Uniformitarianism and Geology

Funny, I always thought the folks at National Geographic were evolutionists.This kinda gave me a clue. Do you not read the stuff you write, or do you simply not think about it? If any advocate of uniformitarianism would claim that, then perhaps you could quote just one of them making this claim.No? Well, apart from real geological processes that we can watch happening. Which kinda makes it an ordinary everyday occurrence that's going on all the time.Like this, for example. It's the top of a cottonwood tree sticking out of the sand dune that drifted over it. No advocate of uniformitarianism would claim that "it must have taken many, many years for the surrounding strata to accumulate (much longer than it takes for trees to grow, die, and decay)". Because any advocate of uniformitarianism would notice that it's still got leaves on it. Here we see trees being buried in layers of volcanic ash. Note that the tree in the mid-distance has undergone burial of its entire trunk, and has not decayed. Would this involve a magic flood?If so, why? Specifically, to observe things published in magazines by evolutionists. Well done.Unfortunately, what you have apparently failed to observe are the real processes which bury trees. If by "evolution" you mean evolution, then you have inadvertently told the truth.If by "evolution" you mean geology then you are of course wrong. And yet as science continues to uncover more evidence, the scientists who actually do the science and actually uncovered the evidence (as opposed to people who occasionally glance at bits of it in magazines) have become more and more convinced that the biblical account of the Earth's history is rubbish. Why do you think that is?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I will if you like. Let's assume for the sake of argument that your creationist source is right about inverted trees.There are real events that can bury trees and alter their orientation, such as landslides.Or, if you believe that a magical fictitious flood can produce such effects, then obviously you must acknowledge that a real non-magical flood could do the same thing. Real floods happen, you know.Or, alternatively, an tree could fall into an anoxic lake, become waterlogged, and sink top-first. Anoxic lakes exist, unlike magic floods.Or a tree could fall on the side of a hill, inverting it, and then be covered by one of the same processes that cover trees in normal orientation. These processes also exist, as we have seen. Could you explain your reasoning, if you have any?We have seen that rooted trees manage to get themselves buried without decaying first. Why should uprooted trees be any different? Done and done. Why is it that religious people use "religion" as a term of abuse? It seems paradoxical. If I wanted to insult creationism, I wouldn't do so by calling it science.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

So ... you admit that this can happen under non-magical circumstances? Or did the experiments only work if the researchers prayed really really hard and sacrificed a goat?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No, they just reject it.

I prefer "actualism" myself as being less misleading.Another misconception is that the most prominent nineteenth century uniformitarians were what one might call "strict" uniformitarians in the first place. I've read Lyell, and he's often using "strict" uniformitarianism as a conservative hypothesis. That is, he's saying: "Look, I can explain such and such a geological feature even if you assume that such-and-such a thing is a constant." He didn't necessarily believe that those things were constant, he was showing that he could provide reasonably good explanations without giving himself the luxury of supposing them to vary in an ad hoc manner.

{Off-topic sniping - Stop it. - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide and add note.