Creationist John Whitmore decided to enlighten us all as to the "real" nature of the fossil record. He is quick to inform fellow creationists that the geologic record conveys a history of catastrophes of greater or lesser extent after the Flood of Genesis. He asserts that for centuries after the Flood there were numerous catastrophes in the fossil record as the continents reshaped themselves, and that it was the record of catastrophe in the rocks that helped convince him of the veracity of the Genesis Flood (full article here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n4/continuing-catastrophes).
A shame he never bothered to learn dating techniques when he looked at the rocks. Perhaps then he would have been convinced of millions of years, and we would have been spared the embarrassment of this article.
The Flood "ripped apart the planet's surface and cycled rocks throughout the mantle," the article introduction posits. Funny, then, that trees and planets of all kinds survived such a cataclysm. Well, perhaps they too were on the Ark, along with squid and sharks, dinosaurs and trilobites.
For centuries after the Flood, catastrophes continued to shape the earth, Whitmore asserts. While the Biblical date of the end of the Flood is easy to find, "Geologically, this event is much more difficult to identify." A fine example of understatement, if there every was one.
The fossil record and the geologic column do record a number of catastrophes, which makes this man's position so much more unfortunate. He's getting closer to the truth than most creationists do, but he won't take the few steps to reality. Were he to put the true geologic timescale to what he's observed in the rocks, then he would be well on his way. At this point, it might be good to add that never once in the article does he ever offer a shred of evidence to support his position. I suspect it is because he has none, that his reading of the strata is closer to theology than geology, and a feeble one at that.
He asserts that even "conventional geologists" (aka the real scientists who actually do science) believe the mountains of the present to be fairly recent. I tracked down the source he cited for this, and it seems to have been one book called "The Origin of Mountains" published in 2000 by Routledge. It seems that the authors, who I do not believe to be creationists, assert that the current mountains formed within the last few million years. An interesting and novel idea which I would like to investigate further, but not one widely accepted. To cite the work of two and say that "conventional geologists" believe this is disingenuous.
I also have a problem with the author himself. He writes that (I believe he must be referring to college) when he was a "young geologist" it was the record of catastrophe that convinced him of Noah's Flood. However, his qualifications at the end of the article list him as having a Ph.D. in biology with a focus in paleontology. Not, strictly speaking, a geologist. He does, however, work as an associate professor of geology at Cedarville University. I looked into Cedarville University, and it seems to be a fundamentalist Christian college dedicated to churning out masses of degrees carried by people who have been taught creationist science, taught the Bible makes no errors and who have all been required to have a "Bible Minor," whatever that means. After some further research, Whitmore earned his B.S. in geology from Kent State. Then he got a Masters in geology from the Institute for Creation Research. No surprise there. He may have some background in geology, but I have little doubt what kind of geology the students at Cedarville are getting from this man.
The blinders are strapped on for this one; even someone who looked at the rocks was so blinded by fundamentalist theology that he only saw what he wanted to see. It is all the more tragic that this man successfully completed a Ph.D. in biology only to advocate for one of the most anti-science ideologies of our present era.
A shame he never bothered to learn dating techniques when he looked at the rocks. Perhaps then he would have been convinced of millions of years, and we would have been spared the embarrassment of this article.
The Flood "ripped apart the planet's surface and cycled rocks throughout the mantle," the article introduction posits. Funny, then, that trees and planets of all kinds survived such a cataclysm. Well, perhaps they too were on the Ark, along with squid and sharks, dinosaurs and trilobites.
For centuries after the Flood, catastrophes continued to shape the earth, Whitmore asserts. While the Biblical date of the end of the Flood is easy to find, "Geologically, this event is much more difficult to identify." A fine example of understatement, if there every was one.
The fossil record and the geologic column do record a number of catastrophes, which makes this man's position so much more unfortunate. He's getting closer to the truth than most creationists do, but he won't take the few steps to reality. Were he to put the true geologic timescale to what he's observed in the rocks, then he would be well on his way. At this point, it might be good to add that never once in the article does he ever offer a shred of evidence to support his position. I suspect it is because he has none, that his reading of the strata is closer to theology than geology, and a feeble one at that.
He asserts that even "conventional geologists" (aka the real scientists who actually do science) believe the mountains of the present to be fairly recent. I tracked down the source he cited for this, and it seems to have been one book called "The Origin of Mountains" published in 2000 by Routledge. It seems that the authors, who I do not believe to be creationists, assert that the current mountains formed within the last few million years. An interesting and novel idea which I would like to investigate further, but not one widely accepted. To cite the work of two and say that "conventional geologists" believe this is disingenuous.
I also have a problem with the author himself. He writes that (I believe he must be referring to college) when he was a "young geologist" it was the record of catastrophe that convinced him of Noah's Flood. However, his qualifications at the end of the article list him as having a Ph.D. in biology with a focus in paleontology. Not, strictly speaking, a geologist. He does, however, work as an associate professor of geology at Cedarville University. I looked into Cedarville University, and it seems to be a fundamentalist Christian college dedicated to churning out masses of degrees carried by people who have been taught creationist science, taught the Bible makes no errors and who have all been required to have a "Bible Minor," whatever that means. After some further research, Whitmore earned his B.S. in geology from Kent State. Then he got a Masters in geology from the Institute for Creation Research. No surprise there. He may have some background in geology, but I have little doubt what kind of geology the students at Cedarville are getting from this man.
The blinders are strapped on for this one; even someone who looked at the rocks was so blinded by fundamentalist theology that he only saw what he wanted to see. It is all the more tragic that this man successfully completed a Ph.D. in biology only to advocate for one of the most anti-science ideologies of our present era.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteConfirmatin bias much? This reminds me of some graphics I saw of pertified trees standing vertically in a rock formation, reaching through more that a couple layers of strata. I can't remember the source (southwestern u.s., I believe), but I thought that interesting, given what we know of orogenesis. They allow for some interesting debate, but certainly do not prove the creationist/flood story -- the context in which they were presented. Of course, this could also be bovine excrement.
ReplyDelete