WHERE DID ALL THAT WATER GO?

by MYOHNSEPH 70 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  hooberus

  Alan F said:

  "Hooberus, as usual your comments well illustrate the great divide between thinking human beings and Fundamentalists, particularly Fundies of the YEC persuasion. We were discussing the lack of evidence for Noah's Flood, and when challenged with some of this evidence all you could manage was the standard fallback -- beating up on "evolution" -- a concept you don't even understand. All you know is what Fundie "lights" have told you, which is about as representative of the facts as are descriptions of "evolution" by "lights" such members of the Watchtower Writing Department. You people conflate everything you don't like into the One Big Nasty -- EVOLUTION. One way or another your moronic leaders can find a way to shoehorn it in. Your last post shows how easy it is to do."

  Alan , since one of the basic interpretive principals of historical geology is the assumption of organic evolution over long geologic ages, evolution is very relevant to a discussion of geology. If organic macro-evolution (which I do understand) is shown to be suspect, then interpretations of geology based on it are also suspect.

  Edited by - hooberus on 27 January 2003 22:21:59
• 

  hooberus

  Do you base your interpretations of historical geology on a theory that teaches:

  • parcticles were transformed into self-replicating living cells with all their enzymes, proteins, coded DNA, and RNA.
  • And then these became multi-cell creatures, then invertebrates
  • then the invertebrates turnes into fish
  • which turned into amphibians,
  • then the amphibians turned into reptiles,
  • Then the reptiles turned into mammals
  • some of these little mammals like opossums later through a long process turned into people
  • but some of them went back out into the sea and turned into whales

  Do you then point fingers at those who don't believe this and say that they believe in myths?????
• 

  rem

  Hooberus,

  The geological column was created before the theory of evolution. Scientists knew that the earth was ancient and held many long extinct creatures well before Darwin publicized his theory.

  Here is some information on the geological column for you:

  http://www.okbu.edu/academics/natsci/earth/geolcolumn/

  The geological column can not very well be based on evolutionary assumptions if it was developed before the theory of evolution, now could it?

  rem
• 

  hooberus

  People who base their interpretations of geology on the Bible are accused here of basing their beleifs on myths and not on facts. Yet I would contend that those who base their interpretations of geology on the assumption of organic macro-evolution are themselves basing their beliefs on myth.
• 

  hooberus

  "The geological column can not very well be based on evolutionary assumptions if it was developed before the theory of evolution, now could it?"

  I never said that the geologic column was constructed based on evolutionary assumptions. My comments refered to the fact that most historical geology is interpreted based on evolutionary assumptions as the text books will admit. but while we are on the subject here is some information from Steven Austin Phd on the origin of the column:

  Misconception No. 1. The geologic column was constructed by geologists who, because of the weight of the evidence that they had found, were convinced of the truth of uniformitarian theory and organic evolution.

  It may sound surprising, but the standard geologic column was devised before 1860 by catastrophists who were creationists. 1 Adam Sedgewick, Roderick Murchison, William Coneybeare, and others affirmed that the earth was formed largely by catastrophic processes, and that the earth and life were created. These men stood for careful empirical science and were not compelled to believe evolutionary speculation or side with uniformitarian theory. Although most would be called "progressive creationists" in today's terminology, they would not be pleased to see all the evolutionary baggage that has been loaded onto their classification of strata.

  Misconception No. 2. Geologists composed the geologic column by assembling the "periods" and "eras" which they had recognized.

  The geologic column was not composed by assembling a chronology of "periods," "eras" or other supposed measures of time, but by superposition of objectively defined sequences of sedimentary strata called "systems." The "periods" and "eras" were later appended to the system nomenclature of the "geologic Column" transforming it into a "geologic time scale."

  Edited by - hooberus on 27 January 2003 23:0:6
• 

  rem

  Hooberus,

  You keep saying it and it'll make it true.

  rem

  p.s. There's no escaping the fact that scientists had abandoned the global flood theory long before Darwin's Origin of Species.

  Edited by - rem on 27 January 2003 23:2:22
• 

  hooberus

  rem, your the one who keeps saying "there was no global flood" over and over and over and over
• 

  rem

  Hooberus,

  I know... it's like saying "The earth is not flat" over and over again. But some people just don't get the picture. Perhaps some day you will learn critical thinking skills. It's not looking very promising so far, though.

  rem
• 

  SwedishChef

  AlanF,
  
  May God open your eyes to the truth.
• 

  AlanF

  Hoomorus hooberus opined:

  : Alan , since one of the basic interpretive principals of historical geology is the assumption of organic evolution over long geologic ages, evolution is very relevant to a discussion of geology. If organic macro-evolution (which I do understand) is shown to be suspect, then interpretations of geology based on it are also suspect.

  You're a friggin' moron, hooberus. I already explained this to you: The foundations of present day geology, including the existence of a "geologic column" which is flat-out denied by YECs, were laid by Christian geologists by 1830 -- long before Darwin's theory of evolution was published and long before "evolution" was accepted. What do you not understand?

  Geology is entirely independent of evolution. Geology supports conventional notions of evolution, and vice versa, but they do not determine one another. They support one another. Do you understand the difference?

  For example, the radioactive dating methods that are used to date igneous rocks upwards of a few hundred thousand years old are entirely based on principles of physics. They have nothing whatsoever to do with whether life arose by evolution or by creation. The sedimentary rocks in which fossils are found are primarily dated by their juxtaposition with dateable igneous rocks. It is this fact that makes YECs hate the concept of radioactive dating.

  Another thing that YECs hate is that fossils are nearly always found in the order that one would expect if life had evolved on its own. The rare exceptions are in places where large masses of rock have been overturned or otherwise massively disturbed by extreme tectonic movements, but in all these cases there is plenty of evidence of the disturbance. YECs are embarrassed that they have to come up with idiotic claims to explain this ordering, like "The smarter animals like mammals could run faster from the rising water and so that's why they're always found in higher sedimentary levels." Please!

  So the fossil record itself, in its general ordering, supports the notion that life evolved. It also supports the notion that life was created, but this has plenty of other problems. Once again, YECs lamely deny any evidence at all that supports the dreaded "evolution". They fail to understand that the fossil record says nothing at all about the origin of life, only about its development and change over the course of several billion years. Oops! Another YEC no no.

  The problem is, hooberus, you do understand these things, but you cannot admit it, because to admit it would mean that a foundation card in your intellectual house of cards would be removed. You cannot afford that, and so you engage in all sorts of runnings around in order to fool yourself into thinking you're actually thinking.

  Sigh.

  AlanF