[geocentrism] Re: Eolution
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:29:33 +0000 (GMT)
JA
I'll attend to one tonight and perhaps the second tomorrow.
OK -- there are two questions here. But there is an overriding concept evident,
not specific to the questions raised, which I think I need to address. First on
this matter, there is that old buggaboo "faith" which I have mentioned many
times is not what I have in science. What I have in science is confidence.
Second there is the impression I have gained here from your description and
from similar statements, that creationists invariably equate what they see in
others as being similar in concept to their own philosophy. You sound as if you
think that evolutionary theory is just invented and that it will be changed at
the drop of a hat to be replaced by another invention should that ever become
convenient. You also sound as if you think that I (and others) simply believe
whatever 'invention' is laid before us providing only that we admire the
inventor(s). In other words, similar to the tussle between Simon the Magician
and Jesus the Messiah -- which one
shall we believe, which one shall we follow? It's not like that. The object is
to consider the evidence without discarding the inconvenient, and formulating
an explanation which -- with parsimony -- will explain not only the currently
being considered phenomenon, but -- most importantly -- not contradicting
current knowledge. If this can't be done, then one of two things is necessary
-- look for another explanation, or -- very occasionally -- if this is not
possible, then reevaluation of the ruling paradigm may be called for. But
before all is the need to find an explanation which accounts for all the
evidence, counters all the --scientific -- objections, and makes predictions
which can be tested by scientific means.
First question -- yes my impression is that the geologic record does indeed
describe our history. Multi-discipline concurrence in this matter gives added
confidence. The atomic decay series, the basic physics and chemistry, the
magnetic record and other mechanisms of which I know I have read or seen but
details of which I cannot recall sufficiently for discussion -- all point to
this conclusion.
You said If you were shown proof or evidence that the layers were no where near
that old, would you then begin to doubt evolution? Yes of course my position
would change if I were to be confronted by proof -- though at this point in the
proceedings, what it would change to is another matter! (Scientifically
accepted proof mind you -- I certainly would not be swayed in the future, just
as I have not been swayed in the past for reasons previously discussed, by an
article by AiG). Would my position be altered by contrary evidence? I'd wait
for a resolution.
What would it take to convince you that you needed to abandon the flood story?
I really do ask for your response to this!
Second question -- "Can The Flood explain everything?" Short answer -- not in
my opinion or the opinion of those who are actually qualified to have an
opinion. Can it explain anything? Same answer. I cannot do better than to again
draw to your attention an article which I find impressive at this url [ I've
had trouble in the past with Yahoo! treating various urls as spam so you need
to remove all the '_'s ]
h_t_t_p_:_/_/_w_w_w_._b_r_i_n_g_y_o_u_._t_o/apologetics/p82.htm
It's fairly long so I've just included the sub-headings with one paragraph for
'atmosphere'. Yes it's an appeal to authority, but as it is from a christian
source and of recent origin to boot, perhaps you'll forgive me. The fact that
the commentator is a also a geologist can only add to his stature.
I'll quote your actual question here - Evolution is not the only story which
fits your description of the strata. Would you admitt that the creation and
flood story also fit (forgettiing any other evidence or reasons for saying it
ain't so)? This does surprise me a bit despite what I've said above, but it
must be responded to. Forgetting evidence is playing 'pretend games'. We are
supposed to have left this behind us by our tenth birthday. To hold this view
is to deny the reality which is thrust to our fore on a minute by minute basis
each and every day. There is no way I will deny this reality.
oooooooooooooooooooooo
History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth
adapted from the book The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church's Response
to Extrabiblical Evidence (Eerdmans, 1995) by Davis A. Young, an evangelical
Christian geologist from Calvin College
The Collapse of Diluvial Cosmogonies
Eighteenth-Century Commentary
[ One paragraph from this section -- PD ]
As the eighteenth century proceeded, however, the community of natural
philosophers found it more difficult to sustain a belief in diluvialism.
Despite Catcott's late efforts, mounting evidence was undermining attempts to
account for all the earth's fossiliferous strata by means of a flood theory.
Eventually diluvialism collapsed for both theological and scientific reasons.
The stress on the theological side accumulated as individual texts of Scripture
were used to support a variety of competing theories and speculations about
earth history. [7] The fountains of the great deep (Gen 7:11), for example, had
been variously understood to refer to the abyss, comets, the ocean, and water
from caves. These diverse interpretations and conflicting applications of the
relevant texts to scientific problems of earth history led to a growing
suspicion that the texts were being used improperly, that they were being
pressed into answering categories of questions they
were not meant to answer. Theologically oriented naturalists began to wonder
openly if the inspiration of the Bible extended to the sphere of science. Did
God give Scripture as a source of scientific information, they asked, or was it
a book of redemption, theology, and morals?
The Rise of Stratigraphy and Geomorphology
The Advent of Neptunism
Discoveries of Vertebrate Remains
Neptunism and the Flood
Developments in Biogeography
Summary of Eighteenth-Century on the Flood
Nineteenth-Century Developments, the Rise of Diluvial Catastrophism
The Collapse of Diluvial Catastrophism
Fleming vs. Cuvier and Buckland
Summary of Early Nineteenth-Century on the Flood
The Coming of the Ice Age -- the Frozen Flood
Development of the Geological Time Scale
New Paleontological Discoveries
"Scriptural Geology"
Early Nineteenth-Century Theological Responses to Scientific Developments
Deluge Chronology
The Capacity of the Ark
Animal Migration
Theories of the Flood
The Landing Site of the Ark
Summary of Early Nineteenth-Century Theological Responses
The Popularizers of Geology [ Quite a long section -- PD ]
Summary of the Popularizers of Geology
Modern Global "Flood Geology"
Conclusion
Davis A. Young, evangelical Christian geologist from Calvin College
ooooooooooooooo
Paul D
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Paul,
Here's one
JA
j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Paul,
I'll be attempting to comment on your article tonight (i've made some notes
already), but for now I have a comment or two on the rest of this email.
Paul: Well we have two possibilities in life I think. You can run around in
circles beating your breast in frustration at there being no way to know what
is the truth thus achieving nothing, or you can proceed on the basis that
intelligent and knowlegeable men probably have the answer to at least this
problem, that in any event if they are wrong, events will demonstrate this and
knowledge will still be advanced.
This is called a "statement of faith". You think there are people smart enough
to know the answer, so you have picked out who those smart people are and you
believe them and if they ever change thier minds, you will too.
Paul: Concerning justification for deciding that evolution is the answer to
"...why we are what and where we are." Since I cannot, and neither can anyone
else at this time with certainty, know the details of abiogenesis and
evolution, including its existance or non existance, the stratification of the
fossil record is sufficient proof for me that it happened. All the attention
drawn to difficulties concerning understanding how this happenned or why this
happenned are just diversionary tactics. The fact remains that at the lowest
strata, no organisms are found. Next we again find no organisms, but we do find
the burrows these worms made. Above this we find worms which have made
carbonaceous shells as armour. In each layer we find creatures which did not
exist in lower strata, while those in lower strata may well persist in higher
strata but often do not. And so on up to the present day.
So you believe that the strata represent millions and billions of years. Since
that is enough for you to believe in evolution, If you were shown proof or
evidence that the layers were no where near that old, would you then begin to
doubt evolution?
Evolution is not the only story which fits your description of the strata.
Would you admitt that the creation and flood story also fit (forgettiing any
other evidence or reasons for saying it ain't so)?
Paul D
Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage.
http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html
Other related posts:
