Pardon me for getting into this discussion, but I'm going to have to side
with Steven.
On Sat, 13 Apr 1996, Randy Landrum wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 11 Apr 1996, Steven Schimmrich wrote:
>
> >
> > On April 10, Randy Landrum (randyl@efn.org) wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Again, I fail to see how this pertains to what you're really trying to
> > show -- evidence for a unique global flood a few thousand years ago. Ager
> > (1983) has a chapter on "Catastrophic Uniformitarianism." Allow me to quote
> > from this chapter (p. 75)...
>
> Now that a contradiction "Catastrophic Uniformitarianism" sounds like a
> term trying to fit ones anti-biblical creation beliefs into scientific
> evidence.
Of course, it is not a contradiction, at least not in the modern view of
uniformitarianism. In my geologic dictionary from 1977, for example,
rates and intesities of events are specifically _excluded_ from the
definition. In fact, the only time I ever see them included in the
definition is in creationist works, such as Austin's Grand Canyon book.
Uniformitarianism is a methodology to attempt to link processes to
outcomes. If the process is catastrophic, then it is catastrophic.
>
> >
> > "Papers have been written on 'the significance of the rare event
> > in geology' and one must never forget the significance of the old
> > truism that given time, the rare event becomes a probability and
> > given enough time, it becomes a certainty. We certainly have
> > enough time in geology."
> >
> > and (p. 83-84)...
> >
> > "However, I would not for one moment deny the continuity and the
> > gradualness of the processes which are changing the earth. But
> > we must always distinguish between the nature of the process and
> > the nature of the record. I do not deny uniformitarianism in its
> > true sense, that is to say, of interpreting the past by means of
> > the processes that we see going on at the present day, so long as
> > we remember that the periodic catastrophy (including sudden events
> > like the rushing of a turbidity current) is one of those processes.
> > All I am saying is that I strongly suspect that those periodic
> > catastrophes make more showing in the stratigraphical record than
> > we have hitherto assumed."
> >
> > Bottom line Randy, is that Ager believes in an old earth and when he speaks
> > of catastrophic events, he's speaking of hurricanes, tsunamis, turbitity
> > currents, local floods, sea level rises (not just one, but many throughout
> > the earth's history) and other rare events which show up with some frequency
> > given rocks that span hundreds of millions of years of time.
>
> The fossil record is best understood as the result of a marine cataclysm
> that utterly annihilated the continents and land dwellers (Genesis
> 7:18-24; II Peter 3:6)
Don't agree.
>
> You missed the point after my second attempt. Let me try to explain this
> in a way you can understand. While attmepting to distance himself from
> creationist geologists who believe in Noah's Flood, Dr. Derek Ager does
> recognize catastrophism in geology. In the previously mentioned 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..."
>
> Which is not taken out of context as you have stated.
>
> Now this sounds much more like he believes in some sort of catastrophism
> than the unformatitarianist you are trying to make him out to be.
>
Again, you are not understanding what uniformitarianism really is (at
least its modern context).
> >
> > It puzzles me that young-earth creationists like to quote Ager, implying
> > that he somehow supports their ideas of a young earth or a global flood.
> > Ager (1993, p. xi) himself has written...
> >
> > Pretty strong condemnation of your position by someone you appear to have
> > quoted out of context.
> >
>
> Now you are putting words in my mouth or post that were never intended.
> Never did I say or imply that Ager is a strict creationist. But then
> again his statment as I hope you can grasp that there is some belief that
> nearly all of the rock material was laid down rapidly, as sediments, by
> catastrophic processes. He may believe that these events were separated
> by great lengths of time.
>
> I am supprised that you made that mistake given question about the
> "Neo-catastrophist". I thought you would have understood that being one
> does not make one a young earth creationist.
>
> > > Do you deny that Dr. Ager has spearheaded a revival in geology back
> > > toward flood processes?
> >
> > I absolutely deny it. Ager did not support a global flood -- reread
> > the above quotations. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ not what I said
>
> Yea, I could have guessed that. Maybe you should read a little more about
> what a Neo-catastrophist really is. You may find it is closer that you
> thing to what you really believe, at least I would hope so.
I think Steven is right here. Catastrophism, in the uniformitarian
context, is not just about floods. Remember, the list you gave earlier
were more along the lines of storms, than floods. But also other
processes that have nothing to do with water can be included.
>
> >
> > Ager (who has passed away), spearheaded a revival away from a strict
> > uniformitarianism that was current in stratigraphy before he wrote the
> > first edition of his book (1973). He wanted stratigraphers to look at
> > many parts of the stratigraphic record as composed of sequences of
> > catastrophic events (like deposits from local hurricanes, for example)
> > which appear uniform due to there being many of them given the millions
> > of years the rock strata represent.
>
> So? That is my point! Even someone who is not a young earth creationist
> has problems with the evidence against uniformitarianism!
Yes, and very few geologists believe in either strict gradualism, what
you're really talking about, _or_ strict catastrophism. Indeed, that is
why it's still called uniformitarianism (well, actualism in some
circles), because we need to like process to the outcomes and we do not
know _a_priori_ whether an outcome was caused by an event, or something
gradual. Assuming that an outcome is catastrophic without using
uniformitarian methods is bad science.
Here isan article to read to clear your mind on what uniformitarianism is
and is not:
Shea, J.H., 1982, Twelve fallacies of uniformitarianism: Geology, v. 10,
p. 455-460.
>
> >
> > > Are you a "neo-catastrophist"?
> >
> > No, because I never adopted a simplistic view of uniformitarianism.
> > Maybe that's only because I started my geological education in the late
> > 1980s. The geologic concept of uniformitarianism is summed up in an essay
> > entitled "Uniformity and Catastrophe" by Stephen Jay Gould (1977, p. 147-152)
> > where he showed that Charles Lyell's (the "father" of uniformitarianism)
> > concept of uniformitarianism had four different components...
> >
>
> Simplistic view of uniformitarianism? Get real! Although I do not agree
> with everything that the former President of the British Geologist's
> Association Dr. Ager believed in, I would not call it simplistic! I
That was a serious agrument from authority fallacy!
> admire him enough to quote his words. Words that have a ring of truth
> instead of sweeping the evidence which points toward rapid catastrophic
> deposition under great amounts of time. Great amounts of time supposedly
> pssed 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.
I disagree with much of Ager and I disagree with you too :)
>
> >
> > I don't believe any geologist today believes in a strict uniformitarianism of
> > rate for earth changing processes. The real world operates between the two
>
> I am not so sure about that but we can always hope. I am glad you do not
> put yourself in that darkness.
I frankly know _no_ geologist who believes in the form of
uniformitarianism that you claim.
Tom