James Hutton. A man who was a major factor in the successful attempt by Atheists and Atheopaths to "kick God out of science" even though it was men who believed in God who actually invented modern science!Some of the men who helped promote this mythology to the level of supposed accepted fact were intentionally dishonest. Among them were Charles Lyell, who deliberately faked evidence to fit his pet hypothesis of Uniformitarianism and Ernst Haeckel, whose fake embryo drawings still persist in textbooks even today and were critical in the promotion of Darwinist Evolution. After the first post, there will be a review of the information presented primarily by video in the last post. Let's take a look at the iconic location that helped inspire Hutton to promote a tragically wrong hypothesis and understand why he was wrong and what he should have seen.
Would Lyell have been successful in promoting his hypothesis without the foundational assumptions promoted by Hutton? Would the potentially groundbreaking work of Antonio Snider-Pelligrini published in 1859 then have helped push the assertions of Darwin aside in the eyes of the scientific community? After all, at about the same time Darwin's first book was published, Louis Pasteur had put the lie to Chemical Evolution aka Spontaneous Generation of organisms in 1861 and Edward Blyth (1835) had associated Natural Selection with Creationism beforehand. Another Creationist, Gregor Mendel, published his findings on genetics in 1866 but his work was not immediately appreciated. At a time when mankind could have advanced knowledge of biology and geology rapidly, the concepts of long ages and evolution became a drag on research and a giant money suck. How much money has been spent trying to find organisms evolving, force them to evolve, or search the skies for some sign of alien life?
Could we subtract Darwin and Lyell and Hutton and Haeckel from the equation, mankind would have made far more headway on understanding not only the workings of the cell but also advances in medicine as well. Consider how mankind would benefit from science working together to apply knowledge of genetics and DNA to the ailments and mutations of mankind, not hindered by ideas like vestigial organs "Junk DNA" and other nonsensical Darwinist blunders.
In hopes of being part of the change mechanism that brings science back to truth, abandoning reworked ancient mythologies, more on the Noahic Flood that reshaped the planet:
A Scottish site, revered by evolutionary geologists worldwide as the birthplace of their long-age philosophy, actually gives powerful evidence for the Genesis Flood.
What Hutton saw
The lower rocks
Folding and eroding
The upper rocks
A geological icon
References and notes
Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: A Global Flood Model of Earth History
by Independent researchers Steven Austin, ICR, John Baumgardner, Los Alamos National Laboratory, D. Russell Humphreys, Sandia National Laboratories; Andrew Snelling, Answers in Genesis (USA); Larry Vardiman, ICR; Kurt Wise, Truett-McConnell College
In 1859 Antonio Snider proposed that rapid, horizontal divergence of crustal plates occurred during Noah’s Flood. Modern plate tectonics theory is now conflated with assumptions of uniformity of rate and ideas of continental “drift.” Catastrophic plate tectonics theories, such as Snider proposed more than a century ago, appear capable of explaining a wide variety of data—including biblical and geologic data which the slow tectonics theories are incapable of explaining. We would like to propose a catastrophic plate tectonics theory as a framework for Earth history.
Pre-Flood earth structure
- much Archean sialic material exists which probably is below the pre-Flood/Flood boundary. This would indicate that sialic material was available in pre-Flood times;
- the existence of low-density, low temperature “keels” beneath existing cratons22 implies that the cratons have persisted more or less in their present form since their differentiation. It also argues that little or no mantle convection has disturbed the upper mantle beneath the cratons; and
- if the pre-Flood cratons were sialic and the pre-Flood ocean crust was mafic, then buoyancy forces would provide a natural means of supporting craton material above sea level—thus producing dry land on the continents.
- pre-Flood basaltic ocean crust is suggested by ophiolites (containing pillow basalts and presumed ocean sediments) which are thought to represent pieces of ocean floor and obducted onto the continents early in the Flood;
- if, as claimed above, the pre-Flood craton was sialic, then buoyancy forces would make a mafic pre-Flood ocean crust into a natural basin for ocean water. This would prevent ocean water from overrunning the continents; and
- if, as claimed above, the continents were sialic, mafic material would be necessary to drive the subduction required in our Flood model.
- biologically optimum terrestrial and marine environments would require that at least a small amount of sediment of each type had been created in the Creation week;
- Archean (probable pre-Flood) and Proterozoic sediments contain substantial quantities of all types of sediments; and
- it may not be possible to derive all the Flood sediments from igneous and/or metamorphic precursors by physical and chemical processes in the course of a single, year-long Flood.
- the direct hand of God (Baumgardner23,24, Morton25,26,27,28,29,30,31);
- the impact or near-miss of an astronomical object or objects such as asteroids,32meteorites,33 a comet,34,35 a comet or Venus,36 Venus and Mars,37 Mars,38 Mars, Ceres, and Jupiter,39 another moon of earth,40 and a star;41
- some purely terrestrial event or events, such as fracturing of the earth’s crust due to drying42or radioactive heat buildup,43 rapid tilting of the earth due to gyro turbulence44 or ice sheet buildup,45 and natural collapse of rings of ice;46,47 or
- various combinations of these ideas.
- carbon dioxide produced by degassing spreading center magmas;
- dissolved pre-Flood bicarbonate precipitated as ocean temperatures rose during the Flood (given that carbonate dissolution rates are inversely related to temperature);
- eroded and redeposited pre-Flood carbonates (a dominant pre-Flood sediment); and
- pulverized and redeposited pre-Flood shell debris. Precipitation of carbonate may explain the origin of micrite,97 so ubiquitous in Flood sediments, but of an otherwise unknown origin.98Until pre-Flood ocean magnesium was depleted by carbonate precipitation, high-magnesium carbonates would be expected to be frequent products of early Flood activity (see Chillinger99for interesting data on this subject).
- energy to aid in breaking up initially coherent rock blocks;
- an acceleration to aid in the thrusting of rock blocks; and
- vibration which reduces the frictional force resisting the motion and thrusting of rock blocks.
Oard136,137,138 suggested that within the first millennium following the Flood, the oceans (and earth) would have cooled as large amounts of water were evaporated off of the oceans and dropped over the cooler continental interiors. Although Oard’s model needs substantial modification (for example, to include all the Cenozoic), quantification, and testing, we feel that it is likely to prove to have considerable explanatory and predictive power. The predicted cooling142,143 seems to be confirmed by oxygen isotope ratios in Cenozoic foraminifera of polar bottom144,145,146 (fig. 1), polar surface, and tropical bottom waters, and may contribute to increased vertebrate body size (Cope’s Law147) throughout the Cenozoic. Oard148 suggests that the higher rates of precipitation may provide a unique explanation for a well-watered Sahara of the past,149,150,151 rapid erosion of caves, and the creation and/or maintenance of large interior continental lakes of the Cenozoic. Examples of the latter include Quaternary pluvial lakes,152,153Lakes Hopi and Canyonlands, which may have catastrophically drained to produce Grand Canyon,154,155,156 and the extensive lake which produced the Eocene Green River deposits. We would expect floral and faunal communities to have tracked the cooling of the oceans and the corresponding cooling and drying of the continents. Such a tracking seems to explain the trend in Cenozoic plant communities to run from woodland to grassland and the corresponding trend in Cenozoic herbivores to change from browsers to grazers.
- a consistent, worldwide, initiation event in the geologic column;
- most body fossils assigned to Flood deposits were deposited allochthonously (including coal, forests, and reefs);
- most ichnofossils assigned to Flood deposits are grazing, moving, or escape evidences, and not long-term living traces; and
- sediments assigned to the Flood were deposited subaqueously without long-term unconformities between them.
- the cooling of plutons and ocean plate material;
- regional metamorphism (see, for example, Snelling165,166);
- canyon and cave erosion;
- sediment production and accumulation (including speleothems and precipitites);
- organismal accumulation and fossilization (including coal, fossil forests, and reefs);
- fine sedimentary lamination (including varves); and
- radiometric data.
- a lower earth viscosity in pre-Flood times;
- degassing-associated subaqueous precipitate production during the Flood;
- (possibly) east-to-west dominated current deposition during the Flood;
- (possibly) degassing-produced atmosphere argon and helium levels;
- a decrease in magnitude and frequency of geologic activity after the Flood;
- flood basalts that correlate with mantle plume events;
- a sedimentary unconformity at the Flood/post-Flood boundary on the continents not reflected in ocean sediments;
- current geologic activity is the result of relict, isostatic dynamics, not primary earth dynamics; and
- a single ice age composed of a single ice advance.