Ask a former creationist

[thaumaturgy]

In other words you try and find an excuse not to believe the reality, in this case you call it 'catastrophism', (that's a manufactured word if ever there was one) a word which meant nothing but you were able to get yourself to believed anyway.
I can understand you having the ability to con someone else but I fail to see how you can con yourself, that really baffles me, unless of course you live completely on the surface and have no depth about you at all, a bit like Hollywood luvvies.

Hangback, actually catastrophism is a real geologic concept.

At the beginning of the history of Geology as a science there were several competing hypotheses as to how the structures of the earth got here and why they look the way they do. One was catstrophism which was championed by some early geologists like George Cuvier who believed that the earth was largely static except for massive "catastrophic" upheavals.

The contrasting hypothesis was one of uniformitarianism and gradualism in which initiallyit was assumed slow gradual change had formed the earth as it is.

In reality Uniformitarianism is really just a reaffirmation that processes we see happening today actually occurred similarly in the past. The rates may not have been the same but if you see ripple marks forming on a beach and you see ripple marks preserved in rock likely they are from the same sort of process.

In reality geology is not as black-and-white. We geologists are uniformitarianist unless evidence of a catastrophe exists (such as massive impact craters, earthquakes, massive earth slides.)

Geologists are rational beings who accept that catastrophes actually do occur but that there are structures that decidedly not formed via catastrophic events, and in fact require deep time to form under gradual conditions slowly.

The attractive thing about Catastrophism to Young Earth Creationists is that catastrophism allows structures to be formed without "deep time" (so the earth can be young).

Only problem is: there are many many structures on the earth that cannot have been formed via catastrophes and require long periods of time.

Case in point: just about any given shale which is made up of small (<2micron) particles, largely clays which are flat and platey and don't settle out of water quickly even when the water is very still. So if you drive by a road cut and see a 100' thick layer of shale you are looking at a lot of time there. And there are many shale layers in the geologic record.

But in addition there are structures that we see forming this very day at this very moment and we can time their formation down to the minute and know how long it takes to form them....and we can find analogues preserved in ROCK indicating a similar formation.

 

[hangback]

Your lack of knowledge about this subject does not do your view of creationism justice.

You and they can call it what you want and I don't care if the word has been used for a hundred years it's still nothing but a way to con yourself into believing the unbelievable.
Did you know that the world is run by Money Lenders and Bookmakers, the nice accepted term for them is: Banks and Insurance Companies, just change the name and it puts a more acceptable spin on things.

 

[hangback]

The attractive thing about Catastrophism to Young Earth Creationists is that catastrophism allows structures to be formed without "deep time" (so the earth can be young).

All of that may well be true but you can bet your bottom dollar that creationists do not use 'Catastrophism' as it was intended to be used, they twist it and use it to suit their own ends, if they couldn't twist it they wouldn't use it.

Only problem is: there are many many structures on the earth that cannot have been formed via catastrophes and require long periods of time.

Which only proves what I say, they use 'Catastrophism' where it might be applicable and discard it where it's not, they are twisting it to suit their own ends and are only fooling themselves, no one else is fooled, only them, it's mind blowing.

 

[Hespera]

All of that may well be true but you can bet your bottom dollar that creationists do not use 'Catastrophism' as it was intended to be used, they twist it and use it to suit their own ends, if they couldn't twist it they wouldn't use it.

We will file that under "news of the tautological".

 

[Freodin]

In reality Uniformitarianism is really just a reaffirmation that processes we see happening today actually occurred similarly in the past.

This is exactly what the creationist version of "catastrophism" denies.

Geologists are rational beings who accept that catastrophes actually do occur...

I guess no geologist would deny that... after all, we can still see the remnants of catastrophes. But this is not what creationists mean when they use that term. Their "catastrophies" are events that can go against natural law, leave no traces but change the world in a way that suits their needs.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is exactly what the creationist version of "catastrophism" denies.

Well, let's see if I got this right.

First, there's no such thing as catastrophism, and I'm making it up to con others.

Then there is catastrophism, but some processes don't go by catastrophism like I'd like to think.

Then there is catastrophism, but I use it where it applies, and discard it where it doesn't apply.

Now there's catastrophism, but I'm using the wrong version.

Does that about sum it up?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Well, let's see if I got this right.

First, there's no such thing as catastrophism, and I'm making it up to con others.

Hangback was wrong.

Then there is catastrophism, but some processes don't go by catastrophism like I'd like to think.

Catastrophism as it was originally envisioned by early geologists (ie the only events were catastrophes, hence "young earth") is unsupported by the mass of data and is no longer a seriously considered hypothesis in geology.

However you were spot on that modern Creationists use catastrophism to explain geologic features today which allows for a "Young Earth" and the only thing that they have to give up in the process is:

1. All of physics
2. Almost all of chemistry
3. Common sense
4. Gravity
5. Hydrodynamics
6. Almost all of the field of geology amassed over the past 2 centuries.

But other than that, it is an hypothesis.

Originally most geologists were OK with the Bible's chronology, hence Flood and Catastrophe made sense, until they started trying to fit the data (what the rocks showed), at which point Catatsrophism became what it should have been all along: one mechanism in an overall larger common sensical uniformitarianism that allows that occasionally catastrophes occur, much as they occur today.

Then there is catastrophism, but I use it where it applies, and discard it where it doesn't apply.

I have no doubt you apply catastrophism everywhere if you want. Of course I doubt you've actually looked at much in the way of rocks and geologic structures close enough to make sense of them using catastrophism.

Now there's catastrophism, but I'm using the wrong version.

If you think catastrophism accounts for the majority of the earth's structures and allows for a young earth you are doing so against the vast majority of data clearly and freely available to everyone everywhere.

IF, however, you believe fundamental laws of physics were different back "then", then you are not really dealing with catastrophism as it applies to earth sciences.

 

[AV1611VET]

Catastrophism as it was originally envisioned by early geologists (ie the only events were catastrophes, hence "young earth") is unsupported by the mass of data and is no longer a seriously considered hypothesis in geology.

If rocks can be destroyed by catastrophes, can they be created by catastrophes?

 

[thaumaturgy]

If rocks can be destroyed by catastrophes, can they be created by catastrophes?

Yes. Volcanic eruptions are an example of a "catastrophe". They create lava flows and pyroclastics etc.

Now, let's talk about non-catastrophic deposits, like huge shale deposits. Say, perhaps, the Marcellus Shale a formation that is dominated by a carbon-rich black shale and in some places the formation is 100' thick.

Very thick layers of shale require deposition under calm conditions. If the shale is (as most shales are) dominated by clay minerals which look like this:

Very tiny flat, platey things that take a loooong time to settle out of even calm water.

You can imagine it would take a long, long time to pile up tens of feet of this stuff, under anoxic conditions (hence the preservation of the carbon in something like a black shale) means loooong time under caaaaalm conditions.

Imagine using a "catastrophic event" to produce this:

See the rock behind the man's knees? The thin, thin plates? Each of those plates that you see is made up of zillions of tiny (less than 2 micron) particles mostly of clay minerals. All oriented flat against each other.

That takes a long time.

And this is just one of many, many many, many, many such formations all over the earth and all at different times in the rock record.

And that's just shales. There are countless other examples.

So, short answer: yes, catastrophes can result in rock formations. NO, they can't account for all rock formations. In fact they probably don't account for nearly as many as rock formations which can better be explained by just the same-ol' same-ol' processes going on every single day under our very noses and which we see and measure every single minute of every single day.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes.

Then I submit that the Creation Week was a catastrophic event.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Then I submit that the Creation Week was a catastrophic event.

Did you just clip out all the important stuff I said so you could reinforce your point?

Creation week was a catastrophic event, but since we don't know where it was in the geologic record we have to assume it is "way down near the bottom" and all the stuff that we see like huge shale deposits etc were laid down after the creation week event AND SHOW DEEP TIME AFTER THE END OF THE CREATION EVENT.

So the earth has literally been going around the sun for millions and billions of years as evidenced by data coming AFTER the Creation Week event. (Unless you think, in Genesis there are multiple "creation events" that occur after the creation week?)

The key here is that catastrophic events leave signatures of the catastrophe.

QED.

 

[keith99]

Link to the Green River Shale formation, spaeking specifically about how it was created over time and how absurd it is for this to have formed quickly.

The famous Green River Formation (including shale and limestone) covers tens of thousands

 

[Sanguis]

Then I submit that the Creation Week was a catastrophic event.

The difference is, the compounds that the rock was made of already existed, prior to the volcanic eruption.

What you're talking about is a magic man clicking his fingers and alakazam-ing everything into existence, from non-existence.

 

[AV1611VET]

The key here is that catastrophic events leave signatures of the catastrophe.

Don't make me pull rank on your geology with "God did it."

 

[Sanguis]

Did you just clip out all the important stuff I said so you could reinforce your point?

You expected something more from Av, other than "Ignore the rest of the post that goes against my point, and concentrate on the bit that enforces it, after the rest of the post has been ignored."?

C'mon, you've been here a lot longer than me, and I know what to expect from Av:

Nonsense.

I haven't been let down, yet!

 

[Sanguis]

Don't make me pull rank on your geology with "God did it."

That's not pulling rank, that's pulling an epic fail.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Don't make me pull rank on your geology with "God did it."

Rank? I'm sorry, again, how many years did you spend studying geology?

 

[shinbits]

I really meant when you were a creationist, how did you square it in your mind.

Didn't square well at all. You hope that nature proves God, but find out it does the opposite. Yeah, the creation was a miracle and not a natural event....but still.

 

[Sanguis]

Didn't square well at all. You hope that nature proves God, but find out it does the opposite. Yeah, the creation was a miracle and not a natural event....but still.

'Sactly!

If things can occur via natural process alone, then there's no reason to assume it's the result of the supernatural.

The more viable possibilities of something occurring entirely naturally there are, the less possible the supernatural becomes.

 

[AV1611VET]

You expected something more from Av, other than "Ignore the rest of the post that goes against my point, and concentrate on the bit that enforces it, after the rest of the post has been ignored."?

C'mon, you've been here a lot longer than me, and I know what to expect from Av:

Nonsense.

I haven't been let down, yet!

I asked a simple YES or NO question and got a full-page ad.

Now he wants me to address it, and it's not going to happen.