Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Downfall of Uniformitarianism
Creation-Evolution Headlines ^ | 11/04/2003 | Creation-Evolution Headlines

Posted on 11/12/2003 8:25:52 AM PST by bondserv

The Downfall of Uniformitarianism   11/04/2003
Can major paradigm shifts occur in science today?  Check this one out.
    You’ve seen it on TV science programs and in textbooks: plumes of hot magma from deep in the Earth’s mantle rise through the crust and erupt on the surface (the IMAX movie Yellowstone has computer graphics of the whole process).  Perhaps you’ve seen animations of the Hawaiian Islands riding over a “hot spot” and building its chain of volcanoes over millions of years on its slow, drifting journey.  Textbook diagrams show cross-sections of Earth’s crust, with lava erupting from channels rooted deep in the mantle, while crustal plates float and drift atop deep convection currents.
    That’s all defunct now, and so is a lot of the uniformitarian dogma associated with it, claims Warren B. Hamilton (Colorado School of Mines), in an extensive article in this month’s GSA Today.1  Uniformitarianism is out, catastrophism is in.  Now, don’t get the idea Hamilton denies the Earth is billions of years old; he still accepts the 4.567 billion year figure, the condensation of Earth from a solar nebula, and all that.  But he replaces Charles Lyell’s old premise “the present is the key to the past” with a new picture that seems to pay homage to Stephen Jay Gould.  He calls his model “Punctuated Gradualism.”  How serious is the subject?  Enough for him to entitle his paper, “An Alternative Earth,” and for it to get prominent press in a journal of the world’s leading geological society.
    Here’s the overview Hamilton provides of his paradigm, and the timeline of catastrophic events he now envisions (Note: Ga = giga-annum, i.e., a billion years.  Emphasis added in all quotes):

The Earth described here differs profoundly from that accepted as dogma in most textbooks and research papers.  Crust and upper mantle have formed a mostly closed system throughout geologic time, and their dramatic temporal changes are responses to cooling.  The changing processes define a Punctuated Gradualism and not Uniformitarianism.  Major stages in Earth evolution:
  1. 4.567–ca. 4.4 Ga.  Hot accretion and major irreversible mantle fractionation.  Giant bolides continue to ca. 3.9 Ga.
  2. 4.4–3.5 Ga.  Era of nearly global felsic crust, too hot and mobile to stand as continents.
  3. 3.5–2.0 Ga.  Granite-and-greenstone era.  Permanent hydrosphere.  Old crust cooled to density permitting mafic melts to reach surface.  Diapiric batholiths mobilized from underlying old crust.
  4. 2.0 Ga–continuing.  Plate tectonic era.  Distinct continents and oceans.  Top-down cooling of oceanic lithosphere enables subduction that drives plates, forces spreading, and mixes continental as well as oceanic crust into upper mantle.
While much of this timeline looks standard, some of the underlying changes to assumptions are striking.  The rhetoric is also notable in that the new view is revolutionary, and overthrows long-held beliefs about uniformitarianism and plate tectonics.  Notice his confidence in the abstract: “Plumes from deep mantle, subduction into deep mantle, and bottom-up convective drive do not exist.”  In his Overview, he outlines how the old ideas have died:
The conventional model (e.g., Turcotte and Schubert, 2002) of Earth’s evolution and dynamics postulates that most of the mantle is little fractionated, major differentiation continues, and continental crust has grown progressively throughout geologic time; through-the-mantle convection operates, lithosphere plates are moved by bottom-driven currents, and plumes rise from basal mantle to surface; and plate tectonics operated in early Precambrian time.  All of these conjectures likely are false.  They descend from speculation by Urey (1951) and other pioneers, reasonable then but not now, that Earth accreted slowly and at low temperature from fertile chondritic and carbonaceous-chondritic materials, heated gradually by radioactive decay and core segregation, and is still fractionating.
Hamilton explains that “The notion of a cold, volatile-rich, young planet has long since been disproved,” but its corollary of an unfractionated [i.e., homogeneous, and therefore fluid] lower mantle no longer can stand up to the facts; “major constraints” now rule this view out in favor of shallow crustal activity from the upper mantle and crust.  This includes radioactive heating, of which he says, “Earth’s heat loss, now largely of radiogenic heat, is much overstated in the standard model.” He suggests a value 70% the earlier one, and states, “thermodynamic and mineral-physics data require that nearly all radioactivity be above 660 km (Hofmeister and Criss, 2003),” i.e., no deeper than 400 miles.  At that depth there is a discontinuity that could not be breached by a magma plume.
    In short, most volcanic activity and crustal movement is shallow, and plate tectonics started much later than assumed.  What are some of the ramifications geologists will have to consider if Hamilton’s “Alternative Earth” becomes the new textbook orthodoxy?  Some are technical, but here are a few for the casual reader: These are just a few of the ramifications mentioned by Hamilton.  Other consequences of this “Alternative Earth” with its shallow motions and shallow heating may become evident if the view becomes mainstream, which appears inevitable (see Aug. 20 and Apr. 1 headlines).
1Warren B. Hamilton, “An Alternative Earth,” GSA Today, Vol. 13, No. 11, pp. 4–12.; DOI: 10.1130/1052-5173(2003)013<0004:AAE>2.0.CO;2.
What’s most interesting about this story is not the new model, which may become the next discarded paradigm in the future, but the frank and revealing charges made against proponents of the old model: that they cheated, lied, and used irrational arguments to prop up their beliefs.  Is that possible in science?  You read it right here.
    Creationists have similarly argued against the standard model for a long time and maybe now are getting some comeuppance.  Dr. Walter Brown, for instance, has complained that deep mantle magma plumes are impossible, because the kinematics and thermodynamics would force the channels shut (see his paragraph on volcanoes and lava).  Volcanism, therefore, must occur at shallow depths.
    What can we learn from this paradigm shift?  Make no mistake: confident-sounding scientific models, replete with professional jargon, (maybe even this one here - cf. 11/14/2002 headline), are written by fallible human beings.  Like a hollow idol on a pedestal, a popular theory about the unobservable past might gleam in the sun for awhile, till toppled by tremors of fact.  Broken on the ground, it is swept away and forgotten, and then a new hollow idol takes its place.  Why hollow?  Because no observer was there to corroborate the processes or the vast periods of time they are assumed to take.  Remember Grand Canyon!  It was the prototypical case of a phenomenon requiring millions of years, yet now the consensus is growing that it was formed catastrophically and recently (see 07/22/2002 headline).  It should seem foolish to place one’s faith in the conjectures of mortals instead of in the testimony of an authoritative Eyewitness.
    Those not beholden to secular geological conjectures might well consider what this paradigm shift may do to other geological conjectures.  It may well cause a domino effect on current models in subjects as diverse as radiometric dating (which assumes pristine, unprocessed material from the deep mantle), planetary differentiation, seismology, volcanology, magnetic field dynamo theory, and even the origin of life.  This model tinkers with temperatures, chemistry, the nature of the core and mantle, the timing of continents, and a host of geophysical processes affecting land and sea.  Evolutionists had better revisit their assumptions about the early earth and what this does to their beliefs.
    Now that mantle plumes and deep plate tectonics are out, who knows what will happen next?  Perhaps Hamilton’s shallow plate tectonics theory will topple for other reasons.  It seems to hinder large migrations of plates, such as the belief that India migrated from lower Africa, crashed into Asia and built the Himalayas.  His choice of terms, “punctuated gradualism,” recalls Stephen Jay Gould’s punctuated equilibria, the “Alternative Earth” model in biology.  It arose out of frustration with the lack of evidence for Darwinian gradualism, not because of positive evidence for the alternative.  Gould replaced that “standard model” (neo-Darwinism) with – what? – a new model with even less empirical support, claiming, essentially, that evolution happens so fast it leaves no trace in the fossil record!  Is Hamilton’s “Punctuated gradualism” a parallel in geology?  It seems, at least, to nail the coffin shut on Lyell’s principle of uniformitarianism.  Whatever happens next, we have just seen that major paradigm shifts are still possible in science.  Kuhnians rejoice.  Darwinians beware.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: creation; evolution; geology
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-154 next last
A corollary is: the conventional model is always wrong.
1 posted on 11/12/2003 8:25:53 AM PST by bondserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AndrewC; Elsie; lockeliberty; RadioAstronomer; LiteKeeper; Fester Chugabrew; conservababeJen; ...
Pingaroo!
2 posted on 11/12/2003 8:29:58 AM PST by bondserv (Alignment is critical.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
Whatever happens next, we have just seen that major paradigm shifts are still possible in science. Kuhnians rejoice. Darwinians beware.

I still don't see what this has to do with Genesis.

3 posted on 11/12/2003 8:36:15 AM PST by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
A corollary is: the conventional model is always wrong.

Right. The sun revolves around the earth, and the sky is green.

Some guy writes an essay - an essay, not research - proposing a new geological concept, and this is taken to be evidence that evolution is false?

The "logic" is simply breathtaking...

4 posted on 11/12/2003 8:38:31 AM PST by general_re ("I am Torgo. I take care of the place while the Master is away.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Denial is unbecoming!
5 posted on 11/12/2003 8:39:20 AM PST by bondserv (Alignment is critical.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
There's nothing here to "deny" - the reasoning is apparently "Idea 'A' may be false, therefore idea 'B' is false." If you can't see the problem with that kind of thing, then I can't help you.
6 posted on 11/12/2003 8:42:03 AM PST by general_re ("I am Torgo. I take care of the place while the Master is away.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Does the conventional model have major problems? Will textbooks need to be changed?

Just tell the kids we know very little about the universe around us, but here are some of our guesses. We call it science.

Science: An engaging and entertaining pastime that occasionally is helpful to society, but always brings confusion to those who call it God. Capricious little Devil isn't he.
7 posted on 11/12/2003 8:50:35 AM PST by bondserv (Alignment is critical.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
Just tell the kids we know very little about the universe around us, but here are some of our guesses. We call it science.

That would be a misrepresentation. We know a great deal about the universe about us, though we don't know everything. What we know is far more than a guess.

8 posted on 11/12/2003 8:53:00 AM PST by Right Wing Professor (proudly serving as academic smokescreen for the cornhusker semipro football team)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
BTTT
9 posted on 11/12/2003 8:53:16 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (France delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Care to place a percentage?
10 posted on 11/12/2003 8:55:09 AM PST by bondserv (Alignment is critical.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
Science:........but always brings confusion to those who call it God.

No. It is still only science. No one claims that science is God.

11 posted on 11/12/2003 9:00:54 AM PST by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Everything You Know Is Wrong Dept.: On Thunderstorms    11/05/2003
Time to rewrite the textbooks again, or maybe throw them away till a new theory comes along.  This time it’s about lightning.  There isn’t a big enough electric field in a cloud to make lightning possible, claims Joseph Dwyer, a Florida Tech physicist, as reported in EurekAlert.   There is a limit to how much charge a cloud can accumulate.  The triggering mechanism also “remains a mystery.”  Obviously lightning happens.  So how are we going to explain it now?  We don’t know.  “Although everyone is familiar with lightning, we still don’t know much about how it really works,” said Dwyer.
Here is a phenomenon observed for thousands of years, based on electromagnetic theory that is well understood, and we cannot explain it.  The assumptions were wrong, and what we have been taught to believe “for generations” is wrong.  The point is not that this phenomenon is impervious to scientific explanation.  But if something this observable, this physical, this amenable to real-time analysis and modeling is so baffling, how can evolutionists be cocky about processes they imagine occurred millions of years ago?

Link

12 posted on 11/12/2003 9:02:10 AM PST by bondserv (Alignment is critical.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: elbucko
No. It is still only science. No one claims that science is God.

Stop teaching the children it is their pathway to salvation. It is a religion. It ought not be. Their hope is no longer in the Creator, rather the created.

"If I blow out my eardrums by the time I am old they will be able to replace them."
Or, "By the time I get old, we will just replace our body parts with newly grown ones."
Or, "The fountain of youth will be in genetic discoveries."

Denial is unbecoming.

13 posted on 11/12/2003 9:11:35 AM PST by bondserv (Alignment is critical.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
The Grand Canyon cuts through a ridge called the Kaibab uplift, which proves the flood happened.

No. It only suggests that there may have been water present. Perhaps a flood, perhaps a trickle. This, in itself, does not prove "the flood".

14 posted on 11/12/2003 9:14:33 AM PST by elbucko (Once you admit your cuckoo, your' re half-way out of the clock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: bondserv; Dataman
Could the New Inquisition Priesthood just save a lot of bandwith if they all group-signed one post that says "Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain"?

Dan
15 posted on 11/12/2003 9:15:07 AM PST by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
Does the conventional model have major problems? Will textbooks need to be changed?

I don't know, and neither does anyone else at this point, to my knowledge. What's the rush? Let geologists digest this new idea, and decide how worthwhile it is. Maybe it's a good theory, maybe not. But either way, the fact that one theory might require large changes doesn't automatically mean that some other theory, in a whole other field, will also require large changes someday. Maybe it will, but there's no way to know that from this thing.

16 posted on 11/12/2003 9:15:22 AM PST by general_re ("I am Torgo. I take care of the place while the Master is away.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
Stop teaching the children it [science] is their pathway to salvation. It is a religion.

No. It's science, not religion. I don't have a problem with the Bible and "Origin of Species". I do not confuse the the two. Those that do, however, have a constant mental "wedgie".

17 posted on 11/12/2003 9:19:34 AM PST by elbucko (Once you admit your cuckoo, your' re half-way out of the clock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
YEC SPOTREP
18 posted on 11/12/2003 9:20:35 AM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
YEC SPOTREP

That's deep.

19 posted on 11/12/2003 9:24:14 AM PST by elbucko (Once you admit your cuckoo, your' re half-way out of the clock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
Care to place a percentage?

I'm temprted to say 88.9723% as of 10:00 CST this morning, but I don't know how you'd quantify that.

20 posted on 11/12/2003 9:25:57 AM PST by Right Wing Professor (proudly serving as academic smokescreen for the cornhusker semipro football team)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
I would add that what we don't know is far greater than what we do know about the universe. And the more we know, and the harder we look, the wierder the universe gets!
21 posted on 11/12/2003 9:28:46 AM PST by delapaz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: All
I am not anti-science, only for the much needed discussion on how to keep science in perspective.

Science has no remedy for my sin problem, and if we allow it to take our focus off of the HOPE provided by our Creator in the historically provable death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, then the enemy has succeeded.

Read between the supernatural lines here folks. No black helicopters here.

1. Confusion over what is good and evil. (Liberals on IRAQ, marriage, Godless behavior accepted and expected...).
2. All semblance of respect out the window. (Current political climate worldwide including the U.S., court appointments, Democrats toward their wartime President...)
3. Israel in the Land despite worldwide hatred. (60% of all UN resolutions are against Israel - a free Democracy).
4. Powderkeg between Islam and Judeo-Christian cultures.
22 posted on 11/12/2003 9:30:07 AM PST by bondserv (Alignment is critical.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
Stupid headline. Not everything we know is wrong. All it says is that we haven't found fields sufficient to initiate a lightning strike. We know what lightning is. We know the amplitude of the current.

What an intellectually and spritually bankrupt exercise - to nitpick perhaps the greatest collective human acheivement, because parts of it appear to conflict with a particularly narrow reading of one religion's foundiong documents.

23 posted on 11/12/2003 9:30:13 AM PST by Right Wing Professor (proudly serving as academic smokescreen for the cornhusker semipro football team)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: delapaz
I would add that what we don't know is far greater than what we do know about the universe

You don't know that.

24 posted on 11/12/2003 9:32:12 AM PST by Right Wing Professor (proudly serving as academic smokescreen for the cornhusker semipro football team)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
Just admitting that God made it all, gives those Science guys an inferority complex, doesn't it?
25 posted on 11/12/2003 9:32:43 AM PST by F.J. Mitchell (If you can't laugh at yourself, you have no sense of humor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
your right, it's just a hunch of mine :-)
26 posted on 11/12/2003 9:33:59 AM PST by delapaz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: elbucko
Those that do, however, have a constant mental "wedgie".

Go hang out with some non-Christian teens and find out how bad the wedgie the liberal education establishment has pulled on them.

"Science and it's production of technology is the key to peace."
"If we made the goodies we have available to them, they would stop hating us."

They have no concept of a Moral Law giver that can set the absolute standards applicable to all individuals. They falsely believe we have all the answers in and of ourselves. Namely SCIENCE.

Gen 3:4-5
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

27 posted on 11/12/2003 9:46:40 AM PST by bondserv (Alignment is critical.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
We know what lightning is.

You know you have a finger on your hand too. Explain how you make it move to type "Stupid Headline".

1/10 of 1%, and half of that will be changed down the road.

28 posted on 11/12/2003 9:52:11 AM PST by bondserv (Alignment is critical.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Maybe it will, but there's no way to know that from this thing.

Science is fun, and sometimes helpful.

29 posted on 11/12/2003 9:59:52 AM PST by bondserv (Alignment is critical.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: elbucko
No. It only suggests that there may have been water present. Perhaps a flood, perhaps a trickle. This, in itself, does not prove "the flood".

The most plausable theory is that in the past water flowed uphill.

30 posted on 11/12/2003 10:03:35 AM PST by bondserv (Alignment is critical.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
I guess. Not the most profound statement we might think of, but you probably won't find too many who disagree with you, either ;)
31 posted on 11/12/2003 10:04:19 AM PST by general_re ("I am Torgo. I take care of the place while the Master is away.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: BibChr
Could the New Inquisition Priesthood just save a lot of bandwith if they all group-signed one post that says "Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain"?

If God wasn't Christian, he might file suit for copyright infringement.

32 posted on 11/12/2003 10:18:57 AM PST by bondserv (Alignment is critical.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: general_re
I guess. Not the most profound statement we might think of, but you probably won't find too many who disagree with you, either ;)

I am glad you exhibit perspective my friend. We could dish up some humble pie, trouble is getting them to eat.

33 posted on 11/12/2003 10:22:28 AM PST by bondserv (Alignment is critical.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
It looks like Catastrophism is nothing more than a term used to describe selective geological events that are part of an overall Uniformitarianism.
34 posted on 11/12/2003 10:24:31 AM PST by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #35 Removed by Moderator

To: bondserv
9-11 was a non-linearity that upsets scientists, but was expected by those believing in the supernatural.

Correction, not all scientists are natural materialists.

36 posted on 11/12/2003 10:47:57 AM PST by bondserv (Alignment is critical.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
The creation of the Universe was non-linear, as are much of quantum mechanics.

And we created the observable universe under quantum mechanics (Copenhagen Theory?).

37 posted on 11/12/2003 10:48:10 AM PST by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Consort
And we created the observable universe under quantum mechanics (Copenhagen Theory?).

I think, therefore I observe. The ability to think was imbued non-linearly.

Gen 1:26
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Gen 2:7
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

38 posted on 11/12/2003 11:00:49 AM PST by bondserv (Alignment is critical.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
The universe was probably imagined into existence...just like everything else.
39 posted on 11/12/2003 11:04:23 AM PST by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Consort
...and, does non-linearity have a linearity of its own or is it merely an anomaly within linearity?
40 posted on 11/12/2003 11:07:02 AM PST by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
You’ve seen it on TV science programs and in textbooks: plumes of hot magma from deep in the Earth’s mantle rise through the crust and erupt on the surface (the IMAX movie Yellowstone has computer graphics of the whole process). Perhaps you’ve seen animations of the Hawaiian Islands riding over a “hot spot” and building its chain of volcanoes over millions of years on its slow, drifting journey. Textbook diagrams show cross-sections of Earth’s crust, with lava erupting from channels rooted deep in the mantle, while crustal plates float and drift atop deep convection currents.

OK, we'll call that A.

That’s all defunct now, and so is a lot of the uniformitarian dogma associated with it, claims Warren B. Hamilton (Colorado School of Mines), in an extensive article in this month’s GSA Today.1 Uniformitarianism is out, catastrophism is in.

And we'll call this B. I'm really curious how the leap was made that if B is true, A is false. There is a clear line of islands and seamounts leading from the Big Island thousands of miles to the WNW - with a jog to the NW that reflects a change in the direction of the Pacific Plate (a jog reflected in other island/seamount chains in the Pacific).

Just because certain geological features now appear to happen more quickly than previously envisioned, it does not therefore mean that ALL theories about all features are therefore changed - hot spot theory holds up just fine with either the uniformitarian model or the catastrophic model.

And a friendly hint - if you are looking for depositional evidence of the Flood, I'd stay away from the Grand Canyon, unless you are prepared to explain the Great Unconformity.

41 posted on 11/12/2003 11:08:47 AM PST by dirtboy (New Ben and Jerry's flavor - Howard Dean Swirl - no ice cream, just fruit at bottom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Consort
The universe was probably imagined into existence...just like everything else.

If so, we get our palette and canvas from someone vastly superior to us. We can't imagine-up all of the things we discover.

42 posted on 11/12/2003 11:12:14 AM PST by bondserv (Alignment is critical.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
If so, we get our palette and canvas from someone vastly superior to us.

Yes, we are creators made in the image and likeness of a greator creator. Creating our universe is childs play for a God.

We can't imagine-up all of the things we discover.

Sure we can.

43 posted on 11/12/2003 11:20:07 AM PST by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
Explain how you make it move to type "Stupid Headline".

The headline said "Everything you know is wrong". We know lightning is an electrical discharge from clousd to cloud or cloud to ground. That is not wrong. Whether or not this physicist from Florida Tech. has some new information on the conditions that initiate lightning (and frankly, if Creation-Evolution Headlines proclaimed the sun rose this morning, I'd glance out the window to check), it doesn't seriously challenge the fundamnetal understanding of lightning.

1/10 of 1%, and half of that will be changed down the road.

Now explain how you came up with that number.

44 posted on 11/12/2003 11:22:14 AM PST by Right Wing Professor (proudly serving as academic smokescreen for the cornhusker semipro football team)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
9-11 was a non-linearity that upsets scientists, but was expected by those believing in the supernatural.

Particularly by the believers in the supernatural who carried it out.

45 posted on 11/12/2003 11:23:57 AM PST by Right Wing Professor (proudly serving as academic smokescreen for the cornhusker semipro football team)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: elbucko
"Whatever happens next, we have just seen that major paradigm shifts are still possible in science. Kuhnians rejoice. Darwinians beware.

I still don't see what this has to do with Genesis."

Nothing whatever. This is one hypothesis, only. Now that it is published, it will undergo serious discussion among global geologists.

One man's writings do not necessarily always pan out. This author sees it one way, which is different from traditional theories, but even if he is correct, it does nothing about Genesis. It's just a different explanation for the 4.? billion year history of the planet.

Paradigm shifts happen in science all the time. There's nothing unusual about them. New ideas are posited. Some succeed in convincing others; some do not.

The secondary author here seems to suggest that because this person has written an article proposing a new theory of the formation and history of the Earth, the next step may be the acceptance of the YEC concept. Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, what is proposed by this scientist is that we may have to take another look at the early history of the planet, along with some of our theories about island chain formation. In no way is he suggesting that this all happened not that long ago. He's talking about the same 4.? billion year history, not some instant creation by a supernatural entity.

This is an interesting theory, to be sure, and I am certain it will be much-discussed over the next few years. Perhaps it will become the new theory of the formation of this planet. Perhaps not. It will not, however, get replaced by some YEC fantasy.
46 posted on 11/12/2003 11:24:14 AM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Research is fun. Here is a site that helpfully categorizes 3 years worth of science articles for your perusal. The source documents are extensively linked.

Link

47 posted on 11/12/2003 11:26:35 AM PST by bondserv (Alignment is critical.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
Research is fun.

You should try it sometime. The oldest seamount in the Hawaii-Emperor chain is about 70 million years old. Try again.

48 posted on 11/12/2003 11:28:58 AM PST by dirtboy (New Ben and Jerry's flavor - Howard Dean Swirl - no ice cream, just fruit at bottom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
There are many questions being considered by the scientific community.

Link

49 posted on 11/12/2003 11:28:59 AM PST by bondserv (Alignment is critical.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
9-11 was a non-linearity that upsets scientists, but was expected by those believing in the supernatural.

Could you document where someone had supernatural knowledge of the 9-11 attacks? Specifics necessary.

50 posted on 11/12/2003 11:29:38 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-154 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson