Contradictions and Conflicts of Uniformitarian Geology and Evolution….

That last post (by Edmond) had a good quote. Especially important was the bit about how Uniformitarianism ADDED slow processes to the acknowledged localized flood/delta/mudslide etc. effects.

I guess my main problem with this thread was the OP. It seemed to draw some conclusions based on a misunderstanding of Uniformitarianism, and there were some logical leaps that I did not follow.

@Edmond: Could you please restate your point in this thread? Simply pointing me back to a previous post won't do, as I've reread the thread and I'm still confused. What, precisely, are you claiming and how did you come to that conclusion?

Edmond said:

Read the presentation of this subject .... Your conclusion about uniforitainaism to date appear to be very misinformed.

[size=+1]DEVELOPMENT OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY[/size]


"Geologists had for some time doubted the "truth" of a 5,000 year old earth. Leonardo da Vinci (painter of the Last Supper, and the Mona Lisa, architect and engineer) calculated the sedimentation rates in the Po River of Italy, and concluded it took 200,000 years to form some nearby rock deposits. Galileo, convicted heretic for his contention that the earth was not the center of the Universe, studied fossils (evidence of past life) and concluded that they were real and not inanimate artifacts. James Hutton, regarded as the Father of modern Geology, developed (in 1795) the Theory of Uniformitarianism, the basis of modern geology and paleontology. According to Hutton's work, certain geological processes operated in the past in much the same fashion as they do today, with minor exceptions of rates, etc. Thus many geological structures and processes cannot be explained if the earth is only 5000 years old. British geologist Charles Lyell refined Hutton's ideas during the 1800s to include slow change over long periods of time; his book Principles of Geology had profound effects on Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace." ....
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookEVOLI.html


------------------------

Click to expand...

Edmond, your posts are wandering all over the place but you have not addressed the point I was making.

Your implicit description of uniformatarianism and the geologic column do not present uniformatarianism as it was nor as it is.

What I am saying is that this quote of yours:-

Edmond said:

If a consistent and uniform geologic column (geologic record) and its sedimentations exist world wide, then the meteorological conditions that caused that result had to consistent and simultaneous in order to cause such uniform global depositions.

Click to expand...

is crap – to put it mildly. Yet your argument in the thread starter appears to rely on this misconception that geologists argue for a:-


1) “consistent and uniform geologic column”?
2) with sediments that “exist world wide”?
3) and that such shows that the conditions which caused this had to be “consistent and simultaneous”?

Now 1), 2) and 3) together are complete nonsense.

You have not addressed this point at all. Your last post to me failed to address it.

So how about addressing it? This should not be a hard thing to do! Tell me, how does the last quote you gave me address my assertion that your implicit definition of uniformatarianism is nonsense? Just concentrate on this one point.


Regards, Roland

Edmond said:

OC- In post 14 I have presented introductions to volume and page numbers for references I have sited from Lyell's Principles of Geology and applied to the topics discussed there.

You have accused me of not reading Lyell's Principle. Now you have presents statements countering the information I have provided. Yet, in so doing, you have presented no information, quotes or refernces from that same work to support any of the claims you have made.
Possibly you should place your accusations on your shoulders. Please provide refernces of Volume and page from Lyell's Principle that provide the information to authenticate each of the counter-claims and statements you have made in your opposing opinions. Thank you. ...

------------------------

Click to expand...

From "Principles", Chapter 23, page 409:

After describing the effects of modern observed earthquakes and volcanoes, Lyell writes:

"Yet with a knowledge of these terrific catastrophes, witnessed during so brief a period by the present generation, will the geologist declare with perfect composure that the earth has settled into a state of repose? Will he continue to assert that the changes of relative level of land and sea, so common in the former ages of the world, have now ceased? If, in the face of so many striking facts, he persists in maintaining this favorite dogma, it is in vain to hope that, by accumulating the proofs of similar convulsions during a series of antecedant ages, we shall shake the tenacity of his purpose..."

Now Edmond, does this sound like Lyell thought the earth was shaped solely by "slow and steady" processes?

Once again, Edmond, I encourage you to actually read what Lyell wrote in "Principles". Go to the link I previously posted, and download any of the chapters on running water, earthquakes, or volcanoes. Try chapters 11 and 23, for starters.

Then come back and we can discuss what Lyell actually said.