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

To: the_Watchman
In other words, he chose to interpret the geologic data from an evolutionary viewpoint due to assumptions derived from OTHER disciplines.

Funny, Adam Sedgwick spent most of his career trying to impose a Genesis literal interpretation on the geologic column. He gave it up in 1831, by which time he was the outgoing long-time President of the Geological Society. Too much was known that just didn't work with that model.

OK, we're not talking here about whether there was one big flood all over the world, but whether evolution happens. But geology documents something called "faunal succession," which is nothing but the forensic trail of evolution.

Your geologist is probably admitting that you can devise an old-Earth creationism in which acts of creation are "detected" (arbitrarily inserted) here and there wherever gaps in the data remain at any given time. This can be made to work with most or all of the geological record but, as he says, there are other evidences for evolution besides geology. His statement is not any sort of evidence against evolution.

71 posted on 06/18/2004 6:16:15 AM PDT by VadeRetro (They can't ALL be winners, folks! -- Groucho Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]


To: VadeRetro
There's a very nice article on edge.org right now that touches on the interplay between geologists and biologists (among lots of other points) in an overview on current evo theory.

Check it out: AN ECO-EVOLUTIONARY DANCE THROUGH DEEP TIME.

91 posted on 06/18/2004 8:16:33 AM PDT by forsnax5 (The greatest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

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