TrueCreation wrote:
"--No we havent actually observed a significant
cometary impact. Technically, however, impacts
would be interuptions in uniformitarian
continuum. Similarily, the evolution of the
oceanic lithosphere does not have a
uniformitarian history. Nevertheless, geologists
understand that uniformitarianism is merely a
framework principle, and not to be taken
dogmatically."
Uniformitarian as defined by Lyell consists of four principles:
1. uniformity of law
2. uniformity of process (actualism)
3. uniformity of rate (gradualism)
4. uniformity of state (steady-statism)
Darwin's theory of evolution directly contradicted Charles Lyell's principle 4. In the Tenth edition of his "Principles" in 1866, Lyell began to waver in his support of principle number 4 and by 1872, in the 11th edition of "Principles", Lyell had completely abandoned it. Thus, by 1872, Lyell had ceased to be a strict " uniformitarianist" as he originally defined it and conceded that Uniformitarian, as originally defined by all 4 principles wasn't a workable concept.
Since then, the major fight has been over whether principle number 3, "uniformity of rate" (gradualism), was a valid principle. In reality, it isn't "Uniformitarian" that is being disputed by Baumgardner but rather gradualism as strict "Uniformitarian" was abandoned by geologists, including Lyell, before he died. Part of the problem is that everyone, including geologists have repeatedly conflated gradualism with "Uniformitarian" as originally defined by Lyell.
However, episodic geologic processes, such as meteorite impacts, eruptions of flood basalts, periods of rapid sea floor spreading as during the Cretaceous, and so forth have shown principle of gradualism to be invalid. In fact, the recognition of mass extinctions within the geologic record refuted the application of principle no. 3, gradualism, to evolutionary processes, even before Lyell died. Charles Darwin didn't accept Uniformitarian, as strictly defined by Lyell, because Darwin disputed both uniformity of rate (no. 3) and uniformity of state (no. 4) as it applied to evolution and geology. At this point in time, the vast majority of geologists only accept 1.) uniformity of law and 2.) uniformity of process (actualism) out of Lyell's four principles of Uniformitarian. Given that conventional geologists have currently abandoned half of the principles of Uniformitarian as propose by Lyell, I find rather laughable for Baumgardner to accuse conventional geologists of being dogmatic supporters of Uniformitarian. Given that his model accepts 1.) uniformity of law and 2.) uniformity of process (actualism), it is rather hypocritical, if simply stupid on his part to beating up other geologists for accepting principles that they neither accept nor believe in.
In message 4, Edge quoted Baumgardner's web site as stating:
"Uniformitarianism asserts that one can correctly
interpret the earth's past solely in terms of
presently observed processes operating at near
present day rates. Lyell's slogan, "the present
is the key to the past," encapsulates this outlook.
Of course, implicit in Lyell's dogma is that the
huge amount of geological change recorded in the
rocks is the product of slow processes operating
over an immense span of time as opposed to a
global cataclysm of the type described in the
Bible and other ancient texts"
In this statement, Baumgardner as many people, conflates "gradualism", which is just one of the four principles that comprises the complete definition of Lyell's "Uniformitarianism". The can be seen in the statements "...huge amount of geological change recorded in the rocks is the product of slow processes operating over an immense span of time...", which only describes gradulism, just one of the four principles of "Uniformitarianism" instead of "Uniformitarianism" as Lyell defined it.
If Baumgardner would bother to talk matters with he would find that many geologists joke about "the present is the key to the past" as needing to be rephrased as "the present is the key to the Pleistocene". They are not as dogmatic as he falsely claims them to be. Also, Baumgardner apparently doesn't understand that when conventional geologists seriously discuss "the present is the key to the past", they aren't talking about principle no. 3, gradualism, rather they are referring to Lyell's principle no. 1., uniformity of law, and no. 2., uniformity of process. Again, it is hypocritical of Baumgardner to complain about it because the validity of the computer modeling that he uses in his "research" is based upon principle no. 1., uniformity of law, and no. 2., uniformity of process. In fact, Baumgardner's computer model is based on the premise that "the present is the key to the past" in terms of assuming the uniformity of physical law and processes over geologic time. If it didn't make these assumptions, he, nor anyone else, couldargue that a computer model to replicate past conditions within geologic time.
A fun book to read is "Catastrophism" by Richard Huggett.
Just Some thoughts
Bill
™ Version 4.2
