>>> 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.
>
> 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.
First, you never answered the question I asked numerous times in my
previous post. Did you read Ager's book? You only quoted these two
sentences that are found in a couple of books published by Henry Morris.
I still doubt that you even read Ager's book.
Second, as I've repeated numerous times, a belief in many small
catastrophic events over millions of years can not be equated with a single
large catastrophic event 4000 years ago. We keep talking past one another
and I really have nothing more to say on this topic that I haven't already
said.
>>> 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?
You repeated the phrase "leading geologists" several times in your previous
post. I know dozens of geologists personally (well over 100, I would say)
and am familiar with the professional writings of hundreds more since I read
books and papers from geological journals on an almost daily basis.
I do hereby deny, in writing, that "leading geologists of today believe
that geologic deposits are actually a sequence of rapid catastrophic
events" I can almost guarantee you that you would not get any geologist to
agree to such a statement. Show me evidence, other than Ager's book, that
"leading geologists" believe this. Back up your statements with references
from the geologic literature (past 10 years) or from textbooks being used in
geology courses (past 10 years).
This discussion isn't going anywhere unless I see some legitimate references
to back up your claim.
> 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
Please provide more complete references. There is no discussion on page
56 of the publication, rather it is 56 pages long. I had to wade through
a lot of those pages to find the discussion you're referring to.
To be blunt, so what? Hayes also says (p. 31)...
"Although it does not conform exactly to Otto's (1938) definition of a
sedimentation unit, it is a distinct sedimentary unit deposited within a very
short time interval, and it should be distinguished from other sediments in
the area that are deposited under normal conditions."
Also, in figure 21 on page 34, there is an illustration showing the
"Hurricane Carla sedimentation unit" and it's a whole 6 inches thick.
So, Randy, what's the point? Hayes said a single 6 inch layer was laid
down "catastrophically" by a hurricane and that it's found with other
sediments that were laid down normally. How does this support your belief
that virtually all of the geologic record is catastrophic or that it was
formed by Noah's flood?
Once again, this is something I've repeated over and over which you've
failed to acknowledge so I see little point in repeating it again in the
future.
> 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.
Now you're making me do work again and go to GeoRef to try and find some
publication by D'Armond in 1980. For future reference, a complete reference
consists of an author, a year, a paper title, a journal name, a volume number,
and a page number.
I found no reference to D'Armond in GeoRef (which lists every geological
publication in thousands of journals worldwide). Where did he publish?
I can't comment on something that I haven't read and I can't read it if
you don't provide proper references.
>> 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.
That's not how geologists define uniformitarianism and I believe that the
dictionary definition is incorrect if it's referring to how geologists view
uniformitarianism today (since it indirectly implies a uniformity of rate
which no geologist would accept). I would again recommend Shea's paper for a
discussion of how modern geologists view uniformitarianism. Perhaps a better
definition would be from the American Geological Institute's "Dictionary of
Geological Terms (1976, Doubleday, NY - I bought it a long time ago!)...
"The concept that the present is a key to the past, and that past geologic
events are to be explained by those same physical principles that govern the
present."
Given this definition, all sciences dealing with past processes (such
as biology and astronomy) and not just geology are uniformitarian.
Another definition, from the widely-used introductory geology text
"Understanding Earth" by Frank Press and Ray Siever (1994, W.H. Freeman,
NY, p. 13) says...
"According to this principle [uniformitarianism], the geologic processes
we see in operation as they modify Earth's crust today have worked in much
the same way over geologic time. The rates of change may have varied in
the past, and rare catastrophes such as the collision of a large meteorite
or comet with Earth may have perturbed the process, but no matter.
Uniformitarianism, together with the laws of physics and chemistry, provides
the basis for the theory and practice of geology."
That's how modern geologists view the term. Your straw man arguments are
simply not valid.
>> 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.
How can we discuss uniformitarianism if you're not familiar with what
mainstream geologists think about uniformitarianism?
I'm not going to type in the entire paper so I can e-mail it. I offered
to send it via U.S. mail or FAX and the offer still stands but I need an
address or a number (you can send it privately).
>>> 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.
First, you're referring to Ager and using the pronoun "they" which is
confusing. Who are they? If you say neo-catastrophist geologists, please
provide references.
Second, where in Ager's book(s) does he discuss the Tapeats sandstone? I
looked in "The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record" (3rd ed, 1993, John
Wiley, NY) and "The New Catastrophism" (1993, Cambridge University Press)
and found no discussion of the Tapeats nor a listing of it in either index.
Please provide a reference so I can figure out what you're talking about.
Third, you're setting up a straw man argument since no geologist I know
would subscribe to your description of the formation of the Tapeats sandstone.
The mainstream view of the deposition of the Tapeats sandstone can be
found in...
Hereford, R. 1977. Deposition of the Tapeats sandstone (Cambrian) in
central Arizona. Geological Society of America Bulletin 88, 199-211.
Middleton & Elliott (In: Beus & Morales, eds. 1990, Grand Canyon Geology,
Oxford University Press, p. 99) say...
"Hereford recognized six environmentally specific lithologies that he
related to physical and biological processes operative on modern tidal
flats, beaches, and in braided river systems."
This hardly sounds catastrophic.
>> I believe in the Bible too Randy, that's why I'm a Christian.
>
> You may believe parts of it but not all of it, otherwise you would accept
> Noah's Flood.
I don't believe that the prodigal son was a real live person either, rather
it was a fictional story Jesus told to make a point. Your use of the term
"believe" when talking about whether or not one "believes" in the Bible is
different from the way I use the term. No, I do not "believe" in a literal
word-for-word, every jot and tittle, interpretation of the Bible. I'm still
a Christian with a high regard for Scripture, adult baptized into a Christian
church, partaking of communion, and in fellowship with other Christians.
>> 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?
I'm glad it will be God judging me and not you :).
I don't believe I'm ridiculing or slandering them. I am pointing out
legitimate errors in their published books, articles, and tracts. I have
said that I don't think they're being honest, something that some Christians
on this list have taken me to task for, but I still don't believe that they're
being honest. I'm sorry, but I don't. I can't read these oft-rebutted claims
appearing over and over and over again with no mention of the legitimate
rebuttals and believe that they're honestly dealing with the evidence.
>> 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.
>
> 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.
Your quotation from Morris (again, without a proper citation!) does not
answer my questions. How, in a huge global flood, does one get features
like dessication cracks, animal footprints, etc. in the middle of the
geologic column?
Also, even Morris admits that "almost every sedimentary rock layer
was deposited under water." Note the word "almost". How does one get
terrestrially-deposited sedimentary rocks in the middle of the
stratigraphic column with a flood model? How does one get tillites
(glacially-deposited sedimentary rocks) in the middle of the stratigraphic
column? How does one get terrestrial sand dunes in the middle of the
stratigraphic column? They exist and any so-called flood models I've seen
do not address these issues (if they do, I would appreciate references).
Finally, Morris is being disingenuous in this claim as well. Even though
many sedimentary rocks were deposited in water, not all sedimentary rocks are
marine. There are sedimentary rocks recording fluvial, lacustrine, swamp,
beach, and deltaic (among other) environments of deposition all throughout
the stratigraphic record. Some sedimentary rocks show clear evidence of
forming in shallow water (they contain, for example, coral reefs) and others
show clear evidence of forming in deep anoxic basins. Just because many
sedimentary rocks are deposited in water, that doesn't mean they were
deposited by a global flood.
>> 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?
What exactly do you require for "scientific proof?"
Examine the photograph of the Great Unconformity in the Grand Canyon in
Press & Sevier's "Understanding Earth" (1994, W.H. Freeman, NY, p. 194) and
tell me how this angular unconformity, and many others found throughout the
world in different locations within the stratigraphic record, are not
erosional surfaces.
For more discussions of erosional surfaces, refer to "Interpreting the
Stratigraphic Record" by Donald Prothero (1990, W.H. Freeman, NY). It
has pictures and everything.
These are just two of the many undergraduate textbooks on geology that
have descriptions and pictures of erosional surfaces in the stratigraphic
record. If you want more references, I'd be happy to provide them.
>> 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.
>
> 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?
I told you I'm a Christian numerous times. It's quite insulting and
arrogant to continually insinuate that only YECs are Christians.
YECs are claiming there is geologic evidence for a global flood. I do not
believe in a global flood because I have seen no geologic evidence that would,
in any way, shape, or form, support a global flood hypothesis.
>> 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.
Oh really? Then why do you continually quote Scripture to back up your
claims of YEC?
>> 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?
You study the rocks. Virtually all geologists, many of them Christians,
see no evidence for a historic global flood.
> 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.
As I've repeated over and over, there are Christian geologists who are not
YECs. The Affiliation of Christian Geologists (affiliated with the ASA) has
many.
> 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.
We're not talking about salvation, we're talking about geologic evidence
for a global flood. One doesn't need to be a YEC to be saved either Randy!
> How can you trust the author (with your eternal soul) of the book you
> do not believe in?
I say I believe in the Bible. I do not, however, hold to what I view as a
simplistic literal hermeneutic of the Bible as you do. There are many, many
Christians (some Evangelicals) who share my beliefs. What more can I say?
>> 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?
There's no need for me to write an essay on this. A visit to any university
library's geology section should reveal several books discussing the geology
of the Grand Canyon. Two I can particularly recommend are:
Harris, A.G. & Tuttle, E. 1990. Geology of National Parks (4th ed).
Kendall/Hunt Publishing, Dubuque, IA. ISBN 0-8403-4619-0 (A basic
discussion of the geology of the Grand Canyon - this book is used
at the University of Illinois for a non-major undergraduate "Geology
of the National Parks" course).
Beus, S.S. & Morales, M. 1990. Grand Canyon Geology. Oxford University
Press. ISBN 0-19-505014-2 (Contains excellent detailed discussions of
each stratigraphic unit within the Grand Canyon - somewhat technical).
> 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.
That's a point I like to make when talking with creationists. Many YECs
I meet (I'm not specifically talking about you here, Randy) have never read
mainstream science publications yet expect me to be totally familiar with all
of the creationist publications.
I have read (and even own) works by Henry Morris (The Genesis Flood; The
Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth; The Troubled Waters of Evolution; Scientific
Creationism: Public School Edition; What is Creation Science?), Duane Gish
(Evolution? The Fossils Say No!), Stephen Austin (Grand Canyon: Monument to
Catastrophy), John Morris (The Young Earth), in addition to numberous YEC
publications (including almost all of the ICR Impact series). I also
maintain a Web page (http://hercules.geology.uiuc.edu/~schimmri/christianity/
resources/origins.html) containing links to numerous YEC Web sites, discuss
YEC on several mailing lists, and have attended YEC lectures by Kenneth Ham,
Gary Parker, and Don Patton.
I KNOW what YECs believe and the arguments they make. I'm willing to read
or consider any argument presented for a young earth or a global flood. I
just haven't heard or seen any that are legitimate (and many which are
downright silly).
> Since you are a self proclaimed expert in the field maybe you could answer
> a few questions.
I never claimed to be an expert, only a graduate student studying geology.
> 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.
Well, there are fossil soils preserved in the geologic record called
paleosols. Refer to "Surface Processes and Landforms" by D.J. Easterbrook
(1993, MacMillan, NY, pp. 50-51) for a discussion and a picture of paleosols.
I would expect that if there was a global flood covering all the earth in
a few short weeks that there would be a thick paleosol at the base of the
Paleozoic stratigraphic column. Why isn't there Randy? What happened to
all the soil the people in Noah's time lived on?
>> 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.
Almost everyone here died over a century ago. Science has advanced greatly
(exponentially even) during the past century and I would contend that it's
invalid to claim that these men would be YEC today. These men were Christian
scientists, but so are many members of the ASA who are NOT YECs.
>> 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?
Don't be silly Randy. I talked about fieldwork in geology and you replied
with a statement about collecting pretty rocks in a streambed when you were
a kid. There's big difference. I'm helping to teach fieldcamp up in the
Uinta mountains of Utah this June. Care to come out for a day and see what
fieldwork in geology really is?
>> 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.
I said "Quantum mechanics" not "the Bible" so please don't twist my words.
But I will freely admit that parts of the Bible are unclear to me. I'm not
omniscient and am in good company (1 Corinthians 13:12). Quite frankly, I'm
alarmed by people who claim to understand everything in the Bible clearly.
I believe that God is Truth, not the Bible (which I consider Bibliolatry).
>> 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?
Which courses? Which school? Which texts?
No, I have never taken college-level courses in creationism. They're not
offered anywhere I've been (and to tell the truth, I would have loved to
take them if they were!). I have however, audited a course in Theology with
Kenneth Kantzer of Trinity Evangelical Seminary. Know what? Kantzer isn't
a strict YEC either (even though he teaches at a thoroughly evangelical
school).
I'm not going to write an essay on Biblical exegesis and hermeneutics.
We were discussing geology, not theology and I believe they can be separated.
As I've said before, there are evangelical theologians who do not accept a
literal reading of Genesis.
>>> "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
A little late, I already provided that information.
> "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.
Again, you're talking about a thoroughly out-of-date book that's over 30
years old. We've learned a lot about Precambrian fauna since then and you
seem to ignore this fact with your quotes from obsolete textbooks that no
one uses anymore. Once again, I'll ask if you ever heard of Ediacara or the
Vendian biota.
> "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!
Again, we're talking about geology and scientific evidence. I'm not really
concerned about the "theological chaos" for YECs if a historic global flood
never occurred because, quite honestly, I think your theology is wrong.
>> 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???
They FOUND Precambrian metazoan fossils. There are pictures! There
are specimens in museums! Why would you not be interested? Do you care
at all about the truth? Does it not matter to you that Gish is wrong
(even though YECs still repeat this bogus claim)?
>> 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.
Your chutzpah amazes me!
You quoted a 1958 paper saying "the absence of the requisite fossils in
the rocks older than the Cambrian is puzzling" I said this paper was out
of date because of new discoveries (Ediacara and other Vendian biota around
the world). If I quoted a 1958 paper saying that manned flights to the moon
were impossible and therefore that still held true you would rightly laugh at
me. That's essentially what you did.
I listed papers from 1966 and 1968 because they showed that there ARE
Precambrian metazoan fossils which were discoved TEN years before Gish said
that there weren't any.
If you can't see the difference between these examples, then I fail to see
how we can communicate in any way (or how you can communicate with anyone
else)!
>> 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.
I gave a concrete example of Gish making a concrete mistake in his book.
It was an error that indicated either poor research or dishonesty. There
are many others in his book as well (read some of the archives for the
Talk Origins newsgroup at http://rumba.ics.uci.edu:8080/ for more discussion
of Gish's published errors). If pointing out someone's errors is slander,
than I'm guilty. Explain to me why Gish has never admitted his mistake
even though it's been pointed out many times by many people.
> 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.
Once again, a useless citation since there's no information given about
the publication you copied this from.
YEC like Morris want it both ways. They claim that one can't reliably
do historical science then turn around and claim "scientific" evidences
for a young earth and a special creation. Not very consistent.
While people like Morris whine that you can't study processes in the past,
thousands of scientists continue to do this quite successfully while YEC
remain willfully mired in ignorance and Christians become more and more
marginalized as they believe this garbage.
> What is science to you Steve? Something that only agrees with a secular
> humanistic and atheistic view that you have been educated with?
What is science to you Randy? Quoting Scripture?
> 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.
While I'm sure you would like to turn this into an evolution discussion
(you probably have many quotations from your Creationist quote book that
you're dying to use), this is a discussion about geology.
Also, don't call me an evolutionist. I'm a geologist and I've said
nothing about my support or lack of support for biological evolution in
these discussions. You're making an unwarranted assumption.
- 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