Thank God for Evolution!

[buffalo]

You were all against it until one video from Peter? Oh my goodness. No I did not. I have dialup so I could not. But do you honestly think in the deepest recesses of your mind that hundreds of thousands of scientists are actively misleading you with some profound motive to destroy your faith? My God, open you eyes. You cannot possibly assume that some one has this momentous evidence of creationism or anti-evolutionary evidence and nobody believes it. The entire geological and evolutionary world would be upside down and it would be headlines in every paper. I’m wondering if you are quite young and have not yet acquired the usual college learned techniques for discerning truth from fiction in evaluating sources and material. Creationists make things “sound” right, they are just almost always not true in any way but the most superficial.

It took one guy and about 50 years for the rest of the geologists to see the light about the scablands.

 

[buffalo]

But did you read the article that demonstrates that Berthault’s claims are hubris? Or are you so easily seduced by rubbish that you have decided to look no further?

Alec
evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm

Just one question and one question only.

Regarding the experiment in the sluice showing the deposition of the layers -

does this happen or not?

Yes or no.

 

[buffalo]

Look folks–anyone who believes the Grand Canyone is 6,000 years old is just plain crazy.

While I believe that Adam and Eve were literal people and some of the Genesis creation account is true–I am not persuaded to throw away all my brains and believe in the young Earth non sense.

An old Earth + Evolution + a literal Adam and Eve is OK to believe in.

You don’t have to believe in God-less totally at random evolution with no purpose whatsoever on one end of the spectrum or 6-day 6,000 literal years ago creationism on the other side of the spectrum.

How long do you think the bend in the Niagara River at the escarpment took to form?

 

[buffalo]

Sure, but don’t you think scientists are entitled to be fed up with people who come along after some tiny exposure to a subject and think that they can spot gaping and obvious flaws in the professional’s work?

Alec

The closer you are to your work the more narrow minded some get. Of course someone would get fed up with someone who attacks the work they are so heavily invested in. It is human nature.

But, sometimes the most simple and basic idea undermines these ideas.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Yes, they know. It has been pointed out to them numerous times.

Berthault is a YEC who feels like he can convince people if he speaks scientifically. Using big terms make him sound impressive. Case in point is Peter’s recent comments in post #696 about Berthault’s “breakthrough” study of the Tonto group (which, by the way, he has never actually visited himself). He uses the term “transgression”. This term has a specific meaning in geology and he knows it. Transgression/regression cycles are a very important part of the study of stratigraphy, so the terminology is very important. It does not mean a flood or tsunami, either of which would potentially fit the description of the event he claims to have occurred. A transgression is a relative rise in sea level such as occurs at the end of a glacial period or uplift of the sea floor or subsidence of the continental body. It is NOT a tsunami or a flood.

Ask yourself why they would improperly use terms like that. If it is because they don’t know the distinction, well, wouldn’t that make you question their entire study? If they do know the meaning of the term, why would they mis-use it in their paper?

Peace

Tim

I suspect that they have a strong need to believe in the positions they’ve taken, which makes it possible for them to believe that they are correct and to ignore the evidence against them. I don’t understand why they would continue if they didn’t believe in what they were saying. Do they make money from it? It certainly doesn’t seem to make them popular.

 

[Orogeny]

It certainly doesn’t seem to make them popular.

Are you kidding? They are heroes in the YEC world.

Peace

Tim

 

[wildleafblower]

???
wildleafblower;3090875:

Creationists comes from the word Creationism. There are many creationists SpiritMeadow. As creationists they can believe in: Young Earth creationism, Gap creationism, Progressive creationism, Intelligent design, and Theistic evolution. I am none of those though I have friends that are. Be nice to them is all that I ask. As Christians we should be considerate of other peoples feelings even if we disagree.

Responding again to your message 699. Next time please don’t jump immediately into my dialogue. You obviously aren’t a complex thinker like I am which is reflected in my message 703 to Peter Wilder.

Please consider in the future think what the word courtesy means. Don’t be in such a rush.

Neil, I hope the information i’ve provided in the message answers a tad of what you were asking of me. Young Earth Creationism: “Directly created by God. Macroevolution does not occur.< 10,000 years old. Reshaped by global flood.< 10,000 years old.”

Well Peter (drpmjhess), I guess SpiritMeadow needs a caretaker. Do you realize that she is an advocate of Liberation Theology and you play protector. Let her speak for herself.

Furthermore, you aren’t a complex thinker and once again rude and incapable of understanding what unfolded in the messages I’ve mentioned. Ah well what can I expect from you? Oh, this stuff below and other topics about all those people who own SUV’s You have a way of judging people that I find to be absolutely worthless.

Doug50, these are ingenious. I’ve worked in construction and have never seen the point of a For 350, except as psychological support for men whose male members aren’t large enough. I can carry ladders, concrete, gravel, and lumber in a small Toyota pickup. A bicycle pickup would an interesting challenge, though.

 

[drpmjhess]

Well Peter (drpmjhess), I guess SpiritMeadow needs a caretaker. Do you realize that she is an advocate of Liberation Theology and you play protector. Let her speak for herself.

Wildleafblower, when I saw your post comparing SpiritMeadow’s unclear cognition with your own complex thinking , my little finger had a seizure and got stuck on the question mark key. I managed to grab the phone with my left had to dial 911. Fortunately the firemen were able to remove my finger from the key, but the damage was already done – hence all the question marks!

But I’m mystified by your claim that I am SpiritMeadow’s “protector” – as if a thinker of her stellar quality needs protecting. Heaven forfend!

And I’m not clear either on how I’ve offended you with anything I’ve said about creationism. I merely noted that any Christian who accepts the doctrine of creation – namely, the doctrine that the universe is ontologically contingent upon a source outside itself – is a creationist. I pointed out that Young Earthers hijacked this term about fifty years ago, styling themselves the only “creationists” and all others as atheists. All the theistic evolutionists and panentheists I know consider themselves creationists; I consider myself a creationist in the theologically proper sense of the term.

Petrus

 

[wildleafblower]

Okay, I owe you one answer now. I won’t ask you anymore questions until you ask me one. Then we’ll be even.

Thank you. You are a gentleman. What do you think are the reasons that some Roman Catholics won’t accept Vatican II?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Thank you. You are a gentleman. What do you think are the reasons that some Roman Catholics won’t accept Vatican II?

I believe many catholics who grew up before Vatican II were taught that the form of the mass and certain other teachings were part of Sacred Tradition which had been passed down from the apostles. So, Vatican II changed things which they had been taught were sacred and could never be changed. Also, along with Vatican II came new ideas that were never approved by the Church, which gives them more reason to reject Vatican II.

I think those people are very rare… I’d never heard of them until I started lookign at catholic sites on the internet!

 

[inthecloud]

While I like the Mass in the vernacular, the opponents of Vatican II might have a point there.

 

[hecd2]

I’d like to see proof for those 5 points. Why should I just take your word for any of them? Peter Wilder has lots of proof, where is YOUR proof?

First of all you say that the article is too complicated for you and you want a simple explanation. So I give you a straightforward simple summary and then you want me to provide support for the summary. The support is in the article and the multiple references at the end of it. You really don’t know what you want, except that you’d like to be in a position of knowing enough geology to separate the gold from the dross, but without learning any geology.

And if you think that Guy Berthault’s work “proves” that the entire post-Cambrian geological column was deposited rapidly then you are very, very naïve.

Alec
Berthault critique

 

[hecd2]

Didn’t you watch the video? the layers are deposited from the side, not from the top. What scientists call the ‘old’ bottom layers could be new or old.

Are you suggesting that the 4,000 feet from Tapeats to Kaibab over an area of thousands of square miles, were deposited by prograding sediments in such way that the underlying strata are younger than the overlying ones? I think you need to learn a little geology.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[edwest2]

The whole point of the anti-Creation replies here is to promote a universal acceptance of the theory of evolution amongst Catholics.

Somehow, when I state that when Richard Dawkins speaks as an atheist scientist, I’m told, that’s just him, not all scientists.

But when I speak about creation, it’s apparently not just me since, amazingly, I’m told I make all Catholics look bad.

Be consistent.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Are you suggesting that the 4,000 feet from Tapeats to Kaibab over an area of thousands of square miles, were deposited by prograding sediments in such way that the underlying strata are younger than the overlying ones? I think you need to learn a little geology.

I’ll get right on that. Which university would you recommend I apply to? What are your qualifications?

 

[hecd2]

hecd2:

not only is your position scientific codswallop, but that your theology and logic are equally badly flawed.

He follows this accusation (a Catholic on a Catholic Forum) by:

There is no abuse or intolerance from me, but there is certainly sarcasm and a robust refutation of your opinion because your opinion invites it

Does one reply to this sort of inconsistency and provocation?

Obviously one has - see below:

I suppose I should in the hope of finding some vestige of normality, despite knowing that whatever I say will produce a further volley of abuse (with no supporting facts).

You seem to be unable to distinguish between a challenge to your ideas and a challenge to you as a person. I think that your ideas are ridiculous and say so, and will keep saying so, because of the content of your ideas, not because of who you are. I am sure that you are a wonderful witty loving person, but that does not change the fact that your ideas on this subject are deeply misguided and that is what we are addressing. You don’t like it, but that’s fine by me.

First, my scientific position is that of Guy Berthault whose work has been published by the French Geological Society and Academies of Sciences in France and Russia. Since hecd2 gives no explanation for his charge, presumably the “codswallop” refers to Berthault’s experimental research (and, therefore, to the prestigious scientific organs publishing it).

The explanation is to be found here:
evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm
You want facts? Here are some facts:
It is a fact that Berthault has not managed to get a paper published in a mainstream western geology journal for 14 years
It is a fact that his own collaborator on the 1993 paper who has published dozens of papers on sedimentology and who is a highly respected sedimentologist rejects Berthault’s conclusions
It is a fact that there are no new experimental results in the Russian papers
It is a fact that his Chinese and Russian papers are unpublishable in Western high-impact journals – they are indeed codswallop
It is a fact that he uses Austin’s flood geology in his most recent Russian paper, an interpretation of Tonto that is completely rejected by professional geologists
It is a fact that he was not the first to do flume studies to investigate deposition of sediments
It is a fact that when he published in the 1980s and 1990s it was already well known by geologists that certain kinds of sedimentation can happen rapidly
It is a fact that in the absence of overthrusts and sills a sedimentary stratum lying above another has been deposited later
It is a fact that Berthault has attempted to extrapolate experiments in water a few inches deep to explain the deposition of hundreds of meters of sediment
It is a fact that there are features in the Tonto Group which preclude the possibility that it was deposited in a single violent flood
It is a fact that there are formations above Tonto which were deposited on land not underwater such as as aeolian deposits and karst limestone
It is a fact that the geological column contains many types of sedimentation and features that do not occur rapidly underwater: varves, stromatolite beds, volcanic tuffs, pumice, lapilli and other tephra, igneous rock and breccias, aeolian beds, evaporites, palaeosols, severe angular unconformities; and these interleave underwater lake or sea deposits
It is a fact that creationists have utterly failed to suggest a credible mechanism for the sorting of fossils and Berthault’s suggestion of ecological sorting is absurd
It is a fact that there are no fossils later than the Permian in the Grand Canyon and they are ordered phylogenetically
It is a fact that radiometric dating of volcanic tuffs confirm the old age and proper chronological ordering of sedimentary layers
Would you like some more facts?

Second, as this thread can witness, my theology and logic are 100% that of the Councils of Lateran IV and Vatican I, and their ‘de fide’ definition of Creation which preclude the theory of evolution. Once again, he produces **no facts **to substantiate his accusation.

It is a fact that popes for the last 50 years and more disagree with you.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm

 

[Neil_Anthony]

It is a fact that…
It is a fact that…
It is a fact that…
It is a fact that…
It is a fact that…
It is a fact that… It is a fact that… It is a fact that… It is a fact that… It is a fact that… It is a fact that… It is a fact that… It is a fact that… It is a fact that…

It is a fact that one of your little web pages insults Cardinal Schönborn and that you could learn some manners.

evolutionpages.com/Schoenborn_critique.htm

 

[hecd2]

hecd2:

There are very obvious reasons why Berthault’s work does not undermine the consensus view of geology, and his work is certainly no reason to call into question the old age of the earth or the evolution of species because:
• His experimental work is not especially original or revolutionary
• His studies do not support a radical reinterpretation of sedimentology
• The geological column contains deposition mechanisms that lie outside the processes that Berthault investigated
• The suggestion that fossil organisms are sorted, not chronologically, but ecologically and hydraulically is not credible
• Radio-dating supports both the immense age and the chronological ordering of strata.

These are statements. They are your opinions not refutations.

They are supported in the article here:
evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm
They are not only my opinions, but the opinions of the professional geological community. How many papers reference Berthault’s so-called revolutionary papers? How many papers amongst the hundreds on sedimentation and stratigraphy published in high impact geology journals annually suggest that the entire post-Cambrian column was deposited rapidly in a single event? Can you find ten? Three? One? Any at all?

These are opinions unsupported by facts or evidence.

So you say, desperately attempting to support Berthault’s fantasy. But you are wrong. Read the article which debunks Berthault’s cranky, idiosyncratic and hubristic interpretation of his very modest experimental work with facts, references and logical argument.

Alec

 

[drpmjhess]

They are supported in the article here:
evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm
They are not only my opinions, but the opinions of the professional geological community. How many papers reference Berthault’s so-called revolutionary papers? How many papers amongst the hundreds on sedimentation and stratigraphy published in high impact geology journals annually suggest that the entire post-Cambrian column was deposited rapidly in a single event? Can you find ten? Three? One? Any at all?

So you say, desperately attempting to support Berthault’s fantasy. But you are wrong. Read the article which debunks Berthault’s cranky, idiosyncratic and hubristic interpretation of his very modest experimental work with facts, references and logical argument.

Alec

Alec, Michael Dowd notes that “the New Atheists and Young-Earth Creationists are both playing vital, necessary roles in furthering the evolution of religious perspectives. The New Atheists are assisting the evolution of religion by ridiculing trivial, uninspiring notions of God; the Young-Earth Creationists are doing their part by ridiculing trivial, uninspiring notions of evolution.”

Petrus

 

[hecd2]

It is a fact that one of your little web pages insults Cardinal Schönborn and that you could learn some manners.

evolutionpages.com/Schoenborn_critique.htm

Ah - thank you for that link. Very kind of you to post it.

Yes, Schoenborn did make some logical and scientific mistakes in his New York Times and First Things articles. Do you think cardinals and popes should be above criticism, even when they make fools of themselves? I don’t.

But if you would like to discuss any detailed aspect of what I wrote, I should be delighted to do so.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/Schoenborn_critique.htm