and we know NO scientific advancements have been made since then..they also thought diseases were caused by bad air..influenza and colds came from, well, colder weather..continents were believed to be stuck in place..the atom wasnt known as much as it is now..nobody had heard of DNA..and so many other advancements

In common with most other scientists of their day, they believed in God and the divine authority of the Bible.

so?..there wasnt much of an intellectual secure alternative back then, either

Toward the end of the 18th century, and especially in the first half of the 19th century, the ancient pagan evolutionary philosophies began to be revived and promoted by the various socialistic revolutionary movements of the times.

oh, those evil pagans..he just had to include paganism, didnt he?..because thats akin to devil worship..some odd similarities between the bible and some ancient pagan religions..do you know what socialism really is?

Evolution obviously required aeons of geologic time and the scientific community, including the great Isaac Newton himself, was committed to the Usher chronology, with its recent special creation and worldwide Flood.

knowing, of course, that no scientific advances have occured since then

Therefore, it was necessary, first of all, that the Flood be displaced as the framework of geologic interpretation,

the only way for that to have happened was with evidence..and there has been plenty of evidence to say there wasnt a global flood

Geologic catastrophism must be, at all costs replaced by uniformitarianism,

define “uniformitarianism”..or can nobody do that?

This was accomplished in two stages: first. the single cataclysm of the Flood was replaced by the multiple catastrophes

there have been many major volcanic eruptions(one major eruption on a minoan island near greece that destroyed a good section of the island around 1600 BC appears to be mentioned in the bible) and meteor strikes..the 65 million year old crater on the north coast of the yucatan peninsula..a meteor is how chesapeake bay was formed..there are numerous meteors that have hit the earth..many more than we see, because a majority have likely landed in the ocean

It is significant that this uniformitarian revolution was led, not by professional scientific geologists, but by amateurs, men such as Buckland (a theologian), Cuvier (an anatomist), Buffon (a lawyer), Hutton (an agriculturalist), Smith (a surveyor), Chambers (a journalist), Lyell (a lawyer), and others of similar variegated backgrounds.

it doesnt matter who discovers anything..what matters is the evidence

The acceptance of Lyell’s uniformitarianism laid the foundation for the sudden success of Darwinism in the decade following the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1859.

and evolution would not be surviving as a theory today if it had no evidence

Nevertheless, the actual facts or geology still favored catastrophism, and flood geology never died completely.

if the facts of geology favored catastrophism, then thats what geologists and other scientists would accept..the lack of that would appear

With adequate time apparently available, assisted by man’s natural inclination to escape from God if possible,

god isnt eliminated by evolution..darwin was an agnostic, not an atheist

The Biblical Deluge was similarly shorn of scientific significance by reinterpreting it in terms of a "local flood"

and thats likely what it was..there was a report in discovery that it could have been about the black sea flooding when a natural dam broke

for those few people who insisted that the Genesis narrative required a universal inundation, a "tranquil flood". Lyell himself proposed a worldwide tranquil flood that left no geological traces.

i doubt a rise of the level of the ocean of 30,000 feet in 40 days could be a “tranquil” flood

For example, Karl Marx and the Communists quickly aligned themselves with evolutionary geology and biology, Marx even asking to dedicate his Das Kapital to Charles Darwin.

darwin declined to have it dedicated to him..its irrelevant, anyway..whether something is a science isnt determined by how somebody uses it

The "science" referred to in the above is, in context, nothing but naturalistic evolution based on uniformitarian geology. Similarly, Nietzschean racism, Freudian amoralism, and military imperialism all had their roots in the same soil and grew in the same climate.

i wait until the next IMPACT article to argue any further “points” about how evolution caused racism

Uniformitarian geology was contrary to both the Bible and to observable science. Now, a hundred years later, the humanistic and naturalistic culture erected upon that foundation is beginning to crumble, and men are beginning again to look critically at the foundation.

evolution is science..it is not humanism..would you like me to identify the parts of science(biology, geology, etc.) that converge on evolution?

The local-flood theory is even less defensible. The entire Biblical account of the Flood is absurd if read in a local-flood context.

no it isnt..the reason is because it could have occured in over a wide area..(this was written in 1973, however)..the people exaggerate the story over some generations, and eventually it is refered to as a global flood

For example, there was obviously no need for any kind of an ark if the flood were only a local flood.

it could have been added to the story later

Yet the Bible describes it as a huge vessel with a volumetric capacity which can be shown to be equal to that of over 500 standard railroad stock cars!

not enough to accomadate every species of animal..and i doubt that 20,000 animals would enjoy it much..many would likely die

A universal Flood that could come and go softly, leaving no geologic evidence of its passage, would require an extensive complex of miracles for its accomplishment.

possibly..but it wouldnt leave over a mile of sediment in some places

Nevertheless, the Flood model fits all the geologic facts more directly and simply, with a smaller number of qualifications and secondary assumptions, than does the uniformitarian model.

wrong, it does not..animals are not sorted by density..they are not sorted by swimming ability(with good swimmers being higher, poor swimmers being lower)..they are not sorted by fastest animals(with the faster animals being able to outrun others)..they are arranged in an order in an order expected by evolution, not by a catastrophe..you would expect disorder in the fossil record in some sort of a major flood

"To become fossilized, a plant or animal must usually have hard parts, such as bone, shell, or wood. It must be buried quickly to prevent decay and must be undisturbed throughout the long process."5

how is that evidence of a global flood?..lava flows can cause fossilization..so can meteor strikes..we know volcanoes erupt..we also have plenty of craters to know meteors strike the earth

The age does not depend on radiometric dating, as is obvious from the fact that the geologic age system had been completely worked out and most major formations dated before radioactivity was even discovered.

age does depend on radiometric dating

It does not depend upon vertical position in the local geologic strata, since rocks of any "age" may and do rest horizontally and conformably on rocks of any other age.

in situations of up-lift and tectonics, yes..such examples of that occur in few areas of the world..southern or eastern france, i think, is one of those few places..in most places, however, older strata is lower

On the other hand, the very existence of fossils in sedimentary rocks is prima facie evidence that each such fossiliferous rock was formed by aqueous catastrophism.

no it isnt..it is evidence of quick burial, not of a global flood

The one question, therefore, is whether the rocks were formed by a great multiplicity of local catastrophes scattered through many ages, or by a great complex of local catastrophes all conjoined contemporaneously in one single age, terminated by the cataclysm.

the order of fossils doesnt agree with the “hydraulic sorting”..jawless fish, then bony fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then birds, then mammals..if youd like to explain how a global flood would predict such an order, go ahead

Each set of strata in a given formation must also have been deposited in rapid succession, or there would be evidence of unconformity-that is, periods of uplift and erosion-at the various interfaces.

but strata isnt equal around the world..there is 25 feet of mississippian, then 50 feet of pennsylvanian everywhere throughout the world

Each formation must have been produced rapidly, as evidenced by both its fossils

the fossils dont show every fossil was laid down within a period of one year

its depositional characteristics, and each formation must have been followed rapidly by another one, which was also formed rapidly!

no, it doesnt

Obviously, fossils could be distinctive time markers only if the various kinds each had lived in different ages. But how can we know which fossils lived in which ages? No scientists were there to observe them, and true science requires observation.

its historical observation

Furthermore, by analogy with the present (and uniformitarianism is supposed to be able to decipher the past in terms of the present), many different kinds of plants and animals are living in the present world, including even the "primitive" one-celled organisms with which evolution is supposed to have begun.

and im sure most peoples parents are still living..nobody said the whole population of a species evolved at the same time into different animals

Why, therefore, isn’t it better to assume that all major kinds also lived together in past ages as well?

because the fossil record doesnt show it that way

Some kinds, such as the dinosaurs, have become extinct, but practically all present-day kinds of organisms are also found in the fossil world.

theres that word “kinds” again..i still dont know what he means..species?..genus?..order?..family?..kingdom?

So the only proof of evolution is based on the assumption of evolution!

that is a lie..there is more than just one proof

How much more simple and direct it would be to explain the fossil-bearing rocks as the record in stone of the destruction of the antediluvian world by the great Flood.

what does simplicity prove?..that morons are more likely to understand?

Fossils or birds and mammals are found only at the higher elevations because they live at higher elevations and also because they are more mobile and could escape burial longer.

many dinosaurs were also mobile, too..yet, we dont find any of them in cenozoic strata..no velociraptors..no deinonychus..dinosaurs were mammallike in speed and agility..this statement is a problem with using 25 year old material..the view of the speed and agility of dinosaurs has changed in the past 20 years

Human fossils are extremely rare because men would only very rarely be trapped and buried in flood sediments at all, because of their high mobility.

plenty of animals are faster than humans..and this is really a bunch of garbage..i mean, with the flood rising 750 feet a day, it really doesnt mean a damn thing how fast you can run..especially considering human fossils are found on plains..if fossils were found in mountains, this may be a good point

The flood theory of geology, which was so obvious and persuasive to the founders of geology,

did these same geologists believe the continents moved?..does that mean they dont?

is thus once again beginning to be recognized as the only theory which is fully consistent with the actual facts of geology, as well as with the testimony of Scripture.

the first half is definitely wrong..the second half is open to intepretation

complete version of impact #6

email me