Uniformitarianism

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Uniformitarianism would be a great theory if it weren't for the possibility that a huge flood generated much of the geological column.

---

Actually, uniformitarianism doesn't mitigate against the flood. It is the lack of evidence that acts against the flood. You have been reading too many creationist writings on unformitarianism. They uniformly misunderstand the concept.

quote:

---

The huge beds worldwide only approximately match existing sedimentary environments.

---

What huge beds are you talking about? Show us a formation that is worldwide. The last time you talked about sand beds that covered half a continent you were soundly refuted. Can you do better this time?

quote:

---

It is an extent issue. Paleocurrents and the spatial extent of beds make the stance of uniformitarianism quite ludicrous.

---

First you have to show us a huge, worldwide bed and then you can make such a judgement. Exactly where in the geological record is the flood deposit?

^ I'm not claiming there are worldwide beds! I'm claiming there are, worldwide, many examples of huge correlated beds.My examples of the cyclothem beds were not refuted as correlated beds. The sand comes and goes horizontally but it is clear they were due to a correlate phenomenon that occurred halfway across North America. This phenomenon of high energy sand deposits was interspersed withcoal 50 times. But do we link the high energy with coal formation. 'Oh no, its coincidental you say'. The simple interpretaiton is that the 50 coal seems are causally associated with high energy flooding.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-28-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I'm not claiming there are worldwide beds! I'm claiming there are, worldwide, many examples of huge correlated beds.

---

JM: But you are claiming a worldwide flood! Secondly, despite all the hyperbole you've never presented any evvidence for 'huge' correlated beds. You make claims and the ignore answers and references. Several of us gave you references to modern/ancient paleocurrent analogues and in another thread you 'are going to give this to your next grad student'. Do you have a short-intermediate term memory problem or do you post here without reading replies?

quote:

---

My examples of the cyclothem beds were not refuted as correlated beds. The sand comes and goes horizontally but it is clear they were due to a correlate phenomenon that occurred halfway across North America. This phenomenon of high energy sand deposits was interspersed withcoal 50 times. But do we link the high energy with coal formation. 'Oh no, its coincidental you say'. The simple interpretaiton is that the 50 coal seems are causally associated with high energy flooding.

---

JM: And as with all 'fans' of geology who do not bother to delve into the subject you were shown to be completely wrong. Or did you also forget the many examples, references and photos showed to you during that discussion. You know, just about every creationist I know pretends that the only data that exist are those that support their 'hypothesis'. They ignore volumes of contradictory literature. You should know--if your schtick about being a professional scientist hiding behind a pseudonmym is accurate--that such science never gets published in the mainstream literature. Yet, you, Humphreys, Austin and Baumgardner (to name a few) ignore facts in favor of fancy.CheersJoe Meert Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix the first quote box. There was a half of a "bolding code" in there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The simple interpretaiton is that the 50 coal seems are causally associated with high energy flooding.

---

You have completely misunderstood your source. It said that preservation of the coal is related to the presence of overlying sands. There is not a causative relationship. Check it out more closely.

Please read from the beginning. I'm proud of this topic.Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

​

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

​

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

Buz has brought up uniformitarianism in message 10 of the new "What IS Science And What IS NOT Science?" topic.Thus I think that this topic needs reviving. I encourage interested parties to read the topic starting at message 1. Message 1 is mostly a big textbook quotation by me, but I think it's a very good quotation.Moose

Uniformitarianism has been coming up elsewhere.At the Seashells on tops of mountains topic, TheWay included the following: Moose

Posted by TheWay in Message 50Looks like this would be the thread to pursue this issue. You might also want to read through from the beginning to see where the thread stands on uniformitarianism. Wikipedia has a pretty standard take on it, and we can agree on that as a starting point then. The alternative is to assume that the evidence lies, that events recorded in geological strata do not reflect what actually happened, that radioactive levels do not reflect the actual age of the rocks, etc. etc. -- in spite of a total absence of any difference in the behavior of reality from one age to another.We can proceed on the basis of assuming the evidence does not lie to see what the evidence tells us. If we assume that the evidence lies then anything can be believed. Do you think there is a reason to believe that the evidence lies to us?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

HI RAZD! Let's break this down, I read through the original posts and I have a few things to add and questions to pose. I understand what the evidence looks like through old earth spectacles. I wouldn't argue with you on the founding principles of geology. However, I am currently looking into creationwiki's claim on superposition. Perhaps you could input your opinion on THIS article? If we assumed uniformitarianism, correct? I understand that U-ism predicts the geologic column and that the column predicts U-ism. Although this is circular reasoning it is reasonable, if all the facts were in the U-ism court - so to speak. Perhaps we can get into that on another thread?To the point, I think the interpretations of the evidence is incorrect as evidence cannot speak, it cannot lie. Only humans lie (with perhaps some exceptions ). Is it coincidental? Perhaps, or made to fit as I peer into the evolutionary mind. This all depends on the specifics, and might I add that the threads here are exhausting! Looking through all of this stuff is awesome. So I'll try to keep it to the point.I don't see any problems with accepting that physical laws and universal laws were the same. Decay rates could be another story though. Considering that a pre-flood world would have been dramatically different. I would like to stray from a supernatural rabbit trail, so I would just like to impose this strictly as my opinion. Also, I haven't read enough to make an educated comment. The problem I have with U-ism is that it is seemingly positioned as a package, take it or leave it, deal. I can accept the reasonable assumption of physical laws (Although I wouldn't completely rule out an opposing view of this) acting uniformly; I cannot accept the time U-ism sets claim to. Diluvalists would suggest that ONE event changed the earth climatically, geologically, habitably and fundamentally. The fundamentals of pre-flood life are widely speculative, with the few clues given in the Word.The questions are: Does U-ism explain everything without fault? Can the Biblical Flood Event explain current stratigraphy? Does U-ism assumptions automatically negate the possibility for the Biblical Flood Event? By taking a U-ism assumption are we siding with materialism and/or naturalism and excluding a possibility of the supernatural? Also, since U-ism cannot be a truly strict doctrine, how can one truly test against it?TheWay = JESUS!

---

"Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing." --Albert Einstein

The CreationWiki article you asked about is basically rubbish. If you actually think about it they aren't really talking about superposition at all. Even in their "alternative" view superposition still applies - if you take a vertical section at any point the material is in order of deposition - oldest at the bottom, newest at the top.What it really shows is that you cannot assume that all of a stratum was deposited at the same time - you have to consider how it was deposited. But that's not what superposition is about.To deal with another point, decay rates are a product of physical law. For decay rates to change in any plausible conditions (e.g. not converting the material to plasma) requires fiddling with some very basic physics. And if I understand it correctly it would require some very precise fiddling with different physical constants to get the agreement we see between the different radiometric methods, using different elements (Cavediver would probably know more). It's not something that a big flood could do. You'd practically have to assume miracles designed to make us think that the Earth was old. And that's on top of the huge increase in background radiation speeding up the decay rates by that much would cause. Not healthy.

quote:

---

The problem I have with U-ism is that it is seemingly positioned as a package, take it or leave it, deal. I can accept the reasonable assumption of physical laws (Although I wouldn't completely rule out an opposing view of this) acting uniformly; I cannot accept the time U-ism sets claim to. Diluvalists would suggest that ONE event changed the earth climatically, geologically, habitably and fundamentally. The fundamentals of pre-flood life are widely speculative, with the few clues given in the Word.

---

The problem is that it really is a package. If you accept the assumptions then you've really got to either dispute the evidence or the reasoning from that evidence. And either would still be arguing from what creationists would call a "uniformitarian" view.If the Flood really did have the effects you say they should be visible in the geological record. The days of extreme uniformitarianism are gone (except in creationist circles). Modern geologists have no problems with catastrophes such as the huge meteor that hit at the end of the Cretaceous, the large scale ("local"!) flooding that formed the Channeled Scablands or the massive vulcanism that formed the Deccan Traps. These things did leave evidence. ANd that's what counts.

I won't point out the errors in the creationwiki article for two reasons -- (1) PaulK already has and (2) debating with website links is pointless. For proper debate I would have to ask you what you think is relevant from the article that can be tested for validity.I will note that the uses of the phrases such as "do not reflect what actually happened" and "do not reflect the actual age of the rocks" are essentially and barefacedly assuming that the evidence lies to us. The problem is that once you make this assumption you can make no conclusions at all: it does not make an alternate hypothesis more likely, because it renders all hypothesis unlikely.It is not a matter of "old earth eyes" or "uniformitarianism" it is purely a matter of looking at the evidence for truth, with the assumption that it is telling the truth.The way you validate alternate hypothesis is to have evidence for it, to make an argument for it, and a means to test the differentiation ability of the hypothesis against current theory -- a prediction that would be wrong based on current theory but valid based on the hypothesis, and a test that can invalidate the hypothesis. To do this you must have evidence and you must assume that the evidence does not lie. But neither is a true statement. Uniformitarianism predicts that what we see in the geological column would be explained by geological processes as we know them -- sedimentation, earthquake, volcanism, subsidence, plate techtonics, etcetera. It does not make any predictions of what layers will follow other layers or how thick layers will be. Nor does the geological column predict uniformitarianism -- it just records the events of geological history that are preserved in the column (and omits the ones that are not preserved). It is more like a typical creationist misrepresentation (a falsehood) or misunderstanding than a real representation of geology, the geological column (which changes from local to local) and of uniformitarianism (in spite of reading the wiki article). In science the response is "if you don't like the current theory then develop a new one that is equally good at explaining all the known evidence and then test it for validity" rather than an assumed general ignorance with your "take it or leave it" approach. Denial of evidence that invalidates your pet hypothesis is not a "take it or leave it" approach but active denial of reality: Denial of reality is not faith, it is delusion: Your ability to accept the time frame of reality or not is inconsequential to reality. If you want to discuss the reality of an old earth we can do that. See Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III). Yes, ad hoc explanation after ad hoc explanation and not a shred of evidence that can be called on to support their position. It comes down to assuming the evidence is lying and a bottomless pit that results. It is not a "theory of everything" (and there is no "theory of everything"). Let's go back to that wiki article, as it appears that it did not sink in to any great depth:Uniformitarianism - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Within scientific philosophy, uniformitarianism ("with a small u") refers to the principle that the same processes that shape the universe occurred in the past as they do now, and that the same laws of physics apply in all parts of the knowable universe. This axiomatic principle, not often referred to as an "-ism" in modern discussions, is particularly relevant to geology and other sciences on a long timescale such as astronomy and paleontology.

---

That is it in a nutshell. It doesn't explain anything really -- that is left for theories logically based on the evidence and the assumption that the evidence is true. What it is amounts to the assumption that the evidence is true and that the forces of nature behaved according to the basic laws of physics. No. Not in any form that I have seen. Not at all. It just states that the evidence of such a flood would be in the geological record, with effects common to floods as we know them - ie that it would not be some kind of magical flood capable of building mountains and pushing continents around. Not really. If a rock falls from a cliff by weather or by a supernatural hand can you tell the difference from the way the rock behaves? Uniformitarianism assumes that the behavior of the rock will be the same regardless of the cause. It is only when the behavior of the rock does not follow the expected course that we can assume an "unnatural" behavior, but that possibility is always open. By applying scientific principles to the question and looking for the truth.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

See Message 86You can take it up with the geologists there.

Hello RAZD, I think this is the reason we have a problem with the scientific origins debate in the first place. Science demands explanation through naturally occurring processes. The spiritual citizen is not so concerned with an answer. So being that: This contradicts the foundation of scientific fundamentalism in that it does in fact take upon suppositions for the "evidence" to make sense. When you state: You reinforce the belief that evidence is somehow not up to subjective view. Rather the "evidence" is somewhat like a Platonic Form. Predict is too strong of a word, I didn't mean to confuse you. I mean that they have become so intertwined as to become synonymous. It sounds like you have a lot of pent up aggression, have you tried a punching bag or stress ball? You speak of science as if it is a religion, I agree. I am glad you have represented as it should be. In your church, I am sure they have many witty quotes they throw around. My "take it or leave it" is what I see with uniformitarianism. Some aspects seem to be undeniable and reasonable. However, the assumption that the "past" was billions of years ago is unacceptable. Am I denying reality? I'm denying whatever reality your in; I also believe I am right. Without this conviction of spiritual knowledge I wouldn't care for evolution or creation.I also take issue with this term "natural processes" as if the natural isn't supernatural in itself. What is so natural about these processes that God couldn't have a hand in or in fact be a part of? Delusion should be reserved for those who think they understand more than they do. And that isn't an indirect finger point, I openly accuse you.Thanks for the discussion.

---

"Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing." --Albert Einstein

Do we really need to go over the differences again? Science can back up its claims with evidence. Science can replicate its results upon demand. Science changes its models to reflect reality when new data is introduced. Religions do none of these things. One of these things is not like the other, TheWay. Stop equivocating. "Oh yeah?! You do it too!" is a childish response. And yet if we throw uniformitarianism away, we can literally make no statements at all. If we allow that modern evidence is not necessarily related in any way to the past, we must also give up on the idea of causality, and all rational thought disappears.Since we have a running record of such things as actual observations of phenomena occurring and what evidence they leave behind (ie, sediment layers at the bottom of lakes), and we see exactly the same evidence stretching back to what appears to be millions of years worth of iterations of the same phenomena, uniformitarianism is a logical and reasonable conclusion. Pulling some intellectually vapid scenario out of your ass and saying that these millions of years worth of iterations, the last few of which we have actually watched occur, may have instead been caused by some global flood for which there is no further evidence than an old mythological text, is not, as an example, a reasonable conclusion.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

The key points are that we can see all of the factors and processes under uniformitarianism happening today. We also know that those processes can explain the geology we see today.Now attacking uniformitarianism does nothing to support a Young Earth. It is a classic example of the Type 3 tactic we see here so often and other than chuckling at folk that try the tactic, there is little else to be done.The problem facing YECs is that they need to find a Type 2b poster who can actually develop the models needed to explain what is seen better than the current models.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion