> Now that a contradiction "Catastrophic Uniformitarianism" sounds like a
> term trying to fit ones anti-biblical creation beliefs into scientific
> evidence.
No. Ager was arguing that catastrophic episodes in the earth's history
should be regarded as a part of uniformitarianism. In other words, the
earth is so old (4.6 Ga) that rare catastrophic events will show up in the
stratigraphic record. What did Ager mean by catastrophic events? Things
like hurricanes, local floods, turbidity currents, tsunamis, etc. Ager
recognized many thousands of such events and his ideas can in no way be
taken to support the idea of a single global flood.
Also, I really think it's the other way around Randy. Young-earth
creationists try to force-fit science into harmony with their theological
beliefs. As a matter of fact, many YECs (Ken Ham and Henry Morris come
to mind) are very candid about this in defining "good" science as science
which supports a literal hermeneutic of the Bible.
> 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)
No, it is not. No way and no how. A prediction of what you would see in
a single global flood would be all types of organisms jumbled together. That
is most emphatically NOT what you see. We can discuss this if you wish, and
I can give concrete examples from the paleontological literature which show
that you're absolutely wrong. Quoting Scripture doesn't change what's
actually found in the rocks (and I read the Bible and know the verses).
> 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.
Yes, go slow with me Randy. I am, after all, only six months away from
a Ph.D. in geology so these concepts might be over my head. I understand
perfectly fine, I just think you're totally wrong.
It's taken out of context if you're quoting Ager to support your belief
in a young earth and global flood (which I think you are).
> 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.
I'm saying several things Randy, and I think you're missing my points as
well...
1. Ager does indeed recognize catastrophic events in geology. So what!
So does EVERY OTHER GEOLOGIST when they speak of the origin of the
Channeled Scablands, the origin of many thick ash flow tuffs, the
extinction at the K-T boundary, the origin of the Sudbury structure,
the origin of the moon, the rapid filling of the Mediterranean Basin,
etc.
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.
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. 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.
> 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.
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.
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. Ager claimed thousands, if not
millions, of these catastrophic events are recognized in the stratigraphic
record, not one single event.
> 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.
I disagree with the term "neo-catastrophist" as would, I think, most
geologists. There's nothing new about catastrophism, and geologists have
always accepted that there were catastrophic events in the earth's past.
>>> 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
It's not what you explicitly said but you are a young-earth creationist
who believes in a global flood. You cite Ager to support your position.
Agar himself, as shown in the quotation I gave, was appalled by YECs citing
him to support their position.
> 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.
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? That is my point! Even someone who is not a young earth creationist
> has problems with the evidence against uniformitarianism!
Define uniformitarianism Randy. I want to know what you mean by that
term because, quite frankly, I think you're clueless when it comes to
what modern geology is all about and how geologists study the natural world.
> 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
> 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 was referring to yourself specifically and YECs in general when saying
that your views on uniformitarianism were simplistic. I wasn't referring
to Ager.
Yes, Ager was former president of the British Geologist's Association,
but that doesn't mean he's right. Many of his ideas are simply not accepted
by stratigraphic geologists. Ager was somewhat out of the mainstream and
even wrote a paper not too long ago supporting the idea of an expanding
earth (I believe it was in an obscure journal called "Modern Geology" and
I can dig out a complete reference if anyone's interested). The expanding
earth idea was an early competitor to plate tectonics but has been shown
to be geophysically impossible (Ager even admitted that but said they may
be wrong), does not fit the evidence, and has not had any credible supporters
in the past 25 years. While I agree with some of Ager's ideas, others
are probably wrong. If you'd like to have a complete discussion about
his book, and how his ideas compare to what's being taught in most modern
stratigraphy and sedimentation classes, I'd be happy to do that.
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.
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.
Your position reminds me of the perhaps apocryphal story of the churchmen
who refused to look in Galileo's telescope because the Bible and Aristotle
told them the truth about the heavens so there was no need to actually look
at the natural world. That it's somehow sufficient to read the ancient
authorities and create convoluted philosophical arguments.
I'd love to actually go out into the field with some young-earth
creationists sometime and show them, for example, a crinoidal limestone and
ask how all these millions of crinoids were able to share such a small plot of
seafloor, or how a seafloor with millions of crinoids happened to be in the
midwest, or how you happen to get coral reefs stratigraphically above the
crinoidal limestone (which take years and years to grow). It would be
interesting.
- 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