quote:
Many of your line of questions has been brought up and dealt with before.
Then do so. So far all I've seen is handwaving and evasion.
quote:
It is creationists belief that almost all geologic layers were laid down at once.
Then, once again:
Why aren't all the fosssils mixed?
Why are they sorted in an evolutionary manner? Please note that this does not make any assumptions about timescales or evolutionary mechanisms.
It is a simple observation. A
relative timescale for virtually all, if not all strata observed has been constructed, so we can tell in what order they were laid down
regardless of whether this was done in one year of a global flood or over 4.5billion years.
Another simple observation. As we look at ever older strata, we see older organisms fossilised; we see modern species vanishing and precursor species appearing; we see whole orders vanishing.
Loudmouth's chart of the development of the mammalian jaw is a classic example.
quote:
We don't accept the separation that is now made in geology and so the premise behind yours points negates its strength.
What separation?
quote:
To you British folk a little behind North America...
Far ahead rather, I would have said.
quote:
...on the great debate creationists today are making the strong point that what one sees in the field is where it is for exactlly the reason it is.
This is tautological. Unless of course you are falling back on Goddidit.
quote:
IT was place there by events all at once.
And sorted to give the appearance of evolution. You are getting very close to the "God the liar" argument, or to give it it's more technical name the
Omphalos argument.
quote:
Indeed the old idea introduced by a British dude in geology that the present is the evidence of the past , I forgot his name,called uniformatism is falling to pieces by the accepted ideas of plate teutonics, glacial action, and the new meltwater outbursts sweeping geology today.
Sir Charles Lyell, who devloped and was instrumental in the general acceptance of the concept of Uniformatism first proposed by James Hutton.
Remember that the theory he was arguing against was that there had been a series of
world wide catastrophic events that destroyed all or virtually all life, after which God recreated life multiple times. The battle for a single creation event and the single catastrophic flood of Noah had been abandoned by then.
As with anyy such debate he over-egged the pudding, and there is a much greater acceptance of essentially
local catastrophic events, but Catastrophism is dead in modern geology.
quote:
I would also add that Darwin's biological idea was based on the premise of a uniformatarian geology idea. Here comes the crash.
Only in the sense that his theory removed the last
need for catastophic clearance by providing a mechanism for gradual change in life forms, and in that Lyell's uniformatism in geolgy gave Darwin the idea for uniformatism in the development of life.
He too, again, over-egged the pudding in stressing gradualism in Natural Selection. In some writings he accepts pauses and spurts in the rate of evolution, but, again, was arguing against saltation - the sudden emergance of wholly new species.
For Whigs admit no force but argument.
™ Version 4.2
