Geological pioneer was a biblical creationist

Page 1 of 3 [ 37 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

31 May 2008, 11:08 pm

Quote:

Nicolas Steno (1631-1686) was the pioneer of modern geology. His principles of stratigraphy have stood the test of time. They are still taught in first year geology courses all over the world, and used every day in the field by professional geologists.

Most geologists do not realize that Steno was a Bible believing creationist. That is not acknowledged when Steno is taught in geological schools. However, Steno was the first person ever to describe the geological history of any area of the earth, and he described it within a biblical geological framework. Steno’s geological framework is similar to the model set out in this website.

Because Steno is such a giant of geology, modern uniformitarian geologists (who seem paranoid of the Bible) will not generally acknowledge Steno’s biblical beliefs. If they do, they will usually disparage them to discredit the biblical foundation for Steno’s pioneering work.

Here I will examine Steno’s description of the geological history of the area where he lived, Tuscany. I quote from John Winter’s English translation of Steno’s Prodromus.1 This was Steno’s pioneering geological work that established the course for the modern science.

It is a long quote but worth seeing how Steno interpreted the geological history of his area. (Steno's text is in red and indented while my comments are in black. The headings are not part of Steno’s text.)

Link to rest of article.

[size=0]How quickly will you attack the media rather than bother with the essence?

I see a few approaches that shall be used:

1. Verbal negation, "bullocks!" "propaganda!"
2. Attacking me and questioning my intelligence or integrity even though it's not about me.
3. Claiming that since the source isn't one they like that it must be false.
4. Skim though the article and nit-pick anything they can grasp at because it is assumed to be false.
5. Claim that the history has nothing to do with the present, misrepresent the genetic fallacy so that this will fit in that category.
6. Question the relevance, which begs the question of why they are posting here if it is irrelevant.
7. Kilroy will pop-up and troll just for the heck of it.
8. Some other darn approach just so long as their ears remain full of cotton.

[/size]

pakled
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,015

31 May 2008, 11:12 pm

well, since he predates Darwin by 2 centuries, it's not surprising... Honestly, there was one interpretation at the time. Protestantism was just getting off the ground (and put back in it, this century saw the 30-years war, the Puritan Movement, etc) so the Church and Creationism were rarely questioned.

Still, even if you discover something like this, you never know where the research is going to go.

Odin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,475
Location: Moorhead, Minnesota, USA

31 May 2008, 11:13 pm

Well duh, the concept of Uniformitarianism did not exist until the late 1700s.

_________________
My Blog: My Autistic Life

Odin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,475
Location: Moorhead, Minnesota, USA

31 May 2008, 11:16 pm

pakled wrote:

well, since he predates Darwin by 2 centuries, it's not surprising...

Honestly, there was one interpretation at the time. Protestantism was just getting off the ground (and put back in it, this century saw the 30-years war, the Puritan Movement, etc) so the Church and Creationism were rarely questioned.

Still, even if you discover something like this, you never know where the research is going to go.

I've read that Luther and Calvin hated Copernicus and though Heliocentrism was un-Christian, LOL! :lol:

_________________
My Blog: My Autistic Life

pakled
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,015

31 May 2008, 11:24 pm

one of the interesting things I've heard (from a show called 'Connections'...which was fascinating, back in the day ) was that the Church already knew what Galileo had discovered, all on their own...

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

31 May 2008, 11:39 pm

Odin wrote:

I've read that Luther and Calvin hated Copernicus and though Heliocentrism was un-Christian, LOL! :lol:

False. Where did you get that? Calvin wrote in his own commentaries on Genesis that it should not be taken to mean a geocentric universe, and that people who wanted to learn "astronomy and other recondite arts" should go elsewhere for that knowledge. Calvinist-influenced areas were the first to accept Newtonian physics over the old Aristotelian ideas. They were also the first to lighten censorship restrictions, embrace democracy, etc.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

CanyonWind
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Sep 2006
Age: 74
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,656
Location: West of the Great Divide

31 May 2008, 11:55 pm

How come I knew who the original poster was as soon as I saw the title?

Now he's an expert on geology.

And I'm an expert on Latin.

Nothing wrong with disagreeing with experts, but you might want to learn just a little bit first.

Maybe just a tiny bit?

_________________
They murdered boys in Mississippi. They shot Medgar in the back.
Did you say that wasn't proper? Did you march out on the track?
You were quiet, just like mice. And now you say that we're not nice.
Well thank you buddy for your advice...
-Malvina

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

02 Jun 2008, 6:24 am

CanyonWind wrote:

Weird. All this talk of experts, as if it means anything.

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

02 Jun 2008, 12:02 pm

all this talk of how experts who pre-existed Darwin by centuries were creationists, as if it meant anything.

monty
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

02 Jun 2008, 12:28 pm

That's nice and everything, but really, does it speak to the tons of research conducted since the 1600s? Plate Tectonics, fossils, oxygen isotopes in sediments that encode previous sea levels and temperatures, geomagnetic reversals recorded in magma flows, .... all these and more point to an Earth that is billions of years old.

LeKiwi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,444
Location: The murky waters of my mind...

02 Jun 2008, 2:50 pm

:lol:

Was he also psychic and predicted what Darwin would come up with so he could write a paper saying

"Dear diary,

In a few hundred years this dude call Darwin is gonna come along and he'll change everything. DO NOT TRUST HIM. He's a liar and a thief. And he talks funny and he thinks monkeys turned into men. And he wears odd socks. You can't trust anyone who wears odd socks. For the record, I don't believe what he says because he's WRONG.

I love you diary.

Amen."

???

_________________
We are a fever, we are a fever, we ain't born typical...

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

02 Jun 2008, 3:23 pm

Ah, so you question the relevance based on age.

I could list some of the newer papers and research if you like.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

02 Jun 2008, 3:27 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

I could list some of the newer papers and research if you like.

That would be nice. I would reject anything from Behe or Stein a priori, though.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

02 Jun 2008, 3:42 pm

Orwell wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

I could list some of the newer papers and research if you like.

That would be nice. I would reject anything from Behe or Stein a priori, though.

And you admit it too...

LeKiwi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,444
Location: The murky waters of my mind...

02 Jun 2008, 4:15 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Ah, so you question the relevance based on age.

Well, yes, given that THAT WAS THE ONLY MODEL HE HAD TO WORK WITH!! !

Seriously, some people... :roll:

_________________
We are a fever, we are a fever, we ain't born typical...

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

02 Jun 2008, 4:19 pm

LeKiwi wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Ah, so you question the relevance based on age.

Well, yes, given that THAT WAS THE ONLY MODEL HE HAD TO WORK WITH!! !

Seriously, some people... :roll:

O RLY? Nothing Epicurean or Atheistic to work with if he wanted to?

Page 1 of 3 [ 37 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3 Next

Jump to:

Geological pioneer was a biblical creationist Post Reply New Topic

Geological pioneer was a biblical creationist