How Science Progresses -- By Overturning Old Paradigms?

IpetrichI mostly agree with your post. Nevertheless there is room for paradigm shifts in science and they do occur.Creationists already understand both (i) why there is some 'appearence' of eons/evolution and (ii) what the signatures are that a paradigm shift towards creation/flood is necessary.As documented on this forum site Lyell's three catch cries of geological gradualism 'coincidentally' are also expected from a global flood viewpoint. Let's examin them again and see how this coincidence arises:1. The geo-col consist of layers
a) Gradualism: layers formed gradually due to seasonal change in load composition.
b) Flood geology: layers formed rapidly via hydrodynamic sorting uner rapid curentsBoth a and b are perfectly sensible proposals. It has been shown experimetnally that layers can be formed by two qualitatively differnt methods: via (i) load changes or (ii) hydrodynamic sorting. (i) dominates today but (ii) dominates during high energy events. It is completely coincidental that both (a) and (b) above can explain the data.2. Gorges typically carry rivers proportional to their size
a) Gradualism: these rivers eroded these gorges over eons of time
b) Flood geology: once high-energy sheet erosion (during the later stages of the flood recession) degraded into an intermediate energy channel forming mode the reecession carved canyons out of still soft flood sediments. The same catchments that provided this 'intermediate energy' run-off are still the same catchments that are the source of the same (low energy) rivers today.Again both a and b are perfectly sensible proposals. Rivers flows are obviously proportional to their catchment sizes. Hence it is implicit that both eons of time or flood drainage can explain this supossed catch cry of gradualism. Both explanations hinge on catchment size not gradualism or catastrophism per se.3. World-wide deposits of the geo-col can be assigned to various sedimentary environments
a) Gradualism: these enironmetents can be found today gradually forming layers
b) Flood geology: these environements could have been catastrophic flood stages and lullsBoth a and b are possible. It simply is very difficult to distinguish a rapid marine inundation across a continent from a gradual one. One finds the same things: fossils, burrows, ripples etc. It turns out that it is not that easy to distinguish a long term habitat from a rapid flood burial event simply from strata. We have very few models of rapid marine inundation to compare too. So because of the complexity of the data it is easy for both sides to see fossils, ripples and burrows and clai mit is uniquely consistent with their scenario! [The data we have on modern day shelves actually argues against geo-col marine strata being gradual inundations: (i) a complete lack of comparable shelves forming today, (ii) sea-floors are too disturbed to give rise to the type of starta we typically see in the geo-col and (iii) the paleocurrent data suggests rapid inundation.]There is plenty of room for the mother of all paradigm shifts to occur in geology (and I could similarly analyze biology).[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-29-2003]

Ipetrich I don't see the relevance of all this (I'm very aware of the Heis vs Scrhod formulations - the flood vs eons are obviously not comparable to this) except perhaps that you probably think flood geology is in the 'poorer' category. So what's the applicaiton? You can say it in plain English and I wont get upset! And? Could it be simply that there are overlapping molecular requirements in elephants and hyraxes and aardvarks and tenrecs despite thier diverse anatomies that the creator was fully aware of? Molecular similarity can be interpreted as nothing more than . . . molecular similarity. It need not necessarily have any evolutionary significance.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-30-2003]

JoeThese mechanisms are simply the primary mechanisms employed by our opposing views. Of course we also appreciate the reality of gradualistic mechanisms just as you appreciate catastrophic mechanisms.In the future I will make a point of stating that mainstream geology accepts catastrophism where necessary.However, I made it clear in my introduciton that my purpose was to show that both mechanisms somewhat coincidentally explain the same data.You missed the point that Lyell et al used these three pieces of data as catch cries of gradualism when further research demonstrates them to be nothing of the sort. They are not points of distinguishment between the models.There is room for a huge paradigm shift in geology despite your limited acceptance of catastrophic mechanisms.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-30-2003]

Ipetrich Yes but what is never actually commented on here by the eons-side is that almost every formaiton has a corresponding obvious rapid mechanism of generation. You simply pick the gradualism explanation and ignore the evidence of rapidity and catastrophe (systematic rapid and consistent current flow revealed by ripples, cross-bedding and ordered pebbles; incredibly high purity and large scale of strata and systematic presence of fossil graveyards).We both choose the interpretation we prefer but we admit our difficulties, your side rarely admits anything. You give the layman the feeling that starta wer elaid down gradually. That is a ridiculous interpretaiton for around 50% of the geo-col. Agreed. It is easy to study existing lakes and look for layers. It is not so easy to locate a recent catastrophic event and loko for layers or set it up experimentally. Completely agreed. We agree on wy catastrophism was defeated then. Now the situation is entirely differnt. Why are you all so sure we don't accept these events? We beleive that catastrophism was not limited to Earth. The marring that the moon (and Earth) received extraterrestially was also a catastrophic event realted to creaiton/flood in our view. No problem I'll put the emphasis on 'were'. We think you have huge blinkers on. The paleocurrents, fossil graveyards, coal fields, sorting and vast scope do actually scream global flood! The only reason our scenario appears more ad hoc is that you ingensouly propose a new sub-environment type for every formation and claim it is not ad hoc! It's a just-so-story best fitted to the closest modern analogy. You can explain anything by such story telling (just as we can). I will not argue ours is better at this point. We have only spent about 100 serious man-years on this scenario compared to your millions of man-years. We simply have no problem with your scenario! We believe in the entire continental drift scenario, the paleomagnetic stripes, the hotspots, subduciton, rift valleys, Pangea, the sea-level curves etc etc. We simply disagree on the timing. Computer simulations by one of the world's most respected simulators have shown that plate drift can move into a catastrophic mode driven by runaway subduction. We fully agree with all of the data and point to runaway subduction computer simulaitons as a mechanism for catastrophic tectonics and evidence of rapidity of the generation fo the geo-col.On topic: the data must be interpreted - it does not speak for itself.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 02-02-2003]

Ipetrich I have no idea how much you know about geology, but that is not the nature of the geo-col. Everyone thinks the geo-col is river beds and swamps. It categorically isn't. The geo-col whether marine or frehwater is constructed from vast sheets of strata. It's not rivers! Rivers are actually very difficult to find in the geo-col! (I wonder why??). Most of the geo-col is constucted from sheets of marine strata generated as the continents were inundated by the sea. Mainstream science calls this transgressing 'epieiric seas'. We call it flood surges as the paleocurrent indicators directly suggest. I wont deny that some formations are problematic for us (but that is also the case for your scenario). We propose that the geo-col was formed during about six global surges (triggered by catastrophic global tectonics) as recorded in the mainstream sea-level curves deduced from global sequence stratigraphy. We put the low energy sedimentaito evnets in between these surges. Possibly, possibly not. I'm not an expert on fossil graveyards. That's just a viewpoint. During the Mesozoic, and especially the Paleozoc, paleocurrents correlate across Norht America both vertically and horizontally. What you call separate events seem to be linked across the continent. The 2nd order sea-level curves, at the very least, were global inundation events of course and the paelocurrents generally record rapid, correlated currents. We're quite happy to entertain misceallaneous catastrophic and gradualistic events since the flood. Check my posts:
* stratigraphic separation of modern mammals and dinosaurs
* stratigraphic separation of amphibians and flowering plant boundaries
* catastrophic tectonics releases too much heat in too short a time
* there is evidence of genuine habitaiton at many multiple stratigraphic levels during what we call the flood rocks
* there is evidence of slowly formed and wind formed strata
* etc The correlated paleocurrent indicators are far more consistent with rapid flood surges. We havesand waves of dozens of feet, ripples tha tcorrelate in orientaiton across sub-continets and for thousands of feet of strata. Where do I do that? In our scenario we still hahve 4500 years of gradualism, we leave open the possibiilty of cratering during the flood (into soft sediment) and also leave open the possibility of catastrophic glacial melting at the end of the post-flood iceages. Fine with me. Also fine with me. Take another look at the Grand Canyon starta. It's a near continuous record of layering. The para-confomrities are of trivial relief. There is nothing stopping these being flood rocks. Cyclothem coal beds formed over huge flat regions stretching across the east coast (of USA). They alternate with snadstone which betray rapid delivery via south-west paelocurrents correlated across that region. In our scenario the rapid currents brought in the vegetation as a foating mat that then dropped bark and plant material that formed coal. In a global catastrophe of this type one shold expect thousands of feet of strata to form in a year. Creaitonists have evidence tha tradiodecay was accerlated. There is vast excess of helium in biotites that should have escaped at the observed temperatures. The actual helium concnetraitons suggest that the supposed billions of years of decay occurred in only a 4,000-14,000 year time frame. Diffusion is a time dependent phsyical property just as nuclear deay is. It does not support radiodecay having occurred at constant rates. I'm not crying at all. I'm just soberly aware of the facts. Yes Fine except we would put it simply as pre-flood. Yes, during catastrophic tectonics one would get hot-spots creating island chains in the same manner as mainstream science expects.The only reason that you think it all happened slowly is radiodecay and a lack of belief in the flood. The actual geometry of the rocks does not actually require or suggest gradualism for any of these processes![This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 02-03-2003]

Edge No, I'm simply noting that approximately 50% of the geo-col is most easilty explained via catastrophic means. Most of the remainder is explainable by both sceanrios and a small percentage is problematic for us. In my opinion, 50% of it is problematic for your side.

Edge Here I'm defining 'slow process' as one that operates under near-zero curent. During the upheaval of the flood vast quantitites of material would have been suspended in solution and would settle in calm conditions at rates far higher than today. Thanks for that friendly reminder. It could be simply telling me that we're all trying to explain a very complex dataset. But your logic presumes that the long process is fact. When a lot of data points to rapidity we have to allow for the 'gradual' formation to be simply problematic. I don't deny that scientifically all we can do is show that a lot of beds formed rapidly but that some may have taken a long time. Our Biblical bias of course suggests that these problematic beds need to be looked at in more detail.