From: Susan Brassfield <Susan-Brassfield@ou.edu>
> >Do you know the difference between data (evidence) and the interpretation
of
> >that data (evidence)? Obviously not. The only way you can claim that
> >things were not different in the past is that you, or someone you know,
was
> >there, or you interpret the data that way according to your
> >presuppositions.
>
> so how does a creationist interpret the datum that human fossils only
appear
> in extremely recent geological strata? Where are the pre-Cambrian rabbits?
Stick to the subject. The obvious interpretation is that human remains were
buried toward the end of the global catastrophe. And the rabbits were not
buried at the beginning of the catastrophe.
> >The geologic evidence can just as easily be interpreted within
Creationary
> >Catastrophism once one is unshackled from the standard interpretive
> >classification systems of geology.
>
> actually no it can't once you start to make observations in the field
> Catastrophism dies. It died long before Darwin was born.
No. Only a crippled form of Catastrophism, in which they were only trying to
account for what we now call Holocene deposits. Catastrophism of today
deals with the entire geologic column.
> abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are two different things. That's
why
> they have two different terms for them. The latter is what Pasteur
> disproved. Neither thing has anything to do with evolution and the history
> of life.
Let's see: Abiogenesis -- non-biogenetic origin of life. Spontaneous
generation -- non-biogenetic origin of life. Yeah! I see the difference!
> >The only reason why it appears there is no evidence is because the
current
> >geologic classification system automatically interprets the rocks
according
> >to Actualism. When seen through the eyeglasses of Creationary
> >Catastrophism, catastrophic events are seen throughout the geologic
record.
> >When seen through the blinders of Evolutionism, the plodding monotony of
> >senseless existence is frozen in the rock.
>
> this needs to make more sense before I reply to it in detail. I can't even
> pick out what the usual creationist argument is to this idea. I *think*
you
> are trying the old "circular argument" answer.
You need to learn a little something about the current geologic
classification system. The existing depositional environments are applied
to the rocks according to the philosophy of Actualism which states that the
same processes which exist today existed in the past though not necessarily
with the same intensities. The rock are thus classified according to the
presupposed idea that things have been pretty much the same as today, with
occasional allowances made for some catastrophes such as asteroid impacts,
volcanic explosions, etc. The Catastrophists interpret the depositions as
resulting primarily from catastrophic events such as asteroid impacts,
volcanic explosions, etc. The most current Catastrophist models propose a
string of asteroid impacts similar to that which hit Jupiter in 94, which
cause flooding by impact-tsunami. Side effects of such a storm of asteroids
is breakup of continental masses with associated global volcanic activity,
the injection of massive quantities of water into and above the atmosphere
which then falls back to earth. Thus most of the flooding would not occur
due to overflowing of rivers, but inundation of continents by hundreds of
mega-tsunami ranging in height from 0.5 to 3 km high at approach to the land
mass. While the continents are over run by water, the tidal effects would
be a factor in deposition also. Can the depositional rocks be interpreted
within such a model? Yes.
> >> again. There is no *evidence* that this is the case.
> >
> >There is no *evidence* for Evolutionism either.
>
> evidence for the above would be something like all life forms suddenly
> appearing in recent geological strata all at once with no change until the
> present. However if you assume that deeper means older as geologists in
the
> 18th and 19th centuries did, then as you dig deeper then the plants and
> animals look less and less like they do today. How does creationism deal
> with that? I've never heard a good answer to that question. Usually it's
> just ignored (doesn't fit).
In a impact-tsunami model, deposition will follow along behind the tsunami.
The deposits will be primarily of that part of the load of the wave which
has reached supersaturation as the energy level of the wave following waters
drops. The first of the impact-tsunami (which will lay the lowest sediment
layers) would by necessity have originated from the pre-flood seas. The
major part of the load of these first tsunami will be marine, so the first
sedimentary layers will be marine fossils -- brachiopods, Crinoids,
Trilobites, etc. The first waves ashore will rip up the earth surface and
make that part of the load. The following waves ashore will only disturb
the upper part of the first wave's deposition because of the layer of flood
waters standing over the new depositions. The depositions will grade finer
in the direction of the motion of the wave. Sediments will be deposited
according to size, weight, roundness and saturation. The deposits will also
(for the most part) grade upward. Exceptions
are expected according to local conditions. The depositions from lower to
higher should contain in general with exceptions allowed first marine or
lacustrine fossils upward to land animals. Flooding by tsunami first
inundates the lowland and then progressively the highlands. Depositions
should then reflect to a general degree the ecological zonation of the
pre-flood world.
The reason for animals and plants looking unlike today is that today we have
only a sampling of the varieties which existed prior the Flood. Most of
the pre-existing varieties became extinct during the catastrophe.
> >All observations of the actual world are understood only within the
paradigm
> >of the observer. Yours is the religion of Evolutionism. Mine is the
> >religion of Creationism. And like most non-Christians, you haven't a
clue
> >to what Creationary Catastrophists believe concerning how one reads the
> >Bible. A Creationary Catastrophist does not read each and every word of
the
> >KJV, NIV or any Hebrew or Greek manuscript literally. I suppose there
are
> >some people out there somewhere who do, but I don't know any. Rather, a
> >straight-forward reading according to common sense is warranted. Where
it
> >is obviously literal, read literal. Where obviously metaphoric, read
> >metaphor.
>
> ROFL!! and the reader gets to pick which as suits him or her.
>
What a stupid comment. Common sense is common to everyone, except for those
who have no sense. This is the same rule that applies to reading and
understanding Shakespeare, Whittier, Longfellow, or any other written
communication. We all understand idioms, slang, colloquialisms, metaphors,
etc.. One simple does the same with the Bible. And, to make it even
better, God has promised to everyone who asks, special tutelage in
understanding the Bible through the Holy Spirit, the very one who inspired
the writers to write in the first place.
Allen
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 27 2000 - 20:25:40 EST