Uniformitarinaism vs catastrophism has been sliced and diced here for years. Catastrophism seems to be getting the upper hand in recent years for reasons I don't quite comprehend since the evidence for periods of mass destruction on our little planet have been around forever and are, well, legion. The problem is, and again for reasons I don't quite comprehend, is that "science" bought into the uniformitarian model and the "theory" became so embedded in the culture it became fact. In may just be coincidental that this theory is contrary to much of the ancient accounts of sudden cataclysms, including the Bible.
From my limited knowledge of the debate it looks like Immanuel Velikovsky was the first in recent(if you accept that the 50's were recent) times to mount a serious attack on the uniformitarian dogma, and dogma it is; and attack it he did. He was beaten unmercifully by the scientific community and their media and journal publishing sycophants. Why? Beats me. If you haven't read any Velikovsky, please do, and start with EARTH IN UPHEAVEL. It's a keeper. I'm now on my fourth reading of it and I STILL run across new stuff.
I was a long-time lurker since FR inception and have never signed up for GGG due to the extreme close-minded bias of many here. Thanks for your kind replies though FGS.
The absolute strangest most unethical part [for moi] of those evolutionists and old-earthers claiming they follow a strictly scientific method is...
WHERE is it allowed to ignore and/or discard scientific facts that contradict your most cherished theories?!?!
Follow the money [esp. government give aways] ~ it shows very clearly where the corruption and bias has been introduced time and time again.
Recent scientific papers released on the complexities of DNA show clearly a much much higher intelligence at work knitting any and all unique kinds of life forms together.
Those who are clearly the most close-minded and godless have only studied and regurgitated only what the ‘leading’ authorities have filtered and allowed to be discussed.
Anything that could allow them to see the true breadth and depth of what we do know and what we don’t is ridiculed [as if that is a valid debate response - pfffttt!].
I am certain that science would have made significantly more progress if they were true to their cherished methods and open-minded enough to read and consider the research of the christians and the jews. For my money, the academia and media behave more and more like the savage and backward muslims.