> 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.
Yes, Yes, and no I did not have sex with my wife last night. Have you
ever taken college-level courses where creation science was taught? Have you
read the Bible? What criteria do you use to accept or disregard the books
of the Bible? Do you accept what Jesus said? How do you justify being a
Christian yet disregard the words of Jesus Christ about the flood?
> "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 pre Cambrian 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.
Not a problem "Early Cambrian Marine Fauna" Science, Vol. 128 (1958),p.7
"The introduction of a variety of organisms in the early Cambrian, including
such complex forms of the arthropods as the trilobites, is surprising...The
introduction of abundant organisms in the record would not be so
surprising if they were simple. Why should such complex organic forms be
in rocks about six hundred million years old and be absent or
unrecognized in the records of the preceding two billion years?...If
there has been evolution of life, the absence of the requisite fossils in
the rocks older than the Cambrian is puzzling.
"Marshall Kay and Edwin H. Colbert, Stratigraphy and Life History (New York:
John Wiley & Sons, 1965), p. 102.
"But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
For as in the days that were before the Flood they were eating and drinking,
marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the
Ark and knew not until the Flood came, and took them all away, so shall
also the coming of the Son of man be".
Matthew 24:37-34
"The world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the
heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store,
reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."
II Peter 3:6-7
Note that both Christ and Peter based their doctrines of the coming judgment
on the whole world on the fact of the past judgment of the whole world in
Noah's day. If the Flood had been only local, and much of the earth and at
least some people had survived it, what kind of judgment is to come? Will it
also be local? Will some sinners be excluded? The local Flood idea produces
theological chaos!
>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
thepage 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:
Not necessary.
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.
I would be interested in what they had to say???
> 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?
1966! Let's talk about modern science, Steve! You talk about pre-cambrian
fossils as being modern science????? Let me get this straight all
quotes after 1966 are ok but quotes before 1966 are out of date.
Do you have a list of Steve's rules of Geological Debate? And since when
do facts go out of date? Since Jesus is older than 1966 does this
mean salvation is out of date as well? What about Darwin are all
his statments null and void? This really is a serious double
standard Steve.
>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.
More slander Hu?. Another one of Steve's Rules of Geological
Debate. Mainstream is good! Anyone from ICR is deceptive and not to be
trusted.
>Try doing science if you want scientific funding.
More insults?
Science operates in the present, and in a very real sense is limited to the
present. Scientific theories must involve, among other things, the
observation of data and precess which exist in the present. But who has
ever seen The long-ago past? Rocks and fossils exist in the present. We
collect them, catalog them, study them, preform experiments on them-all
in the present! The scientific method is an enterprise of the present. Of
course, observations and records dating from within human history are
usable, to the extent that the observers are deemed reliable. Predictions
of the future of the rock are another matter. Likewise, historical
geology-the reconstruction of the unobserved past of rocks and
fossils-that's another story. The same difficulty exists in biology,
ecology, astronomy, archaeology, etc.-John Morris Ph.D.
What is science to you Steve? Something that only agrees with a secular
humanistic and atheistic view that you have been educated with?
It is not creationists who have to distort the facts of science to fit their
creation model. It is rather the evolutionists who, in attempting to justify
their faith in evolution, are perpetually modifying and expanding the basic
concept of evolution in order to explain away all the scientific
fallacies and contradictions which it entails.
/
\ //
\\\' , ///
\\\//, _///,
Randy Landrum \_ -//'///<,
CyberChurch 48:541/0.0 \ ///<//`
FaithNet US Coordinator 700:1000/0.0 / >>\\\`__/
Clink 911:5001.4 /,)-~>>\`\\\
Internet randyl.efn.org (/\\/ //\\
Images BBS 541-461-2534 // // \\\
(( ((