|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,385 Year: 3,642/9,624 Month: 513/974 Week: 126/276 Day: 23/31 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Uniformitarianism - demonstrated or assumed? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5038 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
Creationists often complain that evolutionists are wrong to 'assume' uniformitarianism. I've seen it used as a fallback defence when a creationist has no response to particular detailed evidence of evolution.
I'd like to discuss to what extent uniformitarianism is an assumption, or a view justified by evidence. Here's some background from Wikipedia
quote: I believe it's worth identifying two kinds of uniformitarianism relevant to us (these are my own terms). Laws and constants - that the laws and constants of nature have remained unchanged since some given time in the past, or have changed only in ways that do not invalidate the theory of evolution or evidence that supports it, such as radiometric dating. Not necessarily from the very beginning, in the context of evolution, but at least from the formation of the solar system about 4.7 billion years ago. Earth-specific processes - taking the above as established, that processes operating in normal times on earth work the same way now as they did in the past - or vary in known ways - geological examples being plate tectonics, carbon and nitrogen cycles, deposition, volcanism, fossilization, biological examples being mutation, selection, reproduction, recombination, examples from physics being solar radiation flux and cosmic ray flux. My own interest is primarily in the fundamentals - the laws and constants, and particularly those which are relevant to the age of the earth and dating methods. I'm more relaxed about earth-specific processes - if the fundamentals are established than we can assume that the evidence we have from the distant past about them is trustworthy. Also I believe the conflict between 'uniformitarianism' and 'catastrophism' is over - both apply at different points in the earth's history, and we can tell from evidence when each has been important. I know there are some quite strong constraints on the fine structure constant, and also that some observations have supported a small change over time. But how strong is the evidence that radioactive decay rates really are the same now as they were in the distant past? Do we have any evidence that the laws themselves have not changed in the last 4.7 billion years? Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13014 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Thread copied here from the Uniformitarianism - demonstrated or assumed? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
But how strong is the evidence that radioactive decay rates really are the same now as they were in the distant past? Do we have any evidence that the laws themselves have not changed in the last 4.7 billion years? Do we have any reason to think that they have, or could, change? The only reason it came up is because the creationists got backed into a corner and their only way out was by claiming they might have changed. I don' t know of any other reason to think they're not unchanging. But I do suspect that there's evidence that they have not changed. Probably some decay rate data from different pieces of known ages that correspond to other methods of determining age. I don't have anything specific, but I'm sure it will come up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1275 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
RAZD has an exhaustive thread on correlations in dating methods. If things were different in the past, they would have to have been different in such a way that all dating methods produced erroneous results to the same degree. That strikes me as an especially slender reed upon which to base an argument.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Apothecus Member (Idle past 2431 days) Posts: 275 From: CA USA Joined: |
Hey Subbie.
IIRC, RAZD's correlations (which to me are bulletproof) extend "only" as far back as ~100ky, taking into account Antarctic ice cores. When I say "only", I'm taking a devil's advocate stance in assuming a YEC may harp, "Well, even if I did believe these floating chronologies, and time extends at least this far back, who's to say constants and laws hadn't varied wildly prior to 100ky? Uniformitarian rubbish! Aarrgh!!" Seems like you'd need some Oklo reactor data (although this assumes you accept radiometric dating) or evidence of normal isotope decay in distant supernovae (although this assumes you accept stellar distances). I'm all ears for any (new) arguments to present to YECers regarding uniformitarianism. Unfortunately, if they remain true to form then per usual we'll be beating our collective head against a brick wall. BTW, are you in MN? Have a good one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1275 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Well, in his first post, just above the first red line, is this:
quote: I'll leave it to the reader to find the voluminous support for this that RAZD lays out, but it seems clear that the evidence shows that simply denying the accuracy of any individual dating method is probably the weakest of all the weak creo arguments. Sending you a PM to address the personal stuff. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi again Peepul,
Laws and constants - that the laws and constants of nature have remained unchanged since some given time in the past, or have changed only in ways that do not invalidate the theory of evolution or evidence that supports it, such as radiometric dating. Not necessarily from the very beginning, in the context of evolution, but at least from the formation of the solar system about 4.7 billion years ago. ... My own interest is primarily in the fundamentals - the laws and constants, and particularly those which are relevant to the age of the earth and dating methods. ... In addition to what Subbie has mentioned, I'd like to add this thread:
Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?:
quote: The thread goes on to discuss how any change in the constants would affect the energy of the particles and alter the way the halo forms, ergo there has been no change in these constants during the "several hundred million years" they take to form. Uranium halos are a nail in the coffin on variable rates. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fiver Junior Member (Idle past 4984 days) Posts: 26 From: Provo, UT Joined: |
My take on this is that ALL science is based on uniformitarianism. When we see germs today, which of us will suggest that the Black Plague may have been caused by something else? When we discover the law of gravity in the 1600s, who of us will suggest that maybe it didn't exist before then?
Of course, this should not be confused with the 'constant rate' distortions of creationists (for example, the idea that the moon's current rate of movement away from the earth must've been the same throughout all of history). This may seem like an assumption from a philosophical perspective, but it is one which ALL science makes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
straightree Member (Idle past 4771 days) Posts: 57 From: Near Olot, Spain Joined: |
It maybe that the fact that we are receiving the light from stars at millions light-years distance, could strengthen the assumption that at least the laws of light transmission have not changed along all this time.
Edited by straightree, : correcting error
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024