Uniformitarianism is usually used to deny an event such as the worldwide Flood of the Bible, to deny catastrophism on that grand a scale though they may find smaller catastrophes instead.
No, that would be
evidence. Science relies on evidence to determine if there was a worldwide flood at the appointed time, ca. 4350 years ago. So far, the evidence shows there was no such flood at that date, or any other date within historic times.
It's really an assumption that CONDITIONS in the distant past can be extrapolated from those of the present, rather than the assumption that the physical laws are the same.
No, the idea that conditions in the distant past can be extrapolated from the evidence is based on the evidence. However, if one believes
a priori in dogma and scripture and other old myths, then one can be so blinded by that belief that the evidence is ignored, denied, misinterpreted, or otherwise hand-waved away.
Creationists have reason to believe there were drastic changes in the condition of the entire earth and perhaps even the solar system, as a result, first, of the Fall, and then of the Flood which was judgment for sin. Uniformitarianism is blind to such events because of the assumption that whatever is seen is what always existed.
In spite of what creationists believe, there is no evidence for drastic changes ca. 6000 years ago (the mythical fall), nor about 4,350 years ago (the mythical flood). And no, science relies on evidence from the past, not some overriding dogma. Dogma is your field. Unfortunately for believers in your particular dogma, the evidence disproves the beliefs in a fall with drastically changing conditions about 6000 years ago and a global flood about 4350 years ago.
So, for instance, it would never occur to a uniformitarian that the earth used to be dramatically different than it is today, with no deserts, no extreme high mountains, no dangerous extremes of temperature, lush vegetation everywhere and so on. There is actually evidence of an unimaginably more fecund environment in the strata, but that's interpreted away by uniformitarian assumptions as the record of what happened over billions of years rather than the abundance of life forms that existed all at the same time on the planet and were all destroyed at the same time in one catastrophic event.
That's because the evidence shows billions of years, not a couple of thousand years followed by a catastrophic flood event during historic times. Believers can't see that because they are so blinded by belief that they
have to ignore evidence the contradicts that belief.
With all that evidence on our side and much more we deal with such things as dendrochronology as in fact interpretive of an entirely different environment in parts of the rings rather than the year by year interpretation of uniformitarianism.
Did you not see the evidence that RAZD presented in the Great Debate thread? Are you really going to try to hand-wave away all of those posts loaded with evidence with this simple sentence lacking any kind of evidence? And if you are going to try and pretend that he didn't present all of that evidence, why do you imagine that we will pretend that we never saw it? Mindspawn has been sent reeling by the evidence, and you're not going to just dismiss it all with a simple wave of the hand. That's both dishonest and typical of creation "science."
Decay rates are just one of those assumptions that are used to determine the past that cannot be verified because they ARE applied to the unwitnessed past. The amount of slippage and false dating in their use is hardly ever acknowledged either, which makes the whole thing laughable.
You keep claiming that we can't look into the past with any reliability, but you have yet to present any evidence of that claim.
I've spent over 40 years doing archaeology, and I'm an expert at looking into the seni-recent past. I know what we can reliably determine, and what we can't yet determine within my particular discipline. There are tens of thousands of other scientists whose expertise lets them look at various aspects of the past. They too can tell a lot about what has happened in the past, ranging from fairly recent human history to determination of physical constants and details of the formation of our solar system and beyond--going back billions of years.
What "cannot be verified" is your claim that things such as decay constants changed wildly in the past.
What "cannot be verified" is your claim that there was a "fall" some 6000 years ago that changed Earth's history and conditions drastically.
What "cannot be verified" is your claim that there was a global flood some 4,350 years ago.
You are letting your belief substitute for evidence, and your belief is so fixed that it requires you to ignore or misrepresent any evidence to the contrary. In any group of scientists, dismissing all of the massive amounts of verified evidence that disproves your claims is not going to impress anyone. Better you should stick to your own "kind."
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
™ Version 4.2
