Contradictions and Conflicts of Uniformitarian Geology and Evolution .

[Edmond]

The theory of uniformitarian geology proposes that the sedimentations identified by the geologic record have been laid down slowly and uniformly throughout the world over a period exceeding 1/2 billion years. Yet, at the same time the same theory proposes that globally non-uniform local meteorological conditions such as local floods were the cause of a large part of the sedimentation results found in to present geologic record.
If globally non-uniform local weather conditions such as local floods were the cause of a large part of the sedimentation results seem in an assumed or affirmed uniform, almost universal global stratification, how can such a condition be present in the record when non-universal, localized floods are said to be the primary cause of such a universal stratification record over a period that is supposed to represent 600,000,000 + years of time? (The geologic timetable proposed by evolution represented from beginning of cambrian through tertiary period)

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.

Such climatic conditions are the type defined by the flood in Genesis 6-8. Yet the evolutionary uniformitarian geology theory will not accept the account of those conditions based on two areas of disagreement. One is that they reject the global flood condition presented in Genesis and claim that non-uniform global climatic conditions over a period of ½ billion years were one of the primary contributors to the result seen in the geology record today. Two, they reject the conditions of time presented in Genesis 6-8 to account for flood geology in he same way just the theory of biological evolution rejects the conditions of time in Genesis 1-2, based on the conclusions that life could not have appeared in that short period of TIME but had to have evolved slowly over some ½ billions years of time as well. Therefore, uniformatarian geology concludes that sedimentation was laid down slowly and uniformly throughout the world in every region and on every continent for ½ billion years as well.

Their belief in long ages of time is the central common driving force that requires that they approach to the interpretation of geologic evidence and biological evidence as it would fit into the predisposed conclusions of long ages of time. One of their arguments for such proposed long ages is the use of radiometric measurement techniques to determine the proposed dating of rocks.

Assuming, for a moment that radio, that metric dating is revealing the age of rock as being old, they fail to consider that the earth and its rock, if created as also defined in Genesis 1, would have had the appearance of age from their beginning. Therefore the appearance of age presented by radiometric dating would indicate measurements of age when in reality such apparent age is the result of having been created fully formed.

Therefore, the conclusion presented is that evolution rejects the proposed presentations of Genesis 1-2 and 6-8 because it rejects the consideration that the events presented could not have happened in short periods of time. They conclude that rocks could not have been made in a short period of time, that life could not have been made in a short period of time and that present global geology could not be the results of the Genesis. 6-8 universal global events that would have caused universal and consistently measurable effects as seen throughout geology because of its universal short period of duration.

What are the two founding pillars of modern evolution [ME]? They are the theory of biological evolution and the theory of uniformitarian geology. What have they rejected most universally about these Genesis accounts? They have rejected the propositions of what could have taken place in these accounts in the short periods of time that account for the results they presents. The first is found in Genesis 1-2, the second short period of time in 6-8. These are the two sections of Genesis that these two main pillars of ME challenge and most strongly propose to reject. These are the defining conditions of rejection of ME that began with Darwin and Lyell.

Therefore, it is a disbelief that supernatural causes that can result in such effects that are found to be the root of their rejection of the propositions found in this documentation. In the case of Genesis 1&2, if they believed such events were possible by such causes they would also conclude that their effects could have been created with the appearance of age….just as Adam undoubtedly had as defined in the account. In the case of Genesis 6-8, if they believed that a global flood of catastrophic proportion describe in the account could have occurred in the period of time describe (approx.360 days from beginning to the disembarking from the vessel of safety) it would be considered that the massive evidence of the immediate and catastrophic death defined by the fossil record and the scale of global geologic upheaval and displacement known today that could be accounted for by scale and magnitude describe in the globally defined event of Genesis 6-8. (information which, by the way, was not known at the time of the writing of the Genesis account.

Point: The global magnitude of the event disclosed in the account defines simultaneous total world-wide flood devastation conditions of catastrophic proportion. The writer had no knowledge that such geologic flood induced results, such as those defined in the geologic record, existed when this account was written. Yet he wrote an account that describes the scale of death defined by that record today. In addition, the Genesis account of the flood is the only ancient account of flooding that attributes its magnitude to conditions that reached total and global proportions that covered the whole earth as its topography existed at that time.).

Time, therefore, which is ultimately defined by the speed of light in the physical universe, would present no constraint to the One who is also presented in Genesis as having created the light that defines time ,and therefore initiated the time these accounts present. It is therefore a gross oversight to assume that the information in these chapters of Genesis are false, allegorical, mystical or non-literal because the time presented will not allow for such events and their effects to take place, when in actuality time and events present no barrier to the One who, in the first place, …. created time. ( "In the beginning" ....).

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

 

[GoSeminoles!]

You must reduce other people's reputation before reducing Edmond's again.

 

[Opethian]

You must reduce other people's reputation before reducing Edmond's again.

If you are really capable of that, feel free to reduce mine and swing away at him afterwards!

 

[Opethian]

Seriously now, there is no such thing as a uniform layer of global flood sedimentation. You wrote a whole lot of lines of text which ultimately add to nothing.

 

[MartinM]

The theory of uniformitarian geology proposes that the sedimentations identified by the geologic record have been laid down slowly and uniformly throughout the world over a period exceeding 1/2 billion years.

No, it doesn't. Uniformitarian geology simply holds that the processes we see today are responsible for the geologic record of the past. It doesn't propose an exactly constant global rate of deposition precisely because the processes we see today don't support an exactly constant global rate.

 

[Apos]

No, it doesn't. Uniformitarian geology simply holds that the processes we see today are responsible for the geologic record of the past. It doesn't propose an exactly constant global rate of deposition precisely because the processes we see today don't support an exactly constant global rate.

Wow, that's pretty sad. Tons of paragraphs, all based on a complete misunderstanding of what scientists and geologists mean by uniformitarian principles.

Did Edmond really believe that scientists thought the climate and sediment formation were identical everywhere throughout all history? The existence of volcanoes or erosion had simply escaped the knowledge of geologists until he came along to correct them on a messageboard?

 

[Dannager]

You failed at the first sentence, Edmond. The first sentence.

 

[rjw]

The theory of uniformitarian geology proposes that the sedimentations identified by the geologic record have been laid down slowly and uniformly throughout the world over a period exceeding 1/2 billion years. Yet, at the same time the same theory proposes that globally non-uniform local meteorological conditions such as local floods were the cause of a large part of the sedimentation results found in to present geologic record.
If globally non-uniform local weather conditions such as local floods were the cause of a large part of the sedimentation results seem in an assumed or affirmed uniform, almost universal global stratification, how can such a condition be present in the record when non-universal, localized floods are said to be the primary cause of such a universal stratification record over a period that is supposed to represent 600,000,000 + years of time? (The geologic timetable proposed by evolution represented from beginning of cambrian through tertiary period)

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.

Such climatic conditions are the type defined by the flood in Genesis 6-8. Yet the evolutionary uniformitarian geology theory will not accept the account of those conditions based on two areas of disagreement. ...


[snip]

Gidday Edmond,


A large chunk of your argument appears to rely on the following:-

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.

You do realize that, in the day’s when uniformitarianism ruled geology, no geologist would have argued that “a consistent and uniform geologic column … and its sedimentations exist world wide” simply because such was never and has never been observed.

So what on earth are you talking about?

If no geologist has ever observed such a column, then why imply that they had or that they claimed that they had?

And why base an argument on something your opponents would never have thought in the first place?

Have you ever read any mainstream books which tell you how uniformitarianists worked out the geologic column? Have you ever read any books which tell you of the history behind uniformatarianism? It seems to me that you have never read any such books.


Regards, Roland


PS Could you supply any quotes in support of your contention? By quotes, I mean quotes plus references.

 

[tocis]

Seriously now, there is no such thing as a uniform layer of global flood sedimentation. You wrote a whole lot of lines of text which ultimately add to nothing.

Sums it up nicely.

 

[Edmond]

Seriously now, there is no such thing as a uniform layer of global flood sedimentation. You wrote a whole lot of lines of text which ultimately add to nothing.

The idea of uniform layers is that of being laid down slowly over long periods of time. That is the basic premises of Lyell’s ideathat nature slowly acting over immense periods of time to cause the sedimentation deposits that are found in the geologic record today.

For an introduction to this conclusion see Lyell’s , Principles of Geology; Vol. 2 chapt. 16, pgs. 255-59. Here he begins by using illustration of burials ay sea and the slow movements of sediment that presumably preserve the remains and a series of similar illustration and concepts that introduce the reader to slow processes of burial and the slow work of sedimentation. This goes on through chapt. 17 pgs 272-282.

In Vol 3 chapt 1, pg.1 and following, Lyrell attempts to refute, what he refers to as the former conclusions of the deluge (Genesis flood ) and geologic concepts that where used to support that theory. In Vol 3., chapt 2, pgs 8 and following Lyell goes more deeply with his theory of uniform deposition by using terrestrial land surface with illustrations and concepts that attempt to further support slow deposition of sediment…yet, according to Lyell, fossils are still, ‘found entombed”.

This then is the basis of all of Lyell’s presupposition that slow ‘uniform’ processes of depositions over periods of millions of years are what have given us the geologic record that is seen today.

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

 

[Valkhorn]

if created as also defined in Genesis 1, would have had the appearance of age from their beginning.

I think this quote was priceless. In other words Edmond is saying the Earth does look like it's old and the facts point to an old Earth but Genesis 1 is a test of faith.

I guess some people sleep better at night believing in a deceptive god.

 

[Apos]

It's interesting that the word "Lyell" appears several times in both of Edmond's posts, and yet he never once introduces this person or describes what relevance they have to this discussion. He's just introduced as the be-all and end-all of what science has to say on the age of the earth.

Lyell is of course a famous early contributor to the field of geology, and of course it's nice to discuss his views and how they shaped the field, but the fact that his name just shows up strongly suggests that this is just yet another in a long line of copy/paste posts and even, perhaps, responses (note that Edmond's reponse doesn't really respond directly to anything: it's just a couple more paragraphs on what Lyell's claimed views are).

Now, Lyell died in 1875, making his views a teensy bit out of date, and hence rather irrelevant to modern geology. But even so, his principle of uniformity seems to refer not to a literalistic uniform action everywhere on the globe, but rather the idea of a unformity of the general geological processes we see operating back in time, all acting as slowly as we see them operating in modern times.

This wikipedia entry seems not to include any of the claims Edmond is making about Lyell thinking that layers were just laid down exactly the same everywhere:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lyell

Odd, that, no? Perhaps he should edit the wikipedia article to reflect what he claims Lyell thought.

 

[rjw]

The theory of uniformitarian geology proposes that the sedimentations identified by the geologic record have been laid down slowly and uniformly throughout the world over a period exceeding 1/2 billion years. Yet, at the same time the same theory proposes that globally non-uniform local meteorological conditions such as local floods were the cause of a large part of the sedimentation results found in to present geologic record.
If globally non-uniform local weather conditions such as local floods were the cause of a large part of the sedimentation results seem in an assumed or affirmed uniform, almost universal global stratification, how can such a condition be present in the record when non-universal, localized floods are said to be the primary cause of such a universal stratification record over a period that is supposed to represent 600,000,000 + years of time? (The geologic timetable proposed by evolution represented from beginning of cambrian through tertiary period)

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.

Such climatic conditions are the type defined by the flood in Genesis 6-8. Yet the evolutionary uniformitarian geology theory will not accept the account of those conditions based on two areas of disagreement. One is that they reject the global flood condition presented in Genesis and claim that non-uniform global climatic conditions over a period of ½ billion years were one of the primary contributors to the result seen in the geology record today. Two, they reject the conditions of time presented in Genesis 6- ...

[snip]

Gidday Edmond,


A large chunk of your argument appears to rely on the following:-

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.

You do realize that, in the day’s when uniformitarianism ruled geology, no geologist would have argued that “a consistent and uniform geologic column … and its sedimentations exist world wide” simply because such was never and has never been observed.

So what on earth are you talking about?

If no geologist has ever observed such a column, then why imply that they had or that they claimed that they had?

And why base an argument on something your opponents would never have thought in the first place?

Have you ever read any mainstream books which tell you how uniformitarianists worked out the geologic column? Have you ever read any books which tell you of the history behind uniformatarianism? It seems to me that you have never read any such books.


Regards, Roland


PS Could you supply any quotes in support of your contention? By quotes, I mean quotes plus references.

 

[Edmond]

Gidday Edmond,
A large chunk of your argument appears to rely on the following:-

You do realize that, in the day’s when uniformitarianism ruled geology, no geologist would have argued that “a consistent and uniform geologic column … and its sedimentations exist world wide” simply because such was never and has never been observed.

I'm afriad you are way off with those assumptions. And....apparently you are not yet aware that Lyell's uniformitarian theory of geology is what 'rules geology' today....and has exclusively dominated as its theory for at least the past century +.

"Lyell, as well as Roderick Murchison and George Poulett Scrope became an outspoken opponent of the diluvial position. Lyell is most famous for his great geological opus: The Principles of Geology: Being an Attempt to Explain the Former Changes of the Earth's Surface, by Reference to Causes now in Operation (3 vols 1830-33).
Lyell advocated what William Wheell later dubbed a uniformitarian view of geology. This assumed first of all the constancy of natural laws (except as regarded the origin of new species which was left rather vague). The kinds of causes which affected the earth in the past must be assumed to have been exactly those we see in operation today." http://www.victorianweb.org/science/lyell.html

"Modern Uniformitarian Geology basically tells us that the wonderful sculptures of rock and land that we find, were done through millions and millions of years by the ordinary forces of nature; slowly and uniformly building and eroding over immense time, until today. Modern Uniformitarian Geology complements Evolution Geology.

"Sir Charles Lyell (1797-1875) was the founding father of modern geology."

http://home.primus.com.au/bonno/evolution9.htm

So what on earth are you talking about?
If no geologist has ever observed such a column, then why imply that they had or that they claimed that they had?

And why base an argument on something your opponents would never have thought in the first place?

Have you ever read any mainstream books which tell you how uniformitarianists worked out the geologic column? Have you ever read any books which tell you of the history behind uniformatarianism? It seems to me that you have never read any such books.

I suppose I would need to reflect those same questions back to you ...but at a much more basic level. ...

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

 

[Edmond]

It's interesting that the word "Lyell" appears several times in both of Edmond's posts, and yet he never once introduces this person or describes what relevance they have to this discussion. He's just introduced as the be-all and end-all of what science has to say on the age of the earth.

Lyell is of course a famous early contributor to the field of geology, and of course it's nice to discuss his views and how they shaped the field, but the fact that his name just shows up strongly suggests that this is just yet another in a long line of copy/paste posts and even, perhaps, responses (note that Edmond's reponse doesn't really respond directly to anything: it's just a couple more paragraphs on what Lyell's claimed views are).

You might want to refer to post 10 and post 14. You'll learn a lot more about Lyell. Considered an equal or greater than his predicessor James Hutton, Charles Lyell is well known as the father He is well know as the founding father of medern geology.

Now, Lyell died in 1875, making his views a teensy bit out of date, and hence rather irrelevant to modern geology. But even so, his principle of uniformity seems to refer not to a literalistic uniform action everywhere on the globe, but rather the idea of a unformity of the general geological processes we see operating back in time, all acting as slowly as we see them operating in modern times.

This wikipedia entry seems not to include any of the claims Edmond is making about Lyell thinking that layers were just laid down exactly the same everywhere:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lyell

Odd, that, no? Perhaps he should edit the wikipedia article to reflect what he claims Lyell thought.

I'd suggest rather than reading a wikipedia quote on Lyell and then presenting as an expert, you beginning by reading his Principles of Geology in 3 volumes. You find out a lot more about what the man really studied and proposed. ..

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

 

[Apos]

Edmond, please do not insult us by pretending that YOU read Principles of Geology.

Of course, that's irrelevant. I don't claim to be an expert on Lyell, but I don't need to be to see that:

1) his work is more than a 125 years old, prior to even plate tectonics. It's of course crucial to the history of geology, but his opinions are irrelevant to the rightness or wrongness of the modern synthesis which is based not on his authority, but on extensive evidence (the vast vast majority of which came long after he was dead)
2) his major contribution to geology just isn't what you claim it is: you're attacking a straw man in ADDITION to that straw man being irrelevant anyway

The bottom line is that the constancy of natural laws and the idea that the processes we see working today were generally the same that have been working in the past (which is what Lyell DID propose) is NOT the same thing as what your OP implies: that the exact SAME geologic processes took place EVERYWHERE, ALWAYS (i.e. there was equal amounts of erosion everywhere, equal amounts of volcanic activity everywhere, etc.). Of course, I may be mistaken about what you are claiming, since your opening paragraphs are so jumbled and ambiguous that it's often hard to make out what you are saying. But if you aren't claiming that, then I can't see that you have any argument at all.

Regardless:

The age of the earth is not a pre-selected conclusion. It's based on countless different lines of evidence all of which paint the same picture: not just in general, but in fine detail. I already brought up the issue of seafloor spreading (with no satisfactory explanation or response from you that I recall seeing). But every piece of physical evidence found on the planet AND off the planet suggests the operation of processes which took far far far longer than a few thousand years to get to their present states, and allow us to figure out the age of the entire planet in many many different ways, all which miraculously converge on the same dates as well as the same details about geological periods and the events therein.

Most bizarre is that after rambling about how scientists must have the age of the earth wrong, you turn around and assert that the earth was created with the appearance of age. Well, which is it? Are scientists reading the evidence correctly, and just missing the possibility that all the evidence was manufactured for an elaborate deception (it would have to be intentional, for the readings we get for the age of the earth are not just "old" but tailored to give very specific dates for all manner of events). Or are they getting the evidence wrong period?

Side question to you: would God give Adam a navel? Why would God do something that implied something that the Bible itself is not true (i.e., that Adam had a mother, and was once a fetus in a womb)

 

[Opethian]

Edmond, you are forgetting a small detail about the world we are living in:


It's 2006...

Not 1806...

 

[Edmond]

No, it doesn't. Uniformitarian geology simply holds that the processes we see today are responsible for the geologic record of the past.

Read post 10 and 14 and then Charles Lyell's Princilies of Geology written in 3 volumes. What you have said here only reflects a very small segment of this theory.

It doesn't propose an exactly constant global rate of deposition precisely because the processes we see today don't support an exactly constant global rate.

It does in the sense that it says the 'geologic column', the record of geology, consistently represents the past of the entire earth's geologic history. If that were true, then one location of the deopsitions of the geologic column, the record of earth's time...and the evolution of life.. had to have been consistant, in its stratification all over the world during the same era of time...In geologic terns...that means that all eras of strata had to laid down during the same time period. That is what is meant in the use of the phrase 'same constatnt global rate' of deposition. It means the same era or period of time. ...

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

 

[Valkhorn]

Edmond, I'm going to settle this debate once and for all.

How many college courses/classes have you had in Geology?

Just answer me.

 

[Edmond]

I think this quote was priceless. In other words Edmond is saying the Earth does look like it's old and the facts point to an old Earth but Genesis 1 is a test of faith.
I guess some people sleep better at night believing in a deceptive god.

Valkhorn, I don’t really think the proposition of the idea reveals ‘deception’ on God’s part at all. I think the problem is that we have not looked at the Genesis account closely and literally enough to see what it MIGHT be implying that may address the appearance of very long, almost infinite ages, relatively speaking, of earth’s material.

I would like to ask you to take a time-out from the ad hominem comments and look at the implications of what I would like to ask you to discuss with me about this subject of the apparent age of the earth, its material. I am not trying to make something just sound right in presenting this information about the earth’s material ‘appearing’ to have a very ancient age. I believe there are things to consider about the sequence of creation events that may suggest that these things could have produced the appearance of what we call today…long ages of time in the dating of earth material.

Let me starts here. It is known today that the measurement of time and time itself is all based on the speed of light. Imaging, with me for a moment ( no pun intended), that there was an occurrence in the universe when material had been created…yet…there was still no light present. My question is, how much age would that material then appear to have if radiometric methods of dating were latter to be applied to its substance? Is it possible it would look very old since it had been created BEFORE there was any reference of TIME and therefore to AGE in the physical universe?

Here is the point of such a question. If you look closely at the sequence of creation written in Genesis, you will find a very interesting disclosure made that relates to this issue. The words of Genesis state that two things were created before light was created in the universe. They are the heavens and the earth. ‘In the beginning God created the heavens …and the earth, and the earth was formless and void…”. ( Gen.1:1,2a) The words formless and void, are a translated phrase that presents the means of the original word used that means empty or a waist as something that is not occupied, empty. It does not imply shapeless as the word ‘formless’ alone may imply to some. Here the material that make–up the earth has been created. Yet no presence of light is yet said to be in the heavens at the time. Since light is the measure of the presence of time, no time was yet present. Light is said to have been added to the universe in 1:3.

Therefore, Genesis literally states that the earth was created before light, and therefore before the presence of time existed around it. Since this is the case presented in Genesis, would the material of the earth ‘test’ to be almost eons of time old, or very old, if it had been created before time existed?


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