Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
132 bytes added ,  11:56, June 14, 2015
Line 86: Line 86:  
|pages=13-18, 39, 58-62  
 
|pages=13-18, 39, 58-62  
 
|isbn=0-8129-6849-2
 
|isbn=0-8129-6849-2
−
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=xzLRvxlJhzkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Larson+Evolution:+The+Remarkable+History&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PbZfVJugD83vaJengLgI&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=rejected%20Christianity%20&f=false}}</ref> In 1778, he proposed that the Earth was about 74,832 years old.<ref name="ingv">INGV</ref>
+
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=xzLRvxlJhzkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Larson+Evolution:+The+Remarkable+History&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PbZfVJugD83vaJengLgI&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=rejected%20Christianity%20&f=false}}</ref> In 1778, he proposed that the Earth was about 74,832 years old<ref name="ingv">INGV</ref>, what was in line with thinking that pushed God as creator either back in time or out of the picture altogether.<ref name="Larson"/>
 
In the early nineteenth-century, the so called [[uniformitarian]]s conspired to overthrow the [[Biblical chronology]] that would measure geologic time in generations of man.<ref name="Richter">{{cite journal |title=Geological Notes: Kelvin and the Age of Earth |author=F.M. Richter |publisher=Journal of Geology |year=1986 |volume=94 |pages=395-401 |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/30068713}}</ref> The dictum as a fundamental maxim for their geological speculation and worldview<ref name="PerryInAS">{{cite web |title=Kelvin, Perry and the Age of the Earth |author=Philip C. England, Peter Molnar, Frank M. Richter |date= |url=http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/page2/kelvin-perry-and-the-age-of-the-earth |accessdate=13 June 2015 |quote=Before dissecting Kelvin's arguments, it is worth describing the worldview that he was opposing.}}</ref> was expressed through [[James Hutton]]’s aphorism<ref name="ingv"/>, coming from his 1785 book ''Theory of the earth'': ''“The revolt, therefore, of this physical inquiry is, that we find [[Singularity#Antipathy_to_the_idea_of_beginning|no vestige of a beginning]], [[Horror of a Divine Foot|no prospect of an end]].“''<ref name="KelvinOnDynamics">{{cite web |title=On Geological Dynamics |author=W. Thomson (Lord Kelvin) |publisher= Transactions of the Geological Society of Glasgow |year=1869 |url=http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/on_geological_dynamics.html |aaccessdate=May 17, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=Theory of the earth; or an investigation of the laws observable in the composition, dissolution and restoration of land upon the globe. |author=James Hutton |publisher=Royal Society of Edinburgh |year=1785 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=RjYAAAAAQAAJ}}</ref> Hutton's theory of the earth was not based on field observations but on his wishful, speculative confusion of geological process with [[Newton]]ian [[physics]].<ref name="GOULDinNYT">{{cite web |title=IT'S AN OLD, OLD , OLD, OLD WORLD |publisher= NYT |author=D. R. Wallace |date= June 14, 1987 |url=http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/11/09/home/gould-arrow.html |accessdate=7 June 2015 |quote=Hutton's theory of the earth as a geological clockwork of eroding continents balanced against uplifting ocean basins was not based on field observations but on his wishful, speculative confusion of geological process with Newtonian physics....Hutton and Lyell were dedicated not to modern notions of geological dynamism but to antique ones of geological steady-state...The textbook legend of Hutton and Lyell seems dim and confused compared with that of Copernicus and Galileo. In demonstrating the shallowness of that legend}}</ref>
 
In the early nineteenth-century, the so called [[uniformitarian]]s conspired to overthrow the [[Biblical chronology]] that would measure geologic time in generations of man.<ref name="Richter">{{cite journal |title=Geological Notes: Kelvin and the Age of Earth |author=F.M. Richter |publisher=Journal of Geology |year=1986 |volume=94 |pages=395-401 |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/30068713}}</ref> The dictum as a fundamental maxim for their geological speculation and worldview<ref name="PerryInAS">{{cite web |title=Kelvin, Perry and the Age of the Earth |author=Philip C. England, Peter Molnar, Frank M. Richter |date= |url=http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/page2/kelvin-perry-and-the-age-of-the-earth |accessdate=13 June 2015 |quote=Before dissecting Kelvin's arguments, it is worth describing the worldview that he was opposing.}}</ref> was expressed through [[James Hutton]]’s aphorism<ref name="ingv"/>, coming from his 1785 book ''Theory of the earth'': ''“The revolt, therefore, of this physical inquiry is, that we find [[Singularity#Antipathy_to_the_idea_of_beginning|no vestige of a beginning]], [[Horror of a Divine Foot|no prospect of an end]].“''<ref name="KelvinOnDynamics">{{cite web |title=On Geological Dynamics |author=W. Thomson (Lord Kelvin) |publisher= Transactions of the Geological Society of Glasgow |year=1869 |url=http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/on_geological_dynamics.html |aaccessdate=May 17, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=Theory of the earth; or an investigation of the laws observable in the composition, dissolution and restoration of land upon the globe. |author=James Hutton |publisher=Royal Society of Edinburgh |year=1785 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=RjYAAAAAQAAJ}}</ref> Hutton's theory of the earth was not based on field observations but on his wishful, speculative confusion of geological process with [[Newton]]ian [[physics]].<ref name="GOULDinNYT">{{cite web |title=IT'S AN OLD, OLD , OLD, OLD WORLD |publisher= NYT |author=D. R. Wallace |date= June 14, 1987 |url=http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/11/09/home/gould-arrow.html |accessdate=7 June 2015 |quote=Hutton's theory of the earth as a geological clockwork of eroding continents balanced against uplifting ocean basins was not based on field observations but on his wishful, speculative confusion of geological process with Newtonian physics....Hutton and Lyell were dedicated not to modern notions of geological dynamism but to antique ones of geological steady-state...The textbook legend of Hutton and Lyell seems dim and confused compared with that of Copernicus and Galileo. In demonstrating the shallowness of that legend}}</ref>
  
Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,947

edits

Navigation menu