Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Uniformitarianism & Age of Creationists' Earth
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 16 of 54 (450387)
01-21-2008 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by obvious Child
01-21-2008 5:13 PM


What I don't understand is how they can determine the age of the Earth when a fair portion of it was based on a set of laws of physics that can't be determined. You're missing half of the equation and no way of figuring it out.
See Great Debate with Simple
The purpose is not to be able to actually determine the age of the earth -- they already "know" what that is -- but to make reality wrong.
Rationally, that would mean you cannot come to an outcome.
You're assuming a rational outcome is desired.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by obvious Child, posted 01-21-2008 5:13 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by obvious Child, posted 01-21-2008 7:42 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 28 of 54 (484367)
09-27-2008 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Granny Magda
09-27-2008 10:29 PM


Re: Soft tissues?
This is stark contrast to creationists, who are loathe to change any of their beliefs.
And who complain every time science changes, all the while claiming that science is dogmatic and like a religion ...
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Granny Magda, posted 09-27-2008 10:29 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 31 of 54 (484408)
09-28-2008 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by b0ilingfrog
09-28-2008 5:32 AM


uniformity is not uniformitarianism
Hey b0ilingfrog,
Quick question, how do you isolate a phrase from a posting in the light blue box?
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
You can also use the peek function to see how other formatting is done.
As for peer reviewed scientific journals, ideas and claims not consistent with uniformity rarely survive the peer review process.
Ah the old conspiracy theory. It couldn't be that they are not accepted because they are not scientifically valid, no, there must be some other reason.
It surprises me how quickly people jump to a conspiracy motive when they don't understand things: the 9/11 towers, the 2000/2004 elections, the failure of creationists to publish in scientific journals ....
An open-minded skeptic should be wary of all conspiracy theories, eh?
I rejected uniformity in the fifth grade.
When I learned the Principle of Uniformity
You do realize, don't you that you are not talking about uniformitarianism?
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. The leading geologist of Darwin’s era, a Scot named Charles Lyell (1797 - 1875), incorporated James Hutton’s gradualism into a theory known as uniformitarianism. The term refers to Lyell’s idea that geological processes have not changed throughout Earth’s history. Thus, for example, the forces that build mountains and erode mountains and the rates at which these forces operate are the same today as in the past.
That was, of course, based on the evidence available at the time. Note that this means that volcanoes don't occur vastly different from past eruptions, for example, similar in types of eruption.
Geology - Wikipedia
Important principles in the Development of Geology
quote:
There are a number of important principles that were developed near the beginning of geology as a formal science. Many of these involve the ability to provide the relative ages of strata or the manner in which they were formed. These principles are still often used today as a means to provide information about geologic history and the timing of geologic events.
The principle of intrusive relationships concerns crosscutting intrusions. In geology, when an igneous intrusion cuts across a formation of sedimentary rock, it can be determined that the igneous intrusion is younger than the sedimentary rock. There are a number of different types of intrusions, including stocks, laccoliths, batholiths, sills and dikes.
The principle of cross-cutting relationships pertains to the formation of faults and the age of the sequences through which they cut. Faults are younger than the rocks they cut; accordingly, if a fault is found that penetrates some formations but not those on top of it, then the formations that were cut are older than the fault, and the ones that are not cut must be younger than the fault. Finding the key bed in these situations may help determine whether the fault is a normal fault or a thrust fault.
The principle of inclusions and components states that, with sedimentary rocks, if inclusions (or clasts) are found in a formation, then the inclusions must be older than the formation that contains them. For example, in sedimentary rocks, it is common for gravel from an older formation to be ripped up and included in a newer layer. A similar situation with igneous rocks occurs when xenoliths are found. These foreign bodies are picked up as magma or lava flows, and are incorporated, later to cool in the matrix. As a result, xenoliths are older than the rock which contains them.
The principle of uniformitarianism states that the geologic processes observed in operation that modify the Earth's crust at present have worked in much the same way over geologic time. A fundamental principle of geology advanced by the 18th century Scottish physician and geologist James Hutton, is that "the present is the key to the past." In Hutton's words: "the past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now."
The principle of original horizontality states that the deposition of sediments occurs as essentially horizontal beds. Observation of modern marine and non-marine sediments in a wide variety of environments supports this generalization (although cross-bedding is inclined, the overall orientation of cross-bedded units is horizontal).
The principle of superposition states that a sedimentary rock layer in a tectonically undisturbed sequence is younger than the one beneath it and older than the one above it. Logically a younger layer cannot slip beneath a layer previously deposited. This principle allows sedimentary layers to be viewed as a form of vertical time line, a partial or complete record of the time elapsed from deposition of the lowest layer to deposition of the highest bed.
The principle of faunal succession is based on the appearance of fossils in sedimentary rocks. As organisms exist at the same time period throughout the world, their presence or (sometimes) absence may be used to provide a relative age of the formations in which they are found. Based on principles laid out by William Smith almost a hundred years before the publication of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, the principles of succession were developed independently of evolutionary thought. The principle becomes quite complex, however, given the uncertainties of fossilization, the localization of fossil types due to lateral changes in habitat (facies change in sedimentary strata), and that not all fossils may be found globally at the same time.
You will note that this does not mean that uniformitarianism does not include catastrophic events, just that they will occur according to the known physics and the way things behave today. For instance the meteor impact on the Yucatan Peninsula in ~65million BCE is a catastrophic event, but one entirely "explained by what can be seen to be happening now" - and this is about as catastrophic as one needs, as it caused a mass extinction that included most of the dinosaurs. The geological record is full of instances of mass extinctions, so we know catastrophe was a part of earths history.
Let's look at a typical creationist example of uniformitarianism:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v8/i2/news.asp
quote:
Uniformitarianism
Most evolutionary scientists work on the rule of thumb that understanding the present is the key to understanding the past. This belief is called uniformitarianism. But some of the difficulties in applying this belief become obvious when it is noted that over the last thirty-five years, the amount of mud released by the Mississippi River into the Gulf of Mexico has dropped by more than half. While the river still discharges more sediment into the ocean than any other United States river, its sedimentary load is ranked now about sixth in the world. Some scientists suspect the construction of several large sediment trapping dams on the Mississippi River during the fifties and sixties have produced the drop, although this is inconclusive, since the drop in sediment upstream may be responsible for the increased erosion of shorelines downstream on the Mississippi Delta.
This comes down to using different definitions for the same words again:
Creationist definition of uniformitarianism: the principle that everything happens by slow, gradual, uniform processes, with no changes or sudden events. (The Mississippi River behaves today exactly as it did 35 years ago).
Scientific definition of uniformitarianism: 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. (The Mississippi River on any day behaves according to the physics of hydraulics and the energy gradient of the river, the principles that govern the formation of meanders during low flow and the destruction of meanders, and flooding etc. during high flow).
Do you agree that they are using two entirely different definitions?
The next question is one that really perplexes me, and maybe you can help me understand it:
If you are talking about a science and what that science says, shouldn't you use the definitions used in that science to discuss it?
What would be the point of using a different definition in such discussion?
Is it stupidity - that they don't understand that the definitions are different?
Is it ignorance - that they are unaware of the scientific definitions?
Is it apathy - that they can't bother to learn them?
Is it misinformation - that they have been told a false definition by a trusted source (and failed to fact-check it)?
Is it malicious - that they are intentionally lying in order to delude gullible people into believing something false (and to what end)?
Is it delusion - that they think their definition is correct and all of science has it wrong?
Can there be ANY valid reason to use an incorrect definition in such a discussion?
Thanks for your help on this perplexing issue.
Now you will excuse me while I walk down to the local fish market where - according to my uniformitarianistic beliefs - they will hopefully have fresh fish, but not the same ones as yesterday ...
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by b0ilingfrog, posted 09-28-2008 5:32 AM b0ilingfrog has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 38 of 54 (484472)
09-28-2008 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Coragyps
09-28-2008 6:36 PM


Correlations?
... the redbeds in the Palo Duro Canyon near Amarillo, Texas. They are hundreds of feet thick and consist of thin little leaves of red sandstone or siltstone with white layers of crystalline gypsum interbedded all through them. Thousands of layers.
Formations that look just like them are forming now, ... It's a lake of sorts maybe one month out of the year in wet years, and otherwise a big flat pan. When it rains hard, reddish sand and silt wash into the pan with the rainwater and then settle out. Then the water evaporates in the sun, and the gypsum and other salts it carries crystallize on top of the silt. The cycle repeats year after year ...
Has there been any attempt to correlate the layers with annual layers? Has anyone taken core samples of the current vernal lake? Presumably there would be plant if not animal life that would also grow on each layer and that could be c-14 dated.
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Coragyps, posted 09-28-2008 6:36 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Coragyps, posted 09-28-2008 9:38 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 40 of 54 (484476)
09-28-2008 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by AnswersInGenitals
09-28-2008 7:32 PM


Mammals in amber?
Is there any chance of finding a small chordate encased in amber, or has such already been discovered?
A quick google seems to turn up only bones, but what about hair?
http://www.springerlink.com/content/kr562162l7r07l06/
quote:
Hair in Dominican amber: Evidence for tertiary land mammals in the Antilles
Journal Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences (CMLS)
Publisher Birkhuser Basel
ISSN 1420-682X (Print) 1420-9071 (Online)
Issue Volume 44, Number 1 / January, 1988
Category Short Communications
DOI 10.1007/BF01960261
Pages 88-89
Subject Collection Biomedical and Life Sciences
SpringerLink Date Sunday, July 31, 2005
Can you get DNA from hair?
also
Mammal bones found in Amber
quote:
SOME of the most vivid remains of past life are preserved in amber: frogs and flowers, insects and lizards from millions of years ago. But scientists had never found any well-identified traces of ancient mammals in these solidified forms of tree resin until they recently examined an amber sample from the Dominican Republic.
In that sample they discovered the partial backbone and ribs from a mammal that probably weighed no more than five ounces and was four to five inches long. The mammal appears to be a tiny insect-eating animal like a shrew or, just possibly, could be a small marsupial distantly related to the opossum. Dates for amber deposits are often controversial, so the scientists can give only a broad estimate of 18 million to 29 million years for the age of the fossil.
Then there is this - from creationist fraud Harun Yahya
Atlas of Creation by Harun Yahya | Forbidden Music
quote:

Can you get soft tissue from a fishing lure?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : also
Edited by RAZD, : added fraud picture for amusement
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 09-28-2008 7:32 PM AnswersInGenitals has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 09-28-2008 8:03 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 42 of 54 (484486)
09-28-2008 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by AnswersInGenitals
09-28-2008 8:03 PM


Re: Mammals in amber?
... if they are actual bones, remembering that (most) fossils are not the actual bones of the decedent, but are mineralized remains ...
Yes, and it had me wondering if you could find soft tissue inside the bones rather than the hair, might be a little better protected.
Note that there are, apparently, a lot of frauds with amber fossils - I found one site dedicated to uncovering them (modern bugs inserted through drilled and refilled holes). Watch out for the hook.
Enjoy.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 09-28-2008 8:03 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 51 of 54 (484845)
10-02-2008 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by gregrjones
10-02-2008 6:25 AM


Re: Contradictory beliefs
Welcome to the fray gregrjones.
Something else interesting about the article is that it states that one problem with the theory is that it would shatter the Copernican notion that our corner of the universe is no special place.
Which has been "shattered" for some time.
There is a line in the article that states that if we DID live in such a bubble objects in space would be closer than they appear. The logical implication for such a universe would be that it would be younger.
Curiously I saw no reference to age of the universe in the article, so it appears that you are interpreting things from an article written by fox news. Have you read the source article by the scientist/s?
Light travelling from supernovae outside our bubble would appear dimmer, because the light would diverge more than we would expect once it got inside our void.
Curiously that would not change the location of SN1987A at a mere 168,000 light years away, so the "bubble" is pretty big ... IF it exists.
But epistemologically speaking, we KNOW very little when it comes to origins.
There is a difference between not knowing and not having any idea, ideas that are testable and provide predictions.
There is also a difference between making stuff up and having testable ideas that make predictions that can invalidate the ideas.
My point is simply that an evolutionist has as much faith as a creationist given the nature of origins and epistemology.
As long as you make up stuff about what evolutionists have faith in so that you can conclude you are correct.
What I have "faith" in involves the nature of objective reality being a true measure of that reality. There is a big difference between accepting ideas completely and using ideas as tentative explanations until better ones come along.
Does your faith mean that objective reality doesn't exist, can't be measured, observed, etc and used to test the validity of ideas?
Enjoy.


ps - as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.
For other formating tips see Posting Tips

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by gregrjones, posted 10-02-2008 6:25 AM gregrjones has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by gregrjones, posted 10-02-2008 11:20 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 53 of 54 (484972)
10-03-2008 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by gregrjones
10-02-2008 11:20 PM


Re: Contradictory beliefs
Thanks gregrjones,
I hope you are not implying that I'm making stuff about what evolutionists believe. If so, please be more specific.
Well the easiest way to avoid that is to ask 'evolutionists' what they think, rather than make claims with, perhaps, insufficient knowledge.
Scientists understand a fundamental difference between "faith" as applied in religion and what they deal with in science.
faith -noun 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
(American Heritage Dictionary 2008)
In science we start with objective evidence, evidence that other people can observe and describe and agree with other described observations of the same evidence.
Then we base theories on that objective evidence, but these theories are not taken as being true, just as being the best explanation of the evidence that has been developed so far.
Then we make predictions to test the theory and see how well it does at explaining reality.
Those that don't work are discarded or reworked, and those that work are tested again.
After many a number of such tests, especially when there have been no failures, the tested success of a theory to explain reality can lead one to have a high degree of confidence that the theory is true, but never give complete assurance.
At best you get a set of proposed principles and tentative beliefs, that are used as a working model until better ones come along, but ready to be tossed in the garbage if a better theory comes along. I don't define that as faith, but as skepticism.
Why would the bubble have to be unreasonably huge to skew our perceptions of the distance of SN1987A?
SN1987A is something of an oddity in astronomy: it is far enough away that parallax using the earth orbit cannot determine the distance, but the same principle applies. In this case there is a ring around the star that is several light years across, large enough that we can measure the angle subtended by the ring. When the star went nova the explosion was observed on earth by the light of the explosion (common to super nova), and then several days later the astronomers observed the effect of when the light hit the ring, causing it to glow brightly.
So we have three legs of a triangle: light travels directly to earth = A, light travels to ring =B and light travels from ring to earth = C, and we have the angle AC. All we need is the distance of any one leg and we can solve for the others with trigonometry. That distance is B, recorded in light years by the difference in time it took for light to reach us along A and the time it took light to reach us along (B+C) and using A=C. This results in a distance of 168,000 light years.
How could we interpret the statement about things appearing farther than they are in any other way than that this would imply a younger age of the universe? After all, isn't the distance that light has to travel across the universe from the stars a chief reason why we believe in an old universe?
No, the chief reason is based on the decay of energy over time, as observed by the No webpage found at provided URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMAPWilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and the background energy levels detected.
Of course I believe in objective reality. And I believe in such an objective reality because I believe in objective truth.
For instance, as a creationist, I see no conflict with believing in an old universe and my Christian faith.
Then you should have no problem with understanding that the objective evidence shows that the earth is old, regardless of where a bubble may exist in space.
You may ask this question because of a common straw man about faith, or at least about Christian faith.
No, I'm just making sure we are talking about the same reality.
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by gregrjones, posted 10-02-2008 11:20 PM gregrjones has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024