From: M.B.Roberts
From: Allen Roy
No, you were not faced with clear evidence, you were faced with interpretations of data from within the religious philosophy of Naturalism EVIDENCE FOR THIS PLEASE.. This is self-evident when it become recognized that the religious philosophy of Naturalism/Materialism underlies nearly all scientific enquiry.
You had not been educated in the pervasiveness of the underlying assumptions within which all standard geologic interpretations are being done. HOW DO YOU KNOW? You had not been shown the religious nature of Naturalism and its corollaries of Abiogenesis and Actualism (i.e. non-uniform Uniformitarianism WHAT IS THIS?) within which geologic science usually functions. IS THAT SO? You had been taught the falsehood that Science stands alone without philosophical assumptions. REALLY!
Geologists no longer believe in strict, Huttonian Uniformitarianism, i.e. The same processes that work today, work the same way and at the same rates in the past. Certain events have forced Uniformitarianism to be modified to: The same processes that work today, worked the same way but not necessarily at the same rates in the past. In other words, Uniformitarianism is not uniform over time. This modified Uniformitarianism (i.e. Non-uniform Uniformitarianism) has been given a new name -- Actualism.
In geology, interpretation of sedimentary rock according to the actualistic assumption that there are ONLY 3 allowable depositional environments -- marine, non-marine and transitional -WHERE DOES THIS COME FROM? I HAVE NEVER HEARD OR READ ABOUT IT DESPITE READING GEOLOGICAL WORKS FROM 1690-
The grouping of depositional environments mentioned above is found in the text book "Petrology: The Study of Igneous, Sedimentary and Metamorphic Rock." by Raymond. He further says that "By studying both the processes in present-day environments and the lithofacies formed by those processes, sedimentologists are able to infer how similar ancient rocks were formed." The present depositional environments on land, in the sea, and in-between are the only means where by ancient rocks were formed. What is happening todays is the only explanation for what happened in the past.
In the text book "Understanding Earth," by Press and Siever, 1998, it says, "Sedimentary environments are often grouped by their locations on the continents, near shorelines, or in the ocean." [non-marine, transitional and marine]
Global catastrophic depositional environments are not considered. While the present system is valid for Pre and Post-flood conditions, the Flood was an event which can only be hinted at by the occational minor catastrophies we encounter today such as Mt. Saint Hellens and Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9.
automatically precludes interpretation within a global flood catastrophe environment.THE EARLY GEOLOGISTS WHO GAVE US OUR METHODS STARTED FROM A GLOBAL FLOOD Thus all those "facts" of geology demand that there could not be a global flood catastrophe. NOT SO FOR MOST GEOLOGISTS UNTIL 1840 (SORRY GLENN BUCKLAND WAS STILL BASICALLY A GLOBAL FLOOD MAN IN 1841!)
Yes, it is true that the Flood models within which the early geologists were working were not able to satisfactorily explain evidence, or rather, interpretations of the evidence, which seemed to destroy the Flood models. Modern Flood models are far more robust and what felled the early models have been accounted for and countered in the new. It is comical to hear Evolutionists repeat the same tired old arguments that seemed to work ages ago but that don't even apply today. They are shadow boxing in a nearly 2 centuries old fight only to find that they are fighting by themselves (If the ever become self aware enough to notice.)
Creationists START with the assumptions that God's natural laws are not violated and that there was a global catastrophic event as told us by God. IF IT WAS SO CATASTROPHIC HOW DID THE DOVE BRING BACK A LEAF IN GOOD CONDITION
This simple question has been answered ages ago.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 10 2001 - 02:05:23 EST