|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: My two cents. - 7/19/2008 8:31:52 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
It has nothing to do with scientific evidence. The evidence for a worldwide flood is overwhelming. You choose not to interpret it that way.
quote:
Are you sure you understand uniformitarianism? Are you sure you understand cataclysmic events?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: My two cents. - 7/19/2008 8:40:29 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Are you sure you understand cataclysmic events?
Yes. Now why would you say that cataclysmic events abrogate uniformitarianism?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: My two cents. - 7/19/2008 9:19:30 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
Name one cataclysmic event that did not disrupt uniformity.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: My two cents. - 7/19/2008 1:05:27 PM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 454
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Name one cataclysmic event that did not disrupt uniformity.
Cataclysmic events are included in the knowledge of uniformity. That is how we can be sure that there was no global flood.
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: My two cents. - 7/19/2008 1:42:08 PM
|
|
|
Embedded
Posts: 44
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Name one cataclysmic event that did not disrupt uniformity.
drmark, you are arguing against a strawman version of uniformitarianism. Uniformitarianism does not deny cataclysmic or catastrophic events in earths history. As you say there is ample evidence for cataclysmic events. Remember the eruption of Mt. Saint Helens?
There is no conclusive physical evidence of a global flood. The biblical flood may have happened as a miracle but then the miracle must have cleaned up after itself and made it look like it didn't happen. I wouldn't find such an explanation scientifically satisfying.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: My two cents. - 7/19/2008 2:02:50 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Cataclysmic events are included in the knowledge of uniformity. We know there has been uniformity because of the occurence of cataclysmic events? How many and how often do they occur to maintain "uniformity"?
quote:
That is how we can be sure that there was no global flood. The historical narrative account recorded in Genesis 7 is how we are sure that there was a global flood.
quote:
Uniformitarianism does not deny cataclysmic or catastrophic events in earths history. So I ask you the same question, Embedded - how many and how often do cataclysmic events occur to maintain "uniformity"?
quote:
There is no conclusive physical evidence of a global flood. Sure there is - you choose not to interpret the evidence that way!
quote:
I wouldn't find such an explanation scientifically satisfying. Yes, that's about as scientifically satisfying as claiming evolution is factual when not a single occurence has ever been observed. Nice double-standard you have, Embedded.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: My two cents. - 7/19/2008 2:26:16 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Name one cataclysmic event that did not disrupt uniformity.
The tsunami that wreaked havoc in Asia a couple of years back. Katrina's destruction of New Orleans and surrounding areas. The asteroid impact implicated in the K-T extinction. Any super-nova you care to name.
There are all kinds of cataclysmic events that happen with the framework of a uniformitarian paradigm.
So for the 3rd time: are you sure you understand uniformitarianism?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: My two cents. - 7/19/2008 2:47:05 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
The asteroid impact implicated in the K-T extinction. quote:
are you sure you understand uniformitarianism? Apparently not your incorrect version. But I don't understand your incorrect version of "evolution" either! So don't waste any more of your time asking me.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: My two cents. - 7/19/2008 4:58:27 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
The asteroid impact implicated in the K-T extinction. quote:
are you sure you understand uniformitarianism? Apparently not your incorrect version. But I don't understand your incorrect version of "evolution" either! So don't waste any more of your time asking me.
Of course, it would never occur to you that it is your versions that are incorrect. Do you really think you are infallible?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: My two cents. - 7/19/2008 5:51:21 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
The evidence for a worldwide flood is overwhelming.
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
The historical narrative account recorded in Genesis 7 is how we are sure that there was a global flood.
Nice double-standard you have, drmark. You continue to claim to have overwhelming scientific evidence on your side. When pressed on the issue, you point to Genesis. It's quite clear that you consider scientific evidence irrelevant to your beliefs.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: My two cents. - 7/19/2008 9:02:17 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
Sounds just like the "overwhelming evidence" you constantly claim for evolution but then turn right around and say we cannot "be sure". I have no double-standard, es! I use God's authoritative, inerrant, inspired Word for my surety. Isn't it nice that the evidence also supports the global flood. You're welcome to read any or all of the 40 articles supporting global flood geology.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: My two cents. - 7/20/2008 3:17:13 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Sounds just like the "overwhelming evidence" you constantly claim for evolution but then turn right around and say we cannot "be sure". I have no double-standard, es! I use God's authoritative, inerrant, inspired Word for my surety. Isn't it nice that the evidence also supports the global flood. You're welcome to read any or all of the 40 articles supporting global flood geology.
It's late at night, but I already discussed the chalk link here, when Zuniceratops brought it up. To be consistent with a flood, chalk deposits alone would require there to have been 4000 times as much living biomass of chalk critters as exists in all life on earth. YEC models fail simple order of magnitude calculations.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: My two cents. - 7/20/2008 11:14:56 AM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 519
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
The asteroid impact implicated in the K-T extinction. quote:
are you sure you understand uniformitarianism? Apparently not your incorrect version. But I don't understand your incorrect version of "evolution" either! So don't waste any more of your time asking me.
We've already seen that what you call evolution is not evolution but a distortion. What you don't understand is the correct version.
Please give your definition of uniformitarianism and explain why an asteroid impact should be some kind of problem for your peculiar version of uniformitarianism?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: My two cents. - 7/20/2008 1:23:49 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
Here are definitions I have found:
Uniformitarianism: (geology, dated) the doctrine that existing causes, acting in the same manner and with essentially the same intensity as at the present time, are sufficient to account for all geological changes - as opposed to catastrophism
Catastrophism: (geology, dated) the doctrine that the geological changes in the earth's crust have been caused by the sudden action of violent physical causes - opposed to uniformitarianism
So ya, I think drmark has it right. Uniformitarianists can not claim both sides of the spectrum. They do this so they can not be proven wrong. Huh, this also sounds a bit like evolution!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: My two cents. - 7/20/2008 1:43:21 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
Here are definitions I have found:
Uniformitarianism: (geology, dated) the doctrine that existing causes, acting in the same manner and with essentially the same intensity as at the present time, are sufficient to account for all geological changes - as opposed to catastrophism
Is anyone suggesting that asteroid impacts, volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc. are acting in a different manner or with a different intensity in the past as in the present? Uniformitarianism does not preclude cataclysimic events. It assumes that as cataclysimic events happen in the present, they also happened in the past, and as they happened in the past, we can expect them to happen in the present and future.
What it also assumes is that events which are not cataclysmic in the present--such as the formation of chalk or salt deposits or the decay of radioactive particles--were not cataclysmic in the past either.
So cataclysmic events which are always cataclysmic whenever and wherever they occur are not evidence that uniformitarianism is false.
What you have to show to undermine uniformitatianism is that events which are normally not cataclysmic, but gradual processes, were cataclysmic in the past e.g. runaway subduction instead of ordinary tectonic movement or rapid radiometric decay instead of the constant rates measured today.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: My two cents. - 7/20/2008 2:19:17 PM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 454
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
Here are definitions I have found:
Uniformitarianism: (geology, dated) the doctrine that existing causes, acting in the same manner and with essentially the same intensity as at the present time, are sufficient to account for all geological changes - as opposed to catastrophism
Catastrophism: (geology, dated) the doctrine that the geological changes in the earth's crust have been caused by the sudden action of violent physical causes - opposed to uniformitarianism
So ya, I think drmark has it right. Uniformitarianists can not claim both sides of the spectrum. They do this so they can not be proven wrong. Huh, this also sounds a bit like evolution!
Keep in mind, that these concepts are meant to be global. That means that every catastrophe would have to have a global impact in order to give us information about the world's geology. Catastrophe's are localized while the rest of the planet might be dormant in such activity.
It is against the backdrop of Uniformitarianism that we can identify past cataclysmic events.
In fact, since the mythical world flood mentioned in the Bible, the planets geology has remained dormant except for local natural events. This should mean to a creationist, six thousand years of uniformatarianism outside of localized events.
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: My two cents. - 7/20/2008 2:46:18 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Sounds just like the "overwhelming evidence" you constantly claim for evolution but then turn right around and say we cannot "be sure". I have no double-standard, es! I use God's authoritative, inerrant, inspired Word for my surety. Isn't it nice that the evidence also supports the global flood. You're welcome to read any or all of the 40 articles supporting global flood geology.
After a deeper look, very few of those articles actually address evidence for a biblical-style flood.
A peek at the sandstone article "Startling evidence for Noah’s Flood" is also pretty weak on evidence. The idea that the sandstone was entirely deposited underwater is questioned by experts, since (among other reasons) there are invertebrate burrows and tracks (spiders, scorpions, centipedes) from critters not known for their wading abilities. And also raindrop impressions in the sandstone at places.
Not to mention that all these animals are supposed to be walking across temporary underwater surfaces laid down by flood deposits as it accumulates in a 315 foot thick layer deposited "in a matter of days". As inches of sand an hour are settling, carried in some sort of flow, I don't see how lasting impressions could be made, or how these critters could have wandered about for days, with their heads just above water level.
Not to mention that this sand, which is supposed to be transported from 200-300 miles away, all arrived during these same days (with no admixture of other sediments). Shouldn't some of the sand arrived sooner, and some later, so that there would be a gradual change from one kind of stone to sandstone? Instead, the sandstone begins and ends with a clear linear boundary.
Not to mention that the formation of the canyon itself shows the effects of water cutting through hard rock, not through recently laid down miraculously layered soft 'mud'.
A very large gap separates the conclusion that some footprints may have been made in wet sand from evidence of a global flood, or a 6000 year old earth.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: My two cents. - 7/21/2008 11:46:17 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Is anyone suggesting that asteroid impacts, volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc. are acting in a different manner or with a different intensity in the past as in the present? Apparently not, since not a single one of you ever answered my question about the temporal relationship of cataclysmic events to uniformity. Your silence confirms 2 Peter 3:4!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: My two cents. - 7/21/2008 12:22:23 PM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 454
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Is anyone suggesting that asteroid impacts, volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc. are acting in a different manner or with a different intensity in the past as in the present? Apparently not, since not a single one of you ever answered my question about the temporal relationship of cataclysmic events to uniformity. Your silence confirms 2 Peter 3:4!
What silence? Did you count the number of replies in this thread refuting you? LOL Tell Peter we don't need him at the moment, you made a mistake.
BTW, I answered your question when I said that it is against the backdrop of Uniformitarianism that we can identify past cataclysmic events.
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: My two cents. - 7/21/2008 12:35:25 PM
|
|
|
Embedded
Posts: 44
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Is anyone suggesting that asteroid impacts, volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc. are acting in a different manner or with a different intensity in the past as in the present? Apparently not, since not a single one of you ever answered my question about the temporal relationship of cataclysmic events to uniformity. Your silence confirms 2 Peter 3:4!
The reason it hasn't been answered is that it is a foolish question.
If, as you say:
quote:
So I ask you the same question, Embedded - how many and how often do cataclysmic events occur to maintain "uniformity"?
It appears you are confusing "uniformity" with "continuity" or "smoothness". As usual, either intentionally or by ignorance, you do not understand what uniformity or uniformitarianism mean in the scientific sense. You might want to study up on it here is a clear definition.
I shall quote parts of the article:
quote:
Four main forms of uniformitarianism
Uniformitarianism, though often treated as a single idea, is in fact a family of four related (but not identical) propositions. Paleontologist and evolutionary theorist Stephen Jay Gould usefully characterized them, in a 1965 paper [2] , as:
1. Uniformity of law;
2. Uniformity of kind;
3. Uniformity of degree; and
4. Uniformity of result.
The first sense of uniformity was almost universally accepted and quickly became part of the scientific consensus; the fourth was almost universally rejected by Western scientists from the mid-19th century onward. The second and particularly the third senses remained controversial and (though more increasingly accepted in the 20th century) have been occasionally challenged by scientists who believe the presumption of uniformity (in the second and third senses) is unwarranted
Basically we use the form: Uniformity of Law.
Uniformity of Law is the basic assumption that the physical laws that we see and that apply here also apply elsewhere in the universe. That the laws are uniform throughout the universe. We feel this is a warranted assumption because that is all we have observed so far. We assume that an electron, an atom, a molecule, gravity, matter, electromagnetism, and nuclear pheomenon behaves the same on the far side of the universe as well as here.
This assumption does not deny catastrophies.
This assumption does not claim to know ALL the physical laws. There may be some we have not yet discovered.
This assumption does not claim to know everything about the laws we know of. There may be aspects of the known laws that we have not yet discovered.
The assumptions of scientific uniformitarianism are arrived at and agreed upon by concensus.
Is what we mean by scientific uniformitarianism now clear to you?
If you keep insisting that scientific uniformitarianism means something else then there isn't much point. If you keep insisting that what we define as green is really red that is you problem. By insisting that scientific uniformitarianism is something other than what has been arrived at via concensus in the scientific community you only succeed in creating strawman arguments and confusing the discussion. Is that your intent?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: My two cents. - 7/21/2008 1:01:27 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
The assumptions of scientific uniformitarianism are arrived at and agreed upon by concensus.
Is what we mean by scientific uniformitarianism now clear to you? It's quite clear that assumptions and consensus by uniformitarian naturalists are no more valid (or invalid) than those by YEC scientists. Origins "science" is not real science at all - it's a worldview based on assumptions and consensus. Fortunately, I'm on the side of the only Consensus that matters on the issue!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: My two cents. - 7/21/2008 1:30:25 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7840
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
First I'd like to say hello to everyone. Started reading the forums and you all have quite the debate going on. I guess I simply couldn't sit back and be a lurker any longer and felt complelled to throw my view on the subject out there.
So basically I believe to say Evolution is fictitious and ID is the only answer is akin to saying the Earth is the center of everything, or the Earth is flat. Not only is it flat but anyone who says otherwise is aligned with Satan and is a blasphemer. That kind of thinking has held back our development as humans for centuries and it's time to stop. Why are some of you unable to look at the observed evidence for Evolution and see it for what it is? It doesn’t say there isn't a God and He didn't create the universe. Nobody knows what was before the Big Bang and there isn't anyway,as of right now at least, to know. If there is a God he made a wonderfully complex universe and his mechanism for creating the diversity of life all around us certainly appears to be Evolution. Evolution doesn't say anything about the existence or non-existence of a God. It simply tries to explain what we observe. Just like any other scientific theory. It may be in conflict with your particular teachings in your faith but so was the Earth revolving around the Sun at one time. Why would a God give you the ability to critically think and problem solve then want you to not do either of these things? Don't stop seeking answers to the great mysteries of the universe and life itself. To stop looking for answers and explanations, and simply state "God did it", is in my opinion a truly blasphemous act.
I am interested in the contention that, "That kind of thinking has held back our development as humans for centuries and it's time to stop." Presumably the 'kind of thinking' being considered here is that life and certain aspects of nature bear earmarks of design, and that this fact should lead us to the conclusion there is a Designer.
How can be it said that this 'kind of thinking' has held us back, when indeed it was the thinking of some of the greatest scientists and philosophers of all time? And when we know that societies that have devoted themselves to other sorts of thinking (for example, that God does not exist) have been notably backwards in their scientific thinking? It would seem this assertion is demonstrably false.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: My two cents. - 7/21/2008 2:07:15 PM
|
|
|
Embedded
Posts: 44
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
The assumptions of scientific uniformitarianism are arrived at and agreed upon by concensus.
Is what we mean by scientific uniformitarianism now clear to you? It's quite clear that assumptions and consensus by uniformitarian naturalists are no more valid (or invalid) than those by YEC scientists. Origins "science" is not real science at all - it's a worldview based on assumptions and consensus.
Uh... ALL real Science has been based on "assumptions and concensus" within the scientific community that practices science for as long as I know of. There are differences of opinions (concensus) and differences in assumptions from time to time, but these differences eventually get ironed out. It is a dynamic and very human process on the one hand... on the other it has to work with the real physical evidence.
quote:
Fortunately, I'm on the side of the only Consensus that matters on the issue!
How nice for you that you can be so sure of it.
Too bad for you that history has shown that your "side" so often gets it wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: My two cents. - 7/21/2008 3:20:28 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
Too bad for you that history has shown that your "side" so often gets it wrong.
According to whom? You? **gasp**
|
|
|
|
|
RE: My two cents. - 7/21/2008 4:39:37 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
Actually, e1ng, the "proof of the pudding" lies in the impressive list of dozens of creation scientists who have founded their respective disciplines of scientific endeavor. Our side has "gotten it right" innumerable times in the history of scientific thought. As Jack points out, agno-atheists "have been notably backwards in their scientific thinking" for essentially all of recorded history. Of course, the a-a crowd revises history as readily as they revise scientific terminology!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
