I volunteer

[IrishRockhound]

I am pleased to see that creationists have a forum where they can develop their ideas, without the intrusion of evolutionists. I am aware that the debate from my side of the fence is often vitriolic and seemingly insulting to creationists; I myself am guilty of it, and I am trying to avoid it in the future.

Being aware of the attitude of evolutionists so often encountered in the C&E debates, I wish to show you that we are not all bad. I make no excuses for the behaviour seen so far, but I can still do my part to demonstrate the goodwill all evolutionists and creationists should show to each other. We are human, after all, and needless insults do nothing but harm.

I am aware that, frequently, evolutionists may talk about or link to arguments or lines of evidence that are technically complicated, and as such difficult to understand. I certainly don't fully understand them all the time, because they may be beyond my area of expertise. My degree is in geology, with some extra qualifications in computer programming and modelling, and on this I feel I can speak authoritatively.

As I see so few creationist geologists, and so many misunderstandings between creationists and evolutionists, I offer my expertise in explaining evolutionist arguments that include geological data in layman's terms. I would only post if an explanation was requested (as I want to abide by the rules of this subforum), and I would endeavour to post in an objective and non-confrontational manner.

Make of it what you will, but I volunteer this in good faith. I have been hoping to find a forum where creationists can discuss and develop their ideas together without being heckled by evolutionists, and I would like to contribute something positive to it regardless of my own position on the subject.

IRH

 

[FallingWaters]

Thank you for the generous gesture, but I'm not sure how necessary your explanations might be.

The information for evolutionary thought concerning geology is easily and readily available in every medium known to man on the planet, and we are inundated with it! The layman's terms and explanations can be easily found in school books. A Google search for geology evolution yielded almost one million results. Certainly the information is already out there to be had.

I am not a Creationist for lack of evolutionist information. I am a Creationist because evolution is an attempt to explain earth history apart from a Creator, and since I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that my Creator exists, I know evolution must needs be wrong. It's as simple as that.

But thank you for your offer. It's nice to know that some people can be civil.

 

[Biblewriter]

As I see so few creationist geologists, and so many misunderstandings between creationists and evolutionists, I offer my expertise in explaining evolutionist arguments that include geological data in layman's terms. I would only post if an explanation was requested (as I want to abide by the rules of this subforum), and I would endeavour to post in an objective and non-confrontational manner.

Make of it what you will, but I volunteer this in good faith. I have been hoping to find a forum where creationists can discuss and develop their ideas together without being heckled by evolutionists, and I would like to contribute something positive to it regardless of my own position on the subject.

IRH

I would like to ask you to explain, not something that evolutionists say, but something that I have often pointed out. Without even one exception, all the professional geologist I have so far encountered have eventually admitted that they personally knew that this was correct.

I point out that the "gradual change" alleged to be recorded in the geologic column is fictitious. You can go to any rock outcropping in the world (that contains fossils), and see layers anywhere from a fraction of an inch thick to hundreds of feet thick. The fossils in the bottom of each layer are exactly like the fossils in the top of that layer. Then there is a line that a three-year-old child can point to, and above that line the fossils are different.

Of course, the standard answer has been that there are intermediate layers in other places that show other fossils.

But my answer to this has been to point out the so-called geological epochs, which have been named, and each of which goes all the way around the world. There are no deposits anywhere where we find widespread mixtures of fossils from adjacent epochs.

The only reasonable conclusion I can draw from these indisputable facts, is that what the geological actually shows is a long series of stable ecosystems, each of which appeared suddenly (in geological terms), flourished virtually unchanged for long periods of time, and suddenly disappeared, only to be immediately (again, in geological terms) replaced by a different stable ecosystem.

I believe that is has been argument on this point that led to the theory of punctuated equilibrium, the theory that evolution proceeds rapidly until it reaches an equilibrium, and then basically ceases to operate until "some unknown cause" punctuates that equilibrium.

I see this act of resorting to "unknown" causes nothing more than a desperate attempt to cling to a treasured concept in the face of overwhelming evidence that it is flawed.

The widespread knowledge of this information has been recently revealed in the recent global warming debates. The global warming hysteria has suddenly made it useful to argue that the repeated mass extinctions in the past are a warning that they could happen again. But these same individuals don't seem to even notice that these same mass extinctions are the death knell to their most treasured concept.

 

[IrishRockhound]

I would like to ask you to explain, not something that evolutionists say, but something that I have often pointed out. Without even one exception, all the professional geologist I have so far encountered have eventually admitted that they personally knew that this was correct.

I point out that the "gradual change" alleged to be recorded in the geologic column is fictitious. You can go to any rock outcropping in the world (that contains fossils), and see layers anywhere from a fraction of an inch thick to hundreds of feet thick. The fossils in the bottom of each layer are exactly like the fossils in the top of that layer. Then there is a line that a three-year-old child can point to, and above that line the fossils are different.

Of course, the standard answer has been that there are intermediate layers in other places that show other fossils.

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say here. I, personally, have not observed this in the rocks with which I am most familiar, i.e. Irish geological formations. One in particular I studied had a clear graduation in the sediment that moved from coarse to fine from the bottom to the top. Another had a fossil series consisting of trilobites and trace fossils, and on going from bottom to top the trilobites gradually disappeared entirely. I think I'm misunderstanding you.

But my answer to this has been to point out the so-called geological epochs, which have been named, and each of which goes all the way around the world. There are no deposits anywhere where we find widespread mixtures of fossils from adjacent epochs.

The only reasonable conclusion I can draw from these indisputable facts, is that what the geological actually shows is a long series of stable ecosystems, each of which appeared suddenly (in geological terms), flourished virtually unchanged for long periods of time, and suddenly disappeared, only to be immediately (again, in geological terms) replaced by a different stable ecosystem.

Hmm... perhaps I am understanding you correctly. But this is not the case, in my experience. All formations I have observed have displayed gradual and consistent changes, which conventional geology associates with gradually changing environments, and in which the graduation is only truly broken in the manner you describe by unconformities.

I believe that is has been argument on this point that led to the theory of punctuated equilibrium, the theory that evolution proceeds rapidly until it reaches an equilibrium, and then basically ceases to operate until "some unknown cause" punctuates that equilibrium.

I see this act of resorting to "unknown" causes nothing more than a desperate attempt to cling to a treasured concept in the face of overwhelming evidence that it is flawed.

The widespread knowledge of this information has been recently revealed in the recent global warming debates. The global warming hysteria has suddenly made it useful to argue that the repeated mass extinctions in the past are a warning that they could happen again. But these same individuals don't seem to even notice that these same mass extinctions are the death knell to their most treasured concept.

This is not the forum for such debate, and it is not my place to comment on creationist conclusions here. I will not be drawn into such a debate; I must respect the rules of this forum, and in this I can only explain what is, and what is not.

So my explanation (summary): In my experience, I have observed many formations which show a gradual change both in sediment type and in fossil composition. The change in sediment type in some cases was from coarse to fine or vice versa, and fossil composition usually consisted of the gradual disappearance of one fossil or the gradual appearance of another.

To FallingWaters: I offer this because, again, I see so many creationists that appear to have completely misunderstood the geology, or find it too technical to penetrate. In other cases, unfortunately, I find that creationist websites cited by debators contains more incorrect information. This presents further problems; any hypothesis constructed on faulty information will be shredded instantly by evolutionists.

I care about creationists basing their arguments on correct information, and about their understanding the arguments put forward by evolutionists.

And yes, I endeavour to be civil and objective. Mocking or insulting an opponent in a debate serves no one, and we should hold ourselves to higher standards than that.

{I'll be away for the weekend, so more posts on Monday at the earliest.}

IRH

 

[FallingWaters]

I would like to ask you to explain, not something that evolutionists say, but something that I have often pointed out. Without even one exception, all the professional geologist I have so far encountered have eventually admitted that they personally knew that this was correct.

I point out that the "gradual change" alleged to be recorded in the geologic column is fictitious. You can go to any rock outcropping in the world (that contains fossils), and see layers anywhere from a fraction of an inch thick to hundreds of feet thick. The fossils in the bottom of each layer are exactly like the fossils in the top of that layer. Then there is a line that a three-year-old child can point to, and above that line the fossils are different.

Of course, the standard answer has been that there are intermediate layers in other places that show other fossils.

But my answer to this has been to point out the so-called geological epochs, which have been named, and each of which goes all the way around the world. There are no deposits anywhere where we find widespread mixtures of fossils from adjacent epochs.

The only reasonable conclusion I can draw from these indisputable facts, is that what the geological actually shows is a long series of stable ecosystems, each of which appeared suddenly (in geological terms), flourished virtually unchanged for long periods of time, and suddenly disappeared, only to be immediately (again, in geological terms) replaced by a different stable ecosystem.

I believe that is has been argument on this point that led to the theory of punctuated equilibrium, the theory that evolution proceeds rapidly until it reaches an equilibrium, and then basically ceases to operate until "some unknown cause" punctuates that equilibrium.

I see this act of resorting to "unknown" causes nothing more than a desperate attempt to cling to a treasured concept in the face of overwhelming evidence that it is flawed.

The widespread knowledge of this information has been recently revealed in the recent global warming debates. The global warming hysteria has suddenly made it useful to argue that the repeated mass extinctions in the past are a warning that they could happen again. But these same individuals don't seem to even notice that these same mass extinctions are the death knell to their most treasured concept.

This question should technically be responded to out in Origins Theology, not in Creationism, since surely any non-Creationist will have a non-Creationist response.

Thankfully, the Irish gentleman is a respecter of rules.