Slow it down, everybody.
LOL! Thatâs hilarious. For no scientific reasons AT ALL you crammed 4.5 billion yearsâ of Earthâs history into 150 days. In your scenario the 20 MY Cambrian Explosion took 18 hours. The 175 MY span of the dinosaurs from the early Triassic to the late Cretaceous took 5 1/2 days. 
Why do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you post CMI nonsense like that?
6 Likes
That sort of time compression brings to mind what Francis Collins quoted from Darrell Falk about all of the science which would have to be totally rejected in order to make such a claim with a straight face. I have friends who assume that all becomes possible if one simply rejects all radiometric datingâbut they have no idea how many other consilient evidence, scientific fields, and methodologies would have to be rejected as well.
3 Likes
This is fascinating (from the linked CMI webpage):
The fact that uniformitarianism (a denial of rapid catastrophes) has failed to explain much of the geological record can be seen as a great victory for creationists, but predictably the mainstream scientific community has refused to acknowledge this. And it is still heavily weighted towards âslow and gradualâ, and strongly opposed to biblical catastrophism/diluvialism.
This sounds almost straight out of The Genesis Flood (1962, Henry Morris & John Whitcomb Jr.) over a half century ago!
1 Like
Hey, again Stephen Jay Gouldâs testimony in the 1980 Arkansas creationism trial is apposite:
Q(Mr. Novik) Have you read Act 590âs definition of creation-science as it relates specifically to geology?
A(Gould) Yes. As it relates specifically to geology, point number 5 proclaims that the earthâs geology should be explained by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a world wide flood.
Q Have you read the creation science literature relative to geology?
A I have indeed. Let me say just for the record, though, Iâll use the term `creation scienceâ because itâs so enjoined by the Act, but in my view there is no such item and creation science is not science. I would prefer to refer to it as creationism.
But yes, I have read the creation science literature, so called.
Q Is the statutory definition of creation science as it relates to geology consistent with that creation science literature?
A Yes. The creation science literature attempts to interpret, in most of that literature, the entire geological column as the product of Noahâs Flood and its
517
A (Continuing) consequences, and it is certainly consistent with point number 5 of the Act.
Q Have you read Act 590âs definition of evolution as it relates specifically to geology?
A Yes. I would say that that primarily is the point that uniformitarianism is-
Q And the Act defines it as-
A Oh, yes. An explanation of the earthâs geology by catastrophism. Or it says that evolution is the explanation of the earthâs geology and evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism.
Q What does uniformitarianism mean?
A As creation science defines it, it refers to the theory that I would call the notion of gradualism, namely, that the phenomena of the earth and geological record were produced by slow, steady, imperceptible change, and the bar scale events were produced by this slow accumulation of imperceptible change.
Q And it is in that sense that uniformitarianism is used in the Act?
A In the Act, yes.
Q Are you familiar with scientific literature in the field of geology?
A Yes, I have. In fact, I have authored several articles on the meaning of uniformitarianism.
518
Q Is Act 590âs definition of evolution in respect to uniformitarianism consistent with the scientific literature?
A Certainly not. It may be true that Charles Lyell, a great nineteenth century geologist, had a fairly extreme view of gradualism, but thatâs been entirely abandoned by geologists today.
Geologists have been quite comfortable with the explanations that some events have been the accumulation of small changes, and others as the result of, at least, local catastrophes.
Q So modern geologists believe in both; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Is the Actâs definition of evolution in terms of uniformitarianism creation consistent with the creation science literature?
A Oh, yes. The creation science literature continues to use the term âuniformitarianismâ only to refer to the notion of extreme gradualism. For example, they argue that since fossils are generally only formed when sediments accumulate very rapidly, that, therefore, there is evidence for catastrophe, and somehow that confutes uniformitarianism.
In fact, paleontologists do not deny that fossils that
519
A (Continuing) are preserved are generally buried by at least locally catastrophic events, storms or rapid accumulations of sediments. And indeed, thatâs why we believe the fossils record is so imperfect and most fossils never get a chance to be preserved, because the rate of sedimentation is usually slow and most fossils decay before they can be buried.
Q Is there any sense in which modern geologists do believe in uniformitarianism?
A Indeed, but in a totally different meaning. The term `uniformitarianismâ has two very distinct meanings that are utterly separate. First is the methodological claim that the laws of nature are unvaried, but natural laws can be used to explain the past as well as the present.
Thatâs a methodological claim that we assert in order to do science.
The second meaning which weâve been discussing, the substantiative claim of falsifiable, the claim is often false, about actual rates of change. Namely, the rates of change are constant. And that is a diagnostic question for scientists.
Q Could you give us an example of these two different meanings of uniformitarianism?
A Yes. For example, take apples falling off of
520
A (Continuing) trees. Thatâs the usual one. The first principle, the methodological one that we do accept as part of the definition of science, holds that if apples fall off trees, they do that under the influence of gravity. And we may assume that they do so in the past and will continue to do so in the future.
For example, the great Scottish geologist James Hutton said in the late eighteenth century on this point, that if the stone, for example, which falls today will rise again tomorrow, principles would fail and we would no longer be able to investigate the past in the present. So thatâs what we mean by the methodological assumption.
The notion of gradualism or constancy of rates would hold, for example, that if two million apples fell off trees in the state of Arkansas this year, then we could assume with the constancy of rates in a million years from now, two millions apples would fall, which of course is absurd. Apples could become extinct between now and then. Weâve got a contravene in the laws of science.
Q Does the creation science literature accurately reflect these two different meanings of uniformitarianism?
A No, it doesnât. It continually confuses the two, arguing that because we canât refute constancy of rates, in many cases which indeed we can, that, therefore, somehow the principle of the uniformity of law, or the
521
A (Continuing) constancy of natural law, is also thrown into question. And they are totally separate issues.
4 Likes
The Apostle Paul said it best in 1 Corinthians 7:11
When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child , I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
I have no problems affirming what the Bible says about the Noahic Floodâbut I have a lot of disagreement with many of the man-made traditions claimed about the flood by various YEC ministries.
1 Like
Well, Peter warned us that some people would attempt to misuse Paulâs words (just as they misuse the rest of Scripture), so you have spoken just as predicted here.
You absolutely do. Even the atheists here like @John_Harshman have no problem seeing that you cannot do justice to the Bible in your Flood views. Youâre simply ignoring what the Bible says when itâs inconvenient for you.
The Bible is not unclear. Simply asserting that clear statements of the Bible are âtraditionsâ is not an argument. Itâs entirely false.
Well, to be fair, so do you. You ignore everything the bible says about the structure of the universe, the solar system, and the shape of the earth. Youâve modified your ideas of what the bible says based on 17th Century science; you just stop at the 18th Century.
1 Like
In the 1920âs, a Serbian geophysicist and astronomer Milutin Milankovich researched the correlations among the Earthâs long-term climate and the natural, physical geometry of the Earthâs orbit, based on the axial tilt, the eccentricity, and the precession of the equinoxes. These orbital patterns, know called the Milankovitch Cycles, strongly force climate, over scales of tens to hundreds of thousands of years. The cycles are easily seen in the pattern of ice ages, for example.
These cycles are also abundantly seen in the sedimentary record, including rocks, ice cores and tree rings.
These cycles can be seen in the geological record over hundreds of millions of years. Aside from the question of how over a 1000 feet of evaporites (salt, gypsum and anhydrite) formed in the Permian Basin in less than one year, how is a 200,000 year record of these cycles documented in the Permian Castile Forrmation? There cycles are chemical and completely independent of any biological stratigraphy.
Even more interesting is the correlation of the varves in the Castile with monsoon precipitations in equatorial Pangea, adjacent to where the current Permian Basin originally was situated.
A 200,000 year extremely fine (year-by-year) record of chemical precipitation, that can be correlated over hundreds of miles, cannot be formed by any single, one year flood.
7 Likes
In that vein, consider the worldwide K/T boundary clay, correlated with the Chicxulub crater. What could possibly be the flood geology explanation of that?
2 Likes
Nor to explain the mass extinction that followed. The Tanis fossil site in North Dakota records the global effects of the Chicxulub, including the embedded microtektites found in the gills of fish killed and buried at this site.
Indeed there are catastrophic events that form fossils, but most fossils are found in fine-grained, low-energy deposits such as mudrocks and carbonates.
@faded_Glory and I, in a earlier thread, noted the regional correlations of pelagic forams, found in marine ultrafine abyssal oozes. Wide-spread patterns that could only be formed still, deep water.
4 Likes
And what about the mass extinction of forams at the K/T boundary? Mind you, none of the local creationists will address any of these points.
1 Like
This is the only thing Iâve ever found in the flood geology literature discussing foram stratigraphy. While the author tries to relate it to ecological zonation, he admits other forams are inconsistent with the idea. Furthermore, given many flood geology proponents are suggesting ecological zones were transported laterally (to account for vertical stacking), its just not reasonable to think light microfossils kept vertical separation during long distance transport. Their sizes, densities, and hydrological characteristics have way too much overlap. So generally I see YECs deny the foram stratigraphy on the claim that similar species are classified differently simply due to their stratigraphic position. In essence, the argument now seems to be that secular geologists have âdefined themselves into being correctâ on this point. I dont know enough about foram classification to comment, but it doesnât sound like theyâve painted the whole picture, to say the least 
2 Likes
And all those dead things, from plankton all the way up to massive whales and plesiosaurs, all segregated by geological age the world over. That alone falsifies the flood. There is no possible explanation other than separation in time which can account for the stratification of the fossil record - not agility, not ecology, not metabolism, or any other ad hoc brush off. There might be fewer scoffers if YEC did not so willingly overlook that evidence, and could come up with an even remotely credible scenario for it. You have had no lack of opportunity to address this in previous threads.
Note, the issue is not just stratification, although that is another flood showstopper. The issue is the complete segregation of the fossil record, from microfossils on up, from the Cambrian forward.
3 Likes
That is definitely my favorite summation of âflood geology.â It never ceases to amaze me. And it is a very honest summary of the argument.
1 Like
Scientists want to talk about details and specific examples; creationists respond with general assertions and links to articles they wonât discuss.
Business as usual.
3 Likes
How many examples of layers that are not clean and flat and do have evidence of periods of erosion between them would be required to convince you that youâre wrong? 5? 10? 100?
As for your article that claims the grand canyon layers do not show extension erosion similar to todayâs topography, hereâs a counterexample: a deep valley cutting into the redwall strata. This is exactly what your article claims does not exist.
I expect you to ignore it as usual.
4 Likes
The Bible doesnât say anything about these things beyond a manâs-eye-view description, like when we say âthe sun risesâ. Iâm not ignoring it, Iâm just simply not misinterpreting it.