>A single slow process would not disprove it [catastrophic origin]. I would
>not be trying to prove catastrophism. Catastrophims is assumed and the
>evidence is interpreted within the paradigm. The same goes for Actualism.
>The evidence is
>interpreted within the paradigm.
However, the ability to explain something (or lack thereof) functions as a
test of the paradigms. Thus, the existence of a feature that can be
explained by slow processes, but not by fast ones, suggests that there is a
flaw with the assumption that it formed rapidly. As catastrophes can occur
during conventional geologic history, I cannot immediately think of a piece
of evidence that would fit a catastrophic scenario but not a conventional
geologic one.
It should perhaps be noted that there is an ongoing debate about the use of
terms such as uniformitarianism, catastrophism, actualism, etc. For
present purposes, it may be clearer to refer to flood goelogy versus
conventional geology. Many would consider your use of modern evidence
about asteroids to reconstruct the effects of a catastrophic asteroid storm
an example of a uniformitarian approach. You assume that asteroids in the
past behaved as they do today. We have not experienced an asteroid storm,
so the situation is not actualistic, but the basic principles remain
uniform.
>There is no need to resort to miracles. A catastrophe consisting of a
>"storm" of asteroids impacting the planet within a short time would
>naturally cause a catastrophe and associated depositions within a short
>time.
True, such an event would be catastrophic and non-miraculous. The
associated depositions would have a variety of distinctive features, such
as high abundance of extraterrestrial isotopes, impact features, etc. The
amount of energy produced by this process can be calculated and its effects
on the earth estimated. Of course, it is also necessary to decide which
deposits are possibly the product of this event and the magnitude of the
proposed event in order to test it. Obviously a single impact does not
constitute a storm, nor does the lack of impact evidence in a deposit
disprove a bolide storm at some other time.
>When it comes to the old which came first the chicken or the egg, it would
>not be deceiving to create a cyclic program somewhere in the cycle, since
>there is no beginning to the cycle. And for some things, like the geologic
>record, an appearance of age is all in the eyes of the beholder -- are you
>an Actualist or a Catastrophist?
Appearance of age indeed is not a problem if an adequate alternative
explanation is found. I have not seen any flood geological explanations
that describe the earth's appearance nearly as well as standard geology, so
I accept the latter.
>This is an example of interpretation. The Actualist will interpret the
>evidence (barkless, branchless fossil logs) as fallen old-growth. The
>Catastrophist will interpret the evidence as the result of a catastrophe
>stripping limbs and bark burying it in a short time (ala, the striping of
>limbs and bark of living trees during Mt. St. Helen's explosion).
The catastrophist could interpret the evidence as fallen pre-flood old
growth, especially if he knows that there are also plenty of fossil logs
with bark, branches, etc.
>The model which appears to explain/interpret the evidence most complete and
>satisfactory, will likely be the best model. Today, Actualism is the
>reigning model. It became that way because the Creationary model of the
>18th and 19th centuries was not good. Today, new Creationary models are
>being proposed which are much better. The latest of which is the Asteroid
>impact model. It provides some interpretation for more data than previous
>creationary models, but it is not fully developed and the Actualism model is
>much larger because it has been around much longer with many more scientists
>doing the interpretation.
Perhaps a better example of my point on distinguishing your particular
model from other ideas would be on the issue of asteroid impacts, then.
Huse, in the Collapse of Evolution, claimed that there were no buried
impact craters and that this was evidence for a young earth. Obviously,
you are aware of the presence of lots of buried craters and have a model
that is more accurate than his.
>Why would one want to look for a Creationary model when the Actualism model
>is much larger, etc.? It is simply for philosophical and religious reasons.
>The religion of Naturalism (of which Actualism is a corollary) denies some
>very important issues which I as a Christian find invaluable.
Although philosophical naturalism generally asserts that "as things are
now, so they have always been", it would also be possible to assert that
things have just happened to change dramatically in the past. Conversely,
the Biblical view that God created us to rule over the earth suggests that
we can figure out how it works by studying it today. As God is the same
yesterday, today, and forever, His laws are likely to remain stable. Thus,
the assumptions of conventional geology are reasonable for a Christian.
David C.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 27 2000 - 16:57:20 EDT