Re: Flood

From: David Campbell (bivalve@email.unc.edu)
Date: Tue Jun 27 2000 - 12:05:23 EDT

  • Next message: David Campbell: "Re: The Wedge of Truth : Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism by Phillip E. Johnson"

    > AR: I am just proposing that just because we have "A" sedimentary process
    >which results in depositions that seem to match what we find in a certain
    >sedimentary rock formation, does that mean it is the "ONLY" sedimentary
    >process that can do so? I am not convinced.
    >
    > >As a Creationary Catastrophist I am convinced that there are catastrophic
    >means by which even supposed 'quite' and 'slow' deposits can occur.

    The difficulty is that you need to show that a catastrophe can produce all
    the features that seem readily explainable by ordinary geologic processes.
    Even then, it would be necessary to show that the catastrophe is a better
    explanation, because if the two are equally good explanations, why invoke
    the catastrophe? Trying to show everything as rapidly formed is more
    difficult, because a single slow process disproves it, whereas innumerable
    rapidly-formed structures can occur within an old framework.

    Of course, one could claim that the geologic structures were miraculously
    produced and happen to resemble what would have formed slowly. However,
    this claim means that the appearance does not support a catastrophic
    origin. It also raises the question of why things would be created with a
    misleading appearance. To show what would have happened had they existed
    for millions of years is the best answer I know of.

    Another difficulty is sorting out all the different Flood geology claims
    that are not overly constrained by reality nor each other. Having some
    experience in the field, you probably know that dead logs normally loose
    branches and bark readily. Also, trees in an old-growth forest have very
    tall trunks without branches. Thus, you are unlikely to claim that the
    frequent occurrence of fossil logs without bark and branches is proof of a
    violent catastrophe. However, armchair Flood theorists have made that
    claim. (At least I hope the apparent ignorance is the honest result of
    inexperience.) A coherent model is needed, excluding contradictiry claims,
    in order to be able to compare a Flood geology scenario to conventional
    geology.

    David C.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 27 2000 - 12:06:28 EDT