On Thu, 05 Dec 1996 21:04:30, Glenn Morton wrote:
>RM>So why can't we hold off a bit on the universality of the law of
>evolution in biological systems when there seem to be some
>anomalies? That is, why can't we adopt the tentative attitude some
>physicists had for a while concerning momentum conservation?
>GM...British Assocoation of Scientists 1865
>"We are not forgetful that physical science is not complete, but
>is only in condition of progress, and that at present our finite
>reason enables us only to see as through a glass darkly, and we
>confidently believe that a time will come when the two records will
>be seen to agree in every particular."~cited in Samuel Kinns, Moses
>and Geology, p. 5f. in Alfred M Rehwinkel, The Flood, (St. Louis:
>Concordia, 1951), p. XVIII
This is too optimistic. That "the two records" (ie. Scripture and
nature) ultimately do "agree in every particular" is one thing. That
we who "see as through a glass darkly" will eventually see
that they "agree in every particular" is another. IMHO the best that
we can hope for is that they will be seen to be in general agreement.
>GM>British Association of Scientists 1865 "We believe that it is
>the duty of every scientific student to investigate Nature simply
>for the purpose of elucidating truth, and that if he finds that some
>of his results appear to be in contradiction to the written Word, or
>rather to his own interpretation of it, which may be erroneous he
>should not presumptuously affirm that his own conclusion must be
>right, and the statements of Scriptures wrong. Rather leave the two
>side by side until it shall please God to allow us to see the manner
>in which they may be reconciled; and instead of insisting upon the
>seeming differences between Science and the Scriptures, it wouldmbe
>well to rest in faith upon the points in which they agree."~cited
>in Samuel Kinns, Moses and Geology, p. 5f. in Alfred M Rehwinkel,
>The Flood, (St. Louis: Concordia, 1951), p. XVIII-XIX
Good, sound advice!
>GM>I have several questions.
>
>1. What is to be harmonized with Science, the Bible or our
>interpretation of the Bible?
Actually, neither. There is no command by Christ, the Head of the
Church (Eph 5:23) that "the Bible or our interpretation of the Bible"
be "harmonized with Science".
>GM>2. When will physical science be complete?
>
>GM>2a If never, does this mean that we can never draw conclusions and
>offer theories? Will we always look though the glass darkly?
That's what Paul says in 1Cor 13:9-12. It will be only when we see
"Christ face to face" in heaven that we will understand perfectly:
"For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which
is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I
thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish
things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to
face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am
known."
>GM>3. Considering the fact that the Israelites failed to recognize
>the power of God in the wilderness, and that the religious Jews of
>the Roman era failed to recognize Jesus, will the religious people
>of today or tomorrow be able to recognize a solution to the
>scientific problem if that solution is not what they expect?
Maybe not. But to equate failure to recongnise "the power of God"
and "Jesus", with failure "to recognize a solution to the
scientific problem" is not comparable, to put it mildly! :-)
>GM>3a. What would such a solution look like?
Maybe there is no "solution", ie. in the final sense. Maybe there are
just a series of partial solutions?
>GM>4. When do Christians become responsible for EXPLAINING the data
>rather than informing everyone that the data does not mean what the
>evolutionist believes it does?
Maybe never. "Christians" are "responsible" only to Christ. As to
"Christians...informing everyone that the data does not mean what the
evolutionist believes it does", this is a generalisation - not
all "Christians" do this - Glenn himself proves that point!
>GM>For instance, below is the geologic column in North Dakota. It
>represents rocks of all geologic ages piled up in proper order. But
>below the first 100 feet, there is not one fossilized living form of
>life. There are lots of fossils but they are all different from
>those on earth today.
If this "geologic column" does indeed "represents rocks of all
geologic ages piled up in proper order", then if Darwinian
macro-evolution is true, it should show a continuous, gradualistic
succession of fossil forms. Does it?
>GM>How does the young-earth creationist explain these "flood" layers in
>which no modern forms are found? Rather then telling us why this
>doesn't mean evolution, tell us how this fact fits into the Biblical
>account. Were the animals in Noah's day (5,000 years ago) different
>from those today?
A complete geological column may indeed be a problem for "young-earth
creationists" who adhere to global Flood geology. But it is not a
problem for old-earth creationists who do not maintain that all the
geological strata were laid down by Noah's Flood only thousands of
years ago.
>GM>For a PC is there any reason why God waited unil the very last 100
>feet to create ANY living forms?
I don't quite follow Glenn here. He first said: "But below the
first 100 feet, there is not one fossilized living form of life.
There are lots of fossils but they are all different from those on
earth today." Then he asks "why God waited unil the very last 100
feet to create ANY living forms". I presume by that he means that
there is no currently living *species* found fossilised in the rocks
below the "the very last 100 feet"?
If this is the case, it is no problem for PC. PC does not require
that God created each *species* as-is-where-is. This sounds like the
19th century idealist dogma of separate creations, not PC.
IOW, PC would generally maintain that God supernaturally created the
*disparity* of life, ie. the basic "kinds", broadly identified with
the *higher taxa*, and allowed normal microevolutionary processes to
vary those basic body-plans to form the *diversity* of life, ie. the
*lower* taxa.
Thanks to Glenn for posting this. I have added the equivalent in
metres next to the thicknesses in feet. While these are in the same
order as the standard geological column, they differ markedly in
thickness, as per the maximums in British Museum of Natural History
plate reproduced in Milton R., "The Facts of Life: Shattering the
Myth of Darwinism", Fourth Estate, London, 1992, p144a):
GM>Tertiary Ft. Union Fm..........................100 feet (31m)
Pliocene 4,600m, Miocene 6,400m, Oligocene 7,900m, Eocene 9,100m,
Paleocene 3,600m. Total 31,600m.
This represents less than 1% of the claimed Tertiary period. What
happened to the other 99%?
GM>Cretaceous Greenhorn Fm ......................4910 feet (1,497m)
>Cretaceous Mowry Fm.......................... 5370 feet (1,637m)
>Cretaceous Inyan Kara Fm......................5790 feet (1,765m)
Total of 16,070 feet = 4,898m. Yet the standard column for the
Cretaceous is 14,400m. Thus this is only 34% of it.
GM>Jurassic Rierdon Fm...........................6690 feet (2,039m)
The British Museum's table gives 13,500m. This is 15% of that.
GM>Triassic Spearfish Fm.........................7325 feet (2,233m)
The Museum's column for the Triassic reads 9,100m, therefore this
part of it is only 24%.
GM>Permian Opeche Fm.............................7740 feet (2,359m)
Museum figure for the Permian is 5,800m. This is only 41% of it.
GM>Pennsylvanian Amsden Fm.......................7990 feet (2,435m)
>Pennsylvanian Tyler Fm........................8245 feet (2,513m)
>Mississippian Otter Fm........................8440 feet (2,573m)
>Mississippian Kibbey Lm.......................8780 feet (2,676m)
>Mississippian Charles Fm......................8945 feet (2,726m)
>Mississippian Mission Canyon Fm...............9775 feet (2,979m)
>Mississippian Lodgepole Fm...................10255 feet (3,126m)
These systems making up the Carboniferous total 62,430 feet or
19,029m. This is actually 32% *more* than what the Museum claims
the maximum thickness for the Carboniferous 14,400m is!
GM>Devonian Bakken Fm...........................11085 feet (3,379m)
>Devonian Birdbear Fm.........................11340 feet (3,456m)
>Devonian Duperow Fm..........................11422 feet (3,481m)
>Devonian Souris River Fm.....................11832 feet (3,606m)
>Devonian Dawson Bay Fm.......................12089 feet (3,685m)
>Devonian Prairie Fm..........................12180 feet (3,712m)
>Devonian Winnipegosis Grp....................12310 feet (3,752m)
These Devonian strata total 82,258 feet or 25,072m. This is more
than *twice* (116%) the thickness of the British Museum table's
maximum thickness for the Devonian of 11,600m.
GM>Silurian Interlake Fm........................12539 feet (3,822m)
This only 37% of the Museum's standard column of 10,400m.
GM>Ordovician Stonewall Fm......................13250 feet (4,039m)
>Ordovician Red River Dolomite................13630 feet (4,154m)
>Ordovician Winnipeg Grp......................14210 feet (4,331m)
>Ordovician Black Island Fm...................14355 feet (4,375m)
These Ordovician systems total 55,445 feet (16,900m). Again, this
is thicker (38%) than the Museum's total of 12,200m.
GM>Cambrian Deadwood Fm.........................14445 feet (4,403m)
The Museum's figure for the Cambrian is 12,200m. This is therefore
only 36% of that.
GM>Precambrian..................................14945 feet (4,555m)
The Museum's table gives "Unknown thickness" for the Precambrian.
The total of Glenn's table is 265,042 feet or 80,786m. The total of
the Museum's table is 135,800m, a difference of 55 kilometres
between Glenn's table and the Bristish Museum's. Or to put it
another way, Glenn's table is only 40.5% of the Museum's table in
thickness. Also there are a lot of sub-systems within each period
that Glenn's table does not show. For example, under "Jurassic"
Glenn's table has only one line totaling 6,690 feet or 2.039
kilometres, yet my Collins Dictionary of Geology lists the
following:
PERIOD EPOCH AGE
Jurassic Malm Tithonian
Kimmeridgian
Oxfordian
Dogger Callovian
Bathonian
Bajocian
Aalenian
Lias Toarcian
Pliensbachian
Sinemurian
Hettangian
If these Epoch's and Ages are normally found globally but they are
not all found in Glenn's North Dakota column, then it is incorrect for
him to claim that it "represents rocks of all geologic ages piled up
in proper order".
Happy New Year!
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------