Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Arguments for a young Earth (erosion)

Expand Messages
  • L. K. Appleton
    Hi Donald, ... From: Donald Nield To: CreationEvolutionDesign@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 3:17 PM Subject: Re: Arguments for a young Earth
    Message 1 of 5 , Jul 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Donald,
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Donald Nield
      To: CreationEvolutionDesign@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 3:17 PM
      Subject: Re: Arguments for a young Earth (erosion)


      <SNIP>

      LA> Again Dr. Ager states;
      >
      LA> "My thesis is that in all branches of geology
      LA> there has been a return to ideas of rare violent
      > happenings and episodity. So the past, as now
      > interpreted by many geologists, is not what it used to
      > be. It has certainly changed a great deal from what I
      > learned about it in those far-off days when I was a
      > student."
      LA> (The New Catastrophism, Derek Ager, Emeritus Professor of
      > Geology, University College of Swansea, 1993, p.xii)
      >
      LA> So Evolutionists have now made a major back-flip
      > to a position that is right back into the general area
      > from which they departed from the Creationist
      > position about 150 years ago, even though they
      > continue to hold desperately to unreal and
      > absurd concepts of impossible millions and
      > billions of years!

      DN> Not so. You are making wild implications about uniformitarianism
      DN> and catastrophism. In their respective contexts they are compatible
      DN> with each other.

      I begin to see just how limited your knowledge must be
      about these questions. It is hardly appropriate to have to
      try to explain these things to you here.

      DN> Nothing in Ager's book rules out an old Earth.

      That is true. My reference to Ager was in respect to his
      emphasis on catastrophism which he contrasts strongly
      with 150 years of evolutionary brainwashing about
      gradualistic uniformitarianism.

      It remains significant however, that his "long periods of
      nothing in particular, " could well be little more than his
      own effort to cling to the old evolutionary time table, even
      when his catastrophism does not any longer seem to
      need such a time scale!

      Moreover, since Ager is also an advocate of Punctuated
      equilibria, he (and they) no longer really have any need for
      long periods of STASIS either. This also seems to be
      little more than a hold- over from the 150 years of
      brainwashing about absurdly impossible time scales,
      so desperately needed by the old - but now largely
      debunked Neo-Darwinism.

      DN> (I have read the whole book.) You have quoted from part of Ager's
      DN> preface and ignored the bit in bold type

      That is simply absurd, since it was quite irrelevant to
      the matter in question.

      DN> Incidentally, do you think that it is acceptable to claim support
      DN> from an author when one is taking something out of context that
      DN> is diametrically opposite to the author's intention?


      As I have just said, nothing was taken out of context, but
      rather it is yourself that has taken an irrelevant comment of
      Ager's and used it shamelessly as a red-herring. That is
      surely unworthy of you.


      Laurie Appleton
      lappleto@...

      "Evidence from the fossil record now points overwhelmingly away from
      the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in High School;"
      (Newsweek. 3/11/80, p. 54)



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Joe Martin
      ... Laurie is under the mistaken idea that if one is wrong, the other must be right. I believe this mistaken notion is applied to most, if not all YEC
      Message 2 of 5 , Jul 2, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Donald and Group:

        >
        > DN> Not so. You are making wild implications about uniformitarianism
        > DN> and catastrophism. In their respective contexts they are compatible
        > DN> with each other.
        >
        > I begin to see just how limited your knowledge must be
        > about these questions. It is hardly appropriate to have to
        > try to explain these things to you here.
        >
        > DN> Nothing in Ager's book rules out an old Earth.
        >
        > That is true. My reference to Ager was in respect to his
        > emphasis on catastrophism which he contrasts strongly
        > with 150 years of evolutionary brainwashing about
        > gradualistic uniformitarianism.
        >
        > It remains significant however, that his "long periods of
        > nothing in particular, " could well be little more than his
        > own effort to cling to the old evolutionary time table, even
        > when his catastrophism does not any longer seem to
        > need such a time scale!
        >
        > Moreover, since Ager is also an advocate of Punctuated
        > equilibria, he (and they) no longer really have any need for
        > long periods of STASIS either. This also seems to be
        > little more than a hold- over from the 150 years of
        > brainwashing about absurdly impossible time scales,
        > so desperately needed by the old - but now largely
        > debunked Neo-Darwinism.

        Laurie is under the mistaken idea that if one is wrong, the other must be
        right. I believe this mistaken notion is applied to most, if not all YEC
        arguments. This assumption also extends to literal interpretation of
        Genesis. If Genesis is wrong, then, by extension, ALL of the Bible must be
        wrong. Such is, however, not the case. Science can be wrong, yet science
        is based on current assessment of the facts and conditions. As new facts
        become available theories are revised. With YEC, the conclusion is forgone
        because the literal interpretation of Genesis takes precidence over all
        other facts, therefore all facts must be made to conform to a 6000 year old
        earth regardless of how ridiculous the claims may be. e.g. A 150 mile wide
        asteroid impacted the earth 5000 years ago tilting its axis and contributed
        to the devastation during Noah's Flood. Such a claim has NO physical
        scientific evidence to support it, yet YECs continue to use this example as
        "Creation Science"

        Joe

        > DN> (I have read the whole book.) You have quoted from part of Ager's
        > DN> preface and ignored the bit in bold type
        >
        > That is simply absurd, since it was quite irrelevant to
        > the matter in question.
        >
        > DN> Incidentally, do you think that it is acceptable to claim support
        > DN> from an author when one is taking something out of context that
        > DN> is diametrically opposite to the author's intention?
        >
        >
        > As I have just said, nothing was taken out of context, but
        > rather it is yourself that has taken an irrelevant comment of
        > Ager's and used it shamelessly as a red-herring. That is
        > surely unworthy of you.
      • Donald Nield
        ... I am not trying to close off discussion prematurely, but my patience is being tested. What you have just written does not make sense. Do you realise that
        Message 3 of 5 , Jul 4, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          "L. K. Appleton" wrote:

          > Hi Donald and Group,
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: Donald Nield
          > To: CreationEvolutionDesign@yahoogroups.com
          > Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 12:50 PM
          > Subject: Re: Arguments for a young Earth (erosion/Saturn)
          >
          > [ . . . . ]
          >
          > > DN> (I have read the whole book.) You have quoted from part of Ager's
          > > DN> preface and ignored the bit in bold type
          > >
          > > LA> That is simply absurd, since it was quite irrelevant to
          > > LA> the matter in question.
          > >
          > > DN> Incidentally, do you think that it is acceptable to claim support
          > > DN> from an author when one is taking something out of context that
          > > DN> is diametrically opposite to the author's intention?
          > >
          > > As I have just said, nothing was taken out of context, but
          > > rather it is yourself that has taken an irrelevant comment of
          > > Ager's and used it shamelessly as a red-herring. That is
          > > surely unworthy of you.
          >
          > DN> I leave it to other members of the group to decide about that! I
          > DN> note that you have been unable to counter my statement that your
          > DN> argument about erosion ignores orogenesis.
          >
          > LA I suggest that you are trying to get away with the tactic
          > referred to as; 'Trying to snatch victory from the jaws of
          > defeat!' I showed that orogenesis further ensured that
          > there would be an upperlimit to the age of the earth of
          > only a few million years, because it would ensure that
          > we could have no fossil record of a greater age.
          >
          > That upper limit does NOT preclude a lower limit of
          > 10,000 years or less, but it destroys the whole
          > evolutionary dating system.

          I am not trying to close off discussion prematurely, but my patience is being
          tested. What you have just written does not make sense. Do you realise that
          "orogenesis" means "mountain ORIGIN" or "Mountain BUILDING"? You have failed to
          establish any upper limit on the age of the Earth. Your argument based or
          erosion fails because you have failed to consider processes of mountain
          building that restore the eroded mountains.

          Thank you for you info on Saturns's rings. I will start another sub-thread for
          the discussion of this.
          [...]

          >

          Don
          e-mail: d.nield@...
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.