Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Answer Me This

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Scott Abernathy on May 6, 2002 20:12:41 UTC

Throwing aside all accounts of biological evolution and astronomical data accumulated over the centuries... what about geology?

The principle of Uniformitarianism, written by Charles Lyell, is the foundation for modern day geology. It states that the past is the key to understanding the present. Yes, there is a crossover with punctuated equilibrium, where at times erosion rates increase and rapid change is occuring. But geologic processes certainly take longer the a few thousand years. The grand canyon alone could not have taken 6000 years to develop by present day erosion rates. Seas that rise and fall do not happen over night. Continents moving and moutain building processes are a very slow endeavor. The bibles flood account is flawed based upon simple logic.

Since there were no forms of communication with the rest of the world in biblical times, how did they know the entire world was flooded. Did they talk with natives of Mexico and The America's to see if they were flooded out. Oh that is right, God told them. Funny how God was much more personable back in the olden days. I am sure localized flooding did happen, and maybe even widespread flooding along coastal regions. But to say the enitire earth was flooded could not have been known at that time.

The decay rates of isotopes are rock solid evidence of old-earth geology, as well as, our understanding of plate tectonics, earthquakes, and volcanism. Too much evidence of change over long periods of time is present for us to take seriously the account of the young earth hypothesis. Riley's book "The Genesis Flood", tried to persaude people that it could be scientifically proven that the biblical creation is correct, and it was widely denounced by most if not all reputable scientists. If there was any credible evidence for it, it would be in the classrooms.

Sorry if your religous fervor and blind faith have clouded your objective view of the world, but you are wrong. I could go with you if you said the earth was millions of years old, even though it would be a stretch, but to say 6000 is flat out ridiculous.

Have a great day

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2022 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins