Evolution versus Creationism is a 'Red Herring' argument

In the OP you argue that evolution is based on Uniformitarianism and that Uniformitarianism is invalid. So why would it be improper to reject evolution on that basis.Second you argue that relaxing the literal 24-hour days makes the Genesis account compatible with evolution. But even if the 6 days were different from 24-hour days, there is still the problem that the order of creation in Genesis is not compatible with the scientific view.Perhaps you are the one erroneously jumping to a conclusion that religious people and scientists are idiots.

Scientists discarded the Genesis account because it is erroneous.Why do people try to reconcile science with the Bible? It's like comparing apples and orangutans.

The only red herring I see in your OP is equating "evolutionists" with atheists and arguing that they deliberately threw out the Genesis version because of this. If you accept that no science says anything about religion, your red herring in your OP disappears.

It's not clear what you mean by uniformitarianism, but whatever you mean by it, this is no way to reason.If evolution is a form of uniformitarianism (whatever that is) then you still need to show that there is something wrong with evolution specifically. Otherwise what's to stop someone saying: "Uniformitarianism is totally in contradiction to scientific evidence, except when it comes to evolution, which turns out to be correct. Darwin caught a lucky break there."Don't you see that something's gone terribly wrong when all the argument you have against evolution, a proposition about biology, doesn't involve mentioning a single organism, a single organ, a single fossil, a single bone, a single genome, a single gene, a single scrap of a shred of a scintilla of an iota of information about biology?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

There are many ways to define uniformitarianism ("U" hereafter). Lyell described U as sedimentation and geologic structures accumulating at steady rates. This, of course, was thrown out when catastrophic processes were recognized and better understood. This was strictly a geologic term though. Strangely enough, punctuated equilibria is anything but stead rates of evolution, so evolution really doesn't even fit into this loosely defined geologic term.The second way that U is used is to describe constant physical laws through history. This is no in contradiction to evidence. In fact, all of the evidence we have points to constant physical laws throughout the 13.7 billion year history of our universe. That is what creationists do, not scientists. Creationists are the group who constantly conflates evolution with the origin of life and the universe. It is scientists who continually correct them on this error. They didn't discard it. They followed the evidence. If Genesis is true then the evidence would have supported it. It didn't.In fact, most of the earliest geologists went out into the field looking for evidence of a young earth and Noah's Deluge. They found just the opposite. They found literal mountains of evidence for an ancient Earth (millions to billions of years old) and absolutely no evidence of a recent global flood. A literal interpretation of Genesis could actually be said to be the impetus for much of geology in the late 1700's to early 1800's. It was far from ignored. It just happend to be wrong. By the time Darwin proposed the Theory of Evolution a literal Genesis had long been refuted.Perhaps you could explain to us why a refuted creation myth (when interpreted literally) should be forced into a scientific theory? How does Genesis improve our knowledge of life's history? What creation scientists are using Genesis as the basis for original scientific research? Why don't we ever hear of creationists digging up fossils out in the field? Why is all of their effort put into propoganda and anti-science tracts?The truth of the matter is that science came to the conclusion of slowly developing life, an ancient Earth, and a lack of a recent global flood by following the evidence. Why is that a problem? That seems like the very definition of science to me. They aren't. I think you are seeing persecution where there is none.

AMFTHR: written 2 years ago.Author's Note: Since my writing of this section, rock specimens have been found in Antarctica that have been shown to have been at one time on the surface of Mars; and also some which had, at one time, been on the surface of the far side of the moon.
Also, within the last decade a complete, detailed planetary topological mapping of Venus was carried out by satellite. Venus has a violent (600 mph) and corrosive (sulphuric acid) atmosphere. Yet craters (with little or no detectable erosion) were found that had to have been formed within recent, perhaps historical times. This alone directly disproves Uniformitarianism. When NOVA asked an astrophysicist about this, his reply was: ‘I don’t see how Uniformitarianism can ever possibly explain those craters. But I’m not willing to give it up.’
Sir, your answer is the epitome of religious dogmatism and not that of objective, scientific methodology.Will reply better at future time, when have some time. Very good reasoning and informative input by you. PaulGL

I will be here when you return to explain that second sentence. And give some citations to the literature.

A crater on Venus, or any other planet, may have been formed by any number of known and observed mechanisms including impact by a meteor. We also believe that there are no plate tectonics or Venus. Explain how some random feature found on Venus, that may or may not be formed by a catastrophic event, rules out whatever you mean by uniformitarianism as an explanation for other features, either on Venus or on earth.

Oh look, an unnamed reference to an unnamed source. Very creationist. It would make it much harder to prove that you made the quote up, except for a couple of minor blunders. You say that this person was an astrophysicist. First of all, such a person would have no more idea than a layman about craters on Venus. And second, as "uniformitarianism" is a term of art in the history of geology, and in creationist propaganda, and absolutely nowhere else, an astrophysicist wouldn't use the word 'cos astrophysicists never use that word and most of them have never heard it either. Well, that was very haughty. But then, it is easy to look down on the imaginary people who live in your head. You may find arguing with real people is more difficult.

Pretty funny.Thanks, but what does it have to do with the topic?Did you read Message 12?Are you claiming that the processes here on earth are different than in the past, that continental plate collisions did not raise mountains, that erosion and weathering did not break down materials and move them from higher levels to lower levels, that volcanism and floods and storms and winds and freezing and thawing behaved differently in the past, that in the past younger layers were laid down beneath older layers?Come on.

As a refutation of Uniformitarianism as it applies to geology the surface of Venus is a lot better than the Big Bang, which seems to have been his original argument!But this little article - although nearly 2 years old - should give a better idea of the state of affairs with Venus Venus crater debate heats up(It's possible that his "astrophysicist" is David Coppedge - an IT worker who used to work for the Cassini program at JPL.)You can find a good deal - perhaps all of the book available as a "preview" via Amazon. Believe me, you haven't seen half the crazy yet A Message For the Human Race

In that case, PaulGL has turned the actual scientific question completely on its head. While scientists wonder what explains the absence of the craters that aren't there, PaulGL claims that they're at a loss to explain the presence of the craters that are there.

and in case PaulGL didn't know that I think it is a point worth making.We are talking about the geological and biological history of the Earth, not Venus.The fact is that the various Genesis accounts were abandoned not from some desire to attack the Bible, but because all of the evidence from here on the Earth showed that the Genesis accounts, the Biblical accounts, the Biblical Flood were simply wrong.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin her ---> here

I think that it is more accurate to say that PaulGL is wondering why there are so many craters while scientists are wondering why there are so few. He is wondering why the craters seen have not been erased, while scientists are wondering why older craters have been erased.If he had more sense - and didn't rely on creationist sources - he might construct a valid argument against the more extreme forms of uniformitarianism based on the catastrophic resurfacing hypothesised for Venus (although the point of the article was that that view was under question). It would at least be an example of a catastrophic event having a major geological effect. And that would be an improvement over his book.However, he would still have the massive problem that he still does't have an argument that is remotely valid and still wouldn't even if he DID come up with an example of catastrophic processes on Earth. It is not enough to argue that evolution took ideas from uniformitarianism and uniformitarianism is false. He needs to argue that current evolutionary theory relies on aspects of uniformitarianism that are false. And he doesn't even try to do that.

Supporting what has been said, the Geoscience Research Institute which has been searching for 50 years for a short age model that fits the evidence (and with no success), had 2 articles in their publication "Origins" confirming that early geologists indeed did look for YEC and Flood evidence and could not find it.