Question for Christians who believe in Evolution

[Job 33:6]

If the universe is time unfolding, and time is relative, then how do we know how old the earth actually is?

While time is relative, it is not something that varies between objects moving together at the same speed (such as earth and life that lives on earth)

Which is to say that, even if someone on earth fell asleep for 24 hours, they wouldn't wake up a thousand years later because their physical existence is of the same speed as earth which the observer rests on.

If we were inside a black hole in space, or if we were moving near the speed of light through space, while watching earth from light-years away, then maybe time might be experienced differently by us than by people on earth.

But until that experience occurs, then in our experience, earth will always be old.

 

[The Barbarian]

Again, Uniformitarianism as you've defined it is completely worthless as an overarching unifying "principle" of Geology. Completely ambiguous, zero heuristic value.

No, you've completely missed it. It says the same processes that operated in the past, are operating now. No magical floods, no miraculous mountains. Just natural processes. You've conflated that with a silly misrepresntation:

"Things happen in different ways."

I think by now, you're starting to realize how they misled you.

It's funny that you think throwing out a few particulars will somehow add validity to a useless generality (uniformitarianism)

That's what you keep messing up on; we see the same processes making the same sorts of things today, as made them in the past.

And that leading mainstream geologists themselves (Derek Ager for one) have admitted that classical Lyellian uniformitarianism lead researchers in a fundamentally wrong direction in assuming far too much gradualism in the rock record than there really was, and resisted catastrophism

Too bad for Derek then, who seems to have been completely unaware that Lyell wrote about evidence for floods and volcanic eruptions and other catastrophic change. Again, you were led down the path because you didn't know what Lyell actually said.

Your ideological camp would be far more believable if you simply came clean with past misrepresentations of the principle of uniformitarianism... just go with the usual "I don't care what Lyell wrote! I know what he really meant! So there!"

Creationists usually fall for that. That angle has served them far better in concealing the underlying rejection of science and facts that is really guiding creationism, irrespective what the Bible actually says.

 

[Job 33:6]

"On that side too were the obviously untenable views of bible-oriented fanatics, obsessed with myths such as Noah's flood, and of classicists thinking of Nemesis. That is why I think it necessary to include the following 'disclaimer': in view of the misuse that my words have been put to in the past, I wish to say that nothing in this book should be taken out of context and thought in any way to support the views of the 'creationists' (who I refuse to call 'scientific')." [Ager's emphasis]"

Reference

Ager, Derek, 1993, 1995 (paperback edition), The New Catastrophism: The Importance of the Rare Event in Geological History, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Great Britain.


Interesting.

 

[The Barbarian]

nteresting.

Thanks for the information. I should have known he was the target of a drive-by quote-mining.

In all likelihood, psyop is an innocent victim of the actual culprits; their M.O. is to post those dishonesties on creationist websites hoping someone will then spread around, and take the hit if someone there happens to know the story.

 

[-57]

No, you've completely missed it. It says the same processes that operated in the past, are operating now. No magical floods, no miraculous mountains. Just natural processes. You've conflated that with a silly misrepresntation:

Tell that to the polystrate trees.

 

[The Barbarian]

No, you've completely missed it. It says the same processes that operated in the past, are operating now. No magical floods, no miraculous mountains. Just natural processes. You've conflated that with a silly misrepresentation:

"Things happen in different ways."

I think by now, you're starting to realize how they misled you.

Tell that to the polystrate trees.

There are some forming just a few miles from my house. Same natural processes that produced those ancient polystrate trees. They lie to you about that, too.

Would you like to learn the different ways they can form?

 

[-57]

There are some forming just a few miles from my house. Same natural processes that produced those ancient polystrate trees. They lie to you about that, too.

Would you like to learn the different ways they can form?

Flood deposits in the way.

Your argument will be like....a tree fell into a crevice.

 

[The Barbarian]

Flood deposits in the way.

In the case of my trees, yes. The area was flooded when a dam was built and the woods were flooded. The trees are dead but still standing decades later, and are being covered up by repeated layers of silt.

Your argument will be like....a tree fell into a crevice.

Trying to invent arguments for your opponent will always make you look foolish. Learn from it.

 

[lifepsyop]

"On that side too were the obviously untenable views of bible-oriented fanatics, obsessed with myths such as Noah's flood, and of classicists thinking of Nemesis. That is why I think it necessary to include the following 'disclaimer': in view of the misuse that my words have been put to in the past, I wish to say that nothing in this book should be taken out of context and thought in any way to support the views of the 'creationists' (who I refuse to call 'scientific')." [Ager's emphasis]"

Reference

Ager, Derek, 1993, 1995 (paperback edition), The New Catastrophism: The Importance of the Rare Event in Geological History, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Great Britain.


Interesting.

Ah ha, and right on cue, there's the predictable strawman. Deflect from the actual argument (that the original "scientific" interpretations of an old earth were based on fundamentally flawed ideas), and instead pretend as if I suggested in any way that Ager's comments are in support of Creationism.

And I'm the one being called dishonest in this thread...

 

[The Barbarian]

And I'm the one being called dishonest in this thread...

Actually, if you look back, I suggested that you were duped on that deception; I doubt if you even read the article from which you gave a faulty interpretation.

This, however, was not honest of you:

Same with Komatiite's response. It's all just equivocation and wordplay. "Well we may have been completely ignorant of the fundamental processes that shaped the earth, but at the same time, we were right all along!"

If you use quotes, you better make sure he actually said what you claim he did. Otherwise people will draw conclusions.

 

[-57]

In the case of my trees, yes. The area was flooded when a dam was built and the woods were flooded. The trees are dead but still standing decades later, and are being covered up by repeated layers of silt.



Trying to invent arguments for your opponent will always make you look foolish. Learn from it.

Decades...now here I heard you guys said sediment took millions of years to build up.

We KNOW layers can form rapidly and as a bonus...gorged out quickly....Look at Mt St. Helens
When will you trust the Bible and true science?

 

[lifepsyop]

No, you've completely missed it. It says the same processes that operated in the past, are operating now. No magical floods, no miraculous mountains. Just natural processes. You've conflated that with a silly misrepresntation:

And now you're getting it. What you call "uniformitarianism" is simply naturalistic philosophy imposed upon the study of earth history. It's a blanket philosophical assertion that "Nature did it." And that's really all there is to it.

What's really funny is that, say fifty years from now, scientists come to the conclusion that the earth was in fact subject to a catastrophic global flood that shaped much of the earth's sedimentary layers. All you have to do is attribute it to only natural causes, and *boom*, the global flood is now, by your own definition, fully absorbed into Uniformitarianism.

This is simple logic. Your metaphysical ideology can accommodate anything, as long as you assert that a "natural process" lies behind it.

And this is why you (and all believers in Evolution) keep finding more and more supposed confirmation of your worldview, regardless of the data. You cannot interpret things in any other way but that which your ideology dictates.

 

[Job 33:6]

Ah ha, and right on cue, there's the predictable strawman. Deflect from the actual argument (that the original "scientific" interpretations of an old earth were based on fundamentally flawed ideas), and instead pretend as if I suggested in any way that Ager's comments are in support of Creationism.

And I'm the one being called dishonest in this thread...

Did the individual even say that uniformitarianism was flawed?

I don't think he did.

Here is another quote:
Derek Ager has noted that "geologists do not deny uniformitarianism in its true sense, that is to say, of interpreting the past by means of the processes that are seen going on at the present day, so long as we remember that the periodic catastrophe is one of those processes. Those periodic catastrophes make more showing in the stratigraphical record than we have hitherto assumed."[43]

Which is to say that he too accepts uniformitarianism, but he also doesn't want people to ignore periodic catastrophe such as local floods, asteroid impacts, mass extinctions events, mass volcanism etc.

 

[The Barbarian]

And now you're getting it.

It's what you've been confused about.

What you call "uniformitarianism" is simply naturalistic philosophy

No, you're still confused. There's no "philosophy" other than epistemological evidence. So far, all the changes in the Earth's surface have been shown to result from natural processes which are the same today as they were from the beginning of the Earth.

Your new beliefs are a blanket philosophical assertion that "God did it." And that's really all there is to it. On the other hand, the causes of past geological processes can be investigated and determined by scientific means. Your beliefs are merely "Godmustadunnit."

What's really funny is that, say fifty years from now, scientists come to the conclusion that the earth was in fact subject to a catastrophic global flood that shaped much of the earth's sedimentary layers.

They might someday find that things fall down because they are pulled by gravity fairies. But it's hard to see how that or your imaginary global flood could be possible. Since it would require processes not in evidence today, it would be quite a blow to uniformitarianism.

This is simple logic. Your metaphysical ideology of creationism can accommodate anything, as long as you assert that "God did it."

And this is why you (and all believers in YE creationism) keep making up more and more excuses and unbiblical miracles to find ways to get around the data. You cannot interpret things in any other way but that which your new doctrines dictate.

 

[The Barbarian]

Decades...now here I heard you guys said sediment took millions of years to build up.

Nope. Your creationist leaders lied about that, too. Some lamina can form very quickly. Some happen annually or semi-annually. Some, like river deltas, can take millions of years.

We KNOW layers can form rapidly

So did Lyell, who discussed such cases.

and as a bonus...gorged out quickly....Look at Mt St. Helens

You're surprised that heavy rains can quickly erode soft ash? Why would that surprise you? I've actually been there, many years ago, when it was relatively fresh. Going down from Johnson's Ridge, you could see tiny gulleys feeding into bigger ones, and these growing with every rain. But here's why the creationist notion of this being a model for the Grand Canyon fails; the gulleys were only being cut a few meters deep before the soft ash slumped into the gully. And only relatively straight drainage channels formed; no meanders, no oxbow, nothing like the Grand Canyon, which formed as a very old river, rejuvenated by uplift, and trapped in the channel, which it cut deeper and deeper into the rock.

Would you like to learn about that, and why it couldn't have been formed in a thousand years, much less a year?

When will you trust the Bible and just accept it the way God actually does it?

 

[Job 33:6]

"Even today's mainstream geologists will admit that Uniformitarianism is nonsense. " - lifespyops

"geologists do not deny uniformitarianism in its true sense, that is to say, of interpreting the past by means of the processes that are seen going on at the present day, so long as we remember that the periodic catastrophe is one of those processes. Those periodic catastrophes make more showing in the stratigraphical record than we have hitherto assumed."[43] -Derek Ager (paleontologist)

 

[-57]

Nope. Your creationist leaders lied about that, too. Some lamina can form very quickly. Some happen annually or semi-annually. Some, like river deltas, can take millions of years.



So did Lyell, who discussed such cases.

[quote[and as a bonus...gorged out quickly....Look at Mt St. Helens

You're surprised that heavy rains can quickly erode soft ash? Why would that surprise you? I've actually been there, many years ago, when it was relatively fresh. Going down from Johnson's Ridge, you could see tiny gulleys feeding into bigger ones, and these growing with every rain. But here's why the creationist notion of this being a model for the Grand Canyon fails; the gulleys were only being cut a few meters deep before the soft ash slumped into the gully. And only relatively straight drainage channels formed; no meanders, no oxbow, nothing like the Grand Canyon, which formed as a very old river, rejuvenated by uplift, and trapped in the channel, which it cut deeper and deeper into the rock.

Would you like to learn about that, and why it couldn't have been formed in a thousand years, much less a year?

When will you trust the Bible and just accept it the way God actually does it?[/QUOTE]

I'm thinking you ought to go study up a bit on actual canyon formation rather then present the lies you have bought into.

We know the Colorado river is under fit.
We know water will flow around and obstacle rather than through it...like your GC model calls for.

 

[Job 33:6]

Decades...now here I heard you guys said sediment took millions of years to build up.

We KNOW layers can form rapidly and as a bonus...gorged out quickly....Look at Mt St. Helens
When will you trust the Bible and true science?

This is just more dishonesty. Everyone is aware that in some circumstances, such as during a volcanic eruption, layers of ash could be deposited rapidly.

But obviously the worlds geology largely doesn't consist of ash.

And sure, we know that we can wash away a layer of loose ash if we throw a bucket of water at it, but again, the earth in large part isn't made nor ever was made of loose ash, but rather much of the earth consists of dense metamorphic rock, that would take literally millions of years to erode.

 

[-57]

This is just more dishonesty. Everyone is aware that in some circumstances, such as during a volcanic eruption, layers of ash could be deposited rapidly.

But obviously the worlds geology largely doesn't consist of ash.

And sure, we know that we can wash away a layer of loose ash if we throw a bucket of water at it, but again, the earth in large part isn't made nor ever was made of loose ash, but rather much of the earth consists of dense metamorphic rock, that would take literally millions of years to erode.

Your representation of what actually took place..is somewhat dishonest. The ash wasn't as loose as you think it was...but then again the strata at the GC wasn't as hard as you would think it was.

The bottom line...strata can form quickly. They find polystrate fossils in coal. According to the old earths coal takes millions of years to accumulate and turn to coal. Science now tells us that's not quite right. Vegetation that became coal was deposited rapidly and the biblical flood of Noah provide an excellent means.

Just for the record...as a christian I would not expect to see an ad-hom like argument from you calling me dishonest....Got it?

 

[The Barbarian]

Your representation of what actually took place..is somewhat dishonest. The ash wasn't as loose as you think it was.

I was actually there. It was surprisingly soft...

Notice, on the right bank of the gully, the soft ash slumping into the (maybe 12-meter high) gulley. That's about the limit of vertical walls back when I took the shot. 120 film on a Voigtlander Perkeo, to give you some hint of when it was taken.

..but then again the strata at the GC wasn't as hard as you would think it was.

Never been there, um? You see, the "strata" are quite variable in hardness; the Cardenas Basalt is volcanic rock, about 6.0 on the Mohs scale which would be considered "hard." There is other, softer rock, but the river cut down through the basalt, just as it cut through other strata. And there is no way a sudden rush of water could cut entrenched meanders in basalt.

The bottom line...strata can form quickly.

As Lyell pointed out, and I've shown you.

They find polystrate fossils in coal.

Which is quite normal. The decaying plant debris around the tree trunks form coal. You wouldn't see that in a huge flood. You have to have relatively still water to do that around the trees. That's no surprise, either.

Science now tells us that's not quite right.

Geologists have realized how coal forms for a long time. We have examples of all stages in the process still happening. Would you like to learn about that?