Catastrophism vs. Uniformitarianism

[Kahalachan]

By accepting that life adapts, you inadvertently accept evolution.

Evolution is simply the change in gene frequencies in a population over time. This can be on the cellular level or among organisms.

What I'm guessing you have issues with is Common Descent or speciation.

But this is what I propose you truly don't accept.

The principle of Uniformitarianism


What is uniformitarianism?

It states that the processes we observe now have occured in the past. It is summarized in this simple quote, "The present is the key to the past." We assume that evolution has occurred the same way in the past as it has now. In order for a new species to emerge it takes a lot of time. Darwin realized this and understood that it can take millions of years for a new species to emerge.

Darwin couldn't have come up with evolution, had geology not accepted the concept of uniformitarianism. The age of the earth according to geology (if uniformitarianism wasn't accepted) would be way too young for any of the processes of speciation to occur.

Astronomy also accepts uniformitarianism through its understanding of the life of a star and backtracking all the way to the Big Bang.


The other competing idea with uniformitarianism was catastrophism. This is where Creation falls under. Don't let the word confuse you, as it doesn't have to mean a horrible event, but just a major significant event. The creation of all life by a god falls under catastrphism.


So there should really be no evolution debate, but a debate against common descent and uniformitarianism. Creationism accepts evolution by accepting that life adapts, but denies common descent and embraces catastrophism.


So let's see your debates steer towards catastrophism vs. uniformitarianism

 

[Baggins]

Geology isn't strictly uniformitarian, it is uniformitarian while containing catastrophic events.

Some things that effect stratigraphy like erosion ( over the long term), earth's orbit and plate tectonics are uniformitarian, where as others are catastrophic; events like a volcanic eruption or a storm ( erosion on the short term).

So the geology of the Earth is basically Uniformitarian with catastrophic episodes.

I don't think I have made that very clear, I hope you get the jist.

Catastrophism in the terms of early geology was a code word for a global flood ( as in the bible ), it was used by geologists who saw the whole geological reacord as a flood deposit, it was found to be untenable very quickly in the history of geology as a science, and uniformitarianism was adopted," the present is the key to the past 2, is a nother quote from James Hutton ( see my sig ), but that doesn't mean that geologists do no not accept that catastrophic events happen and are preserved in the geological record. The most famous recent example would be the deposit left by the K/T boundary meteorite strike.

 

[Maxwell511]

Geology isn't strictly uniformitarian, it is uniformitarian while containing catastrophic events.

Neither is evolution really. Punctuated Equilbrium and all that.

 

[Baggins]

Neither is evolution really. Punctuated Equilbrium and all that.

Probably a good analogy, although I am prepared for a geneticist to explain to me why we'd be wrong

 

[Gracchus]

Term, "uniformitarianism" has been widely (and deliberately?) misunderstood to mean that there are no world-wide catastrophic events. That is why the term has largely been replaced by the term "actualism".

What this means is that the geologic record can be explained by the laws of nature that we observe today. There is no reason to postulate magical or supernatural events, or that the laws of nature were different in the past, such as dad's "split" universe.

This "assumption" could be falsified by pointing out features in the geologic record that cannot be explained by the natural process we see today.

Modern uniformitarianism (actualism) states that the geologic record is the product of both NATURAL catastrophes (like local floods, landslides, earthquakes, meteorite impacts, and hurricanes) and slow and gradual processes (such as lakes drying up over long periods of time and precipitating salt deposits). Some of these catastrophes, such as the Cretaceous-Tertiary Yucatan meteorite impact, may have had worldwide effects. Actualism also recognizes that NATURAL conditions (such as climates) and processes (such as the spreading rates of tectonic plates or volcanic and earthquake activity) may quickly or slowly change at any time. That is, the rates of natural processes need not be constant over time. However, because magic is untestable, actualism does not invoke the supernatural to explain the geologic record. Indeed, actualism can easily explain the record without relying on ex nihilo creation miracles or any miracles associated with "Noah's Flood."

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/plaisted_actualism_henke.htm

 

[Maxwell511]

"Modern uniformitarianism (actualism) states that the geologic record is the product of both NATURAL catastrophes (like local floods, landslides, earthquakes, meteorite impacts, and hurricanes) and slow and gradual processes (such as lakes drying up over long periods of time and precipitating salt deposits). "

The natural catastrophes such as earthquakes are themselves the result of slow gradual processes. If an earthquake is the result of a slow process wouldn't the effective of the earthquake not also by the result of a slow natural process?

 

[Kahalachan]

"Modern uniformitarianism (actualism) states that the geologic record is the product of both NATURAL catastrophes (like local floods, landslides, earthquakes, meteorite impacts, and hurricanes) and slow and gradual processes (such as lakes drying up over long periods of time and precipitating salt deposits). "

The natural catastrophes such as earthquakes are themselves the result of slow gradual processes. If an earthquake is the result of a slow process wouldn't the effective of the earthquake not also by the result of a slow natural process?

Yes.

Uniformitarianism doesn't imply only one rate of change. Earthquakes happen as a result of plates slipping. Some animals evolve faster than others.

But a worldwide catastrophic event didn't split up Pangea. Each animal wasn't instantly created, and has slow process of change.

The rates of change are relatively slow in comparison to the ideas presented by catastrophism.

 

[dad]

There is no reason to postulate magical or supernatural events, or that the laws of nature were different in the past, such as dad's "split" universe.

Or to postulate they were the same as you do.

This "assumption" could be falsified by pointing out features in the geologic record that cannot be explained by the natural process we see today.

We can explain it, if we wish using the present, although it gets complicated. Or we can explain it with a simple different past. Either way, we can explain it and use the evidence available.

 

[dad]

But a worldwide catastrophic event didn't split up Pangea.

Prove it.

 

[ENominiPatri]

Prove it.

It's called continental drift. Take a look at the continental shelves around our 7 continents and they puzzle together smoothly, there is nothing staggering about it. The fossil record also quite nicely shows how continents used to be connected. Because geology doesn't claim that Pangea splitting occurred via catastrophic means it is up to you to provide evidence it did.

 

[dad]

It's called continental drift. Take a look at the continental shelves around our 7 continents and they puzzle together smoothly, there is nothing staggering about it.

I don't question the fit. (Although, lile Walt Brown, I think the best fit is at the mid ocean ridge).
Also, do you have some evidence that the present drift rate is what was always around?

The fossil record also quite nicely shows how continents used to be connected.

Again, I think they were as well.

Because geology doesn't claim that Pangea splitting occurred via catastrophic means it is up to you to provide evidence it did.

Geology assumes the past was as the same as now, basically, so simply plays a number game with that assumption. That does not mean it was not actually fast. It just means they assume stuff.

 

[ENominiPatri]

I don't question the fit. (Although, lile Walt Brown, I think the best fit is at the mid ocean ridge).
Also, do you have some evidence that the present drift rate is what was always around?

put an http thing before the link, i dont have enough posts yet
istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/earthmag/Figures/seaflor2.gif

The fact that there are so many magnetic reversals over such a long period of time show that the continents spread slowly.

Geology assumes the past was as the same as now, basically, so simply plays a number game with that assumption. That does not mean it was not actually fast. It just means they assume stuff.

Geology doesn't assume, it takes the evidence and interprets it. That is what science does and will always do. Creationism assumes what happened and tries to interpret the evidence to fit its prescribed beliefs. Why else would people be trying to prove the Earth is 6000 years old while scientists discover ways to reliably test and produce results while withholding any bias in pursuit of knowledge?

 

[dad]

put an http thing before the link, i dont have enough posts yet
istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/earthmag/Figures/seaflor2.gif

The fact that there are so many magnetic reversals over such a long period of time show that the continents spread slowly.

No, it shows that there was a lot of magnetic reversals.
" reconstructed the history of magnetic reversals for the past 4 million years using a dating technique based on the isotopes of the chemical elements potassium and argon"
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/stripes.html

So that story is as reliable as the dating technique. Let me ask you, then, can you show us there was decay in the far past, say around flood time??????? If not, you have no case! If so, let's see you do it.

Geology doesn't assume, it takes the evidence and interprets it.

Don't we all. So, it doesn't assume that the spreading rates were the same? Yes, it does. Since you won't be able to demostrate there was decay in the past, that is not evidence there was, or of any slow spread.

That is what science does and will always do.

Cute prophesy. But no, in no way will it always do anything of the kind.

Creationism assumes what happened and tries to interpret the evidence to fit its prescribed beliefs.

No, creationism knows what happened, and tries to see how the evidence is beat placed in the puzzle.

Why else would people be trying to prove the Earth is 6000 years old while scientists discover ways to reliably test and produce results while withholding any bias in pursuit of knowledge?

The results they test have nothing to do with the earth being older than that, despite their bias!

 

[ENominiPatri]

No, it shows that there was a lot of magnetic reversals.
" reconstructed the history of magnetic reversals for the past 4 million years using a dating technique based on the isotopes of the chemical elements potassium and argon"

So that story is as reliable as the dating technique. Let me ask you, then, can you show us there was decay in the far past, say around flood time??????? If not, you have no case! If so, let's see you do it.

You claim that the continents parted via catastrophic events. The evidence on the ocean floor shows that the continents have spread slowly, not catastrophically over at least the last four million years (lets use the mid-atlantic ridge as the primary example) by dating the material the plates are made of. You don't appear to understand how the magnetic reversals got there.

Over the course of the four million years while the plates at the midatlantic ridge were being created, the polarity of the Earth reversed several times. The reversals appear in the rock as the rock is formed so the closer a reversal is to the ridge (the plates are divergent) the younger the rock (and the reversal) is.

The presence of numerous reversals clearly proves that the plates spread slowly because reversals occur about every 700,000 years (according to ocean floor records) on avg. Remember, a reversal ONLY affects rock being formed. After the rock is formed the magnetic alignment is permanently displayed.

Let's also see some geologic evidence for that global flood you mentioned.

Don't we all. So, it doesn't assume that the spreading rates were the same? Yes, it does. Since you won't be able to demostrate there was decay in the past, that is not evidence there was, or of any slow spread.

Spreading rates don't need to be the same, they don't have any speed limits to abide by. But, the spread rates are clearly not catastrophic:

ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/crustageposter.gif
(again put an http in front of that)
A catastrophic spread would result in a mass of one color, not many strips or ages.

According to nature when an element is created it begins to decay at a reliable rate, also known as a half-life. Unless there was any divine interference the current state of decay of elements in the ocean floor allow us to determine how long ago it was when they were created. Also known as radiometric/isochron dating.

Cute prophesy. But no, in no way will it always do anything of the kind.

Cute counter-prophecy. :/

No, creationism knows what happened, and tries to see how the evidence is beat placed in the puzzle.

Based on evidence or a book? Did the writers of the bible know everything about science already or were the just speculating? I really doubt bronze age goat tenders had a more thorough grasp on geology, science in general than we do today.

Dad if you really believe the Earth is 6,000 years old then please explain how this tree has enough rings to be 11-12,000 years old: King Clone Creosote Bush

The results they test have nothing to do with the earth being older than that, despite their bias!

So using reliable dating methods on the surface material of our planet conclude that their being 4+ billion years old has nothing to do with the fact that you think the Earth is 6,000 years old? All based on a book that claims it but never tested it or tried to test it in the first place. I'm losing faith in you father.

Was the ice age just a hoax as well? Did Niagra Falls just spring into place without the 7,000 years of erosion that actually took place?

You really are fitting evidence to your beliefs whether you believe it or not.

 

[dad]

You claim that the continents parted via catastrophic events.

Well, so far that is what the evidence seems to indicate, best I can tell.

The evidence on the ocean floor shows that the continents have spread slowly, not catastrophically over at least the last four million years (lets use the mid-atlantic ridge as the primary example) by dating the material the plates are made of. You don't appear to understand how the magnetic reversals got there.

Did you miss something? I explained that the so called dating is nothing more than assuming there was decay in the past. That is assumption. So, where is the ages??????

Over the course of the four million years while the plates at the midatlantic ridge were being created, the polarity of the Earth reversed several times.

Prove it. All we can say is that it did reverse. Your 'millions of years' is not part of the picture.

The reversals appear in the rock as the rock is formed so the closer a reversal is to the ridge (the plates are divergent) the younger the rock (and the reversal) is.

Well, we could agree there, where the younger and older are representing days, weeks, minutes, or years. Not long ages. Older and younger are fine with me!

The presence of numerous reversals clearly proves that the plates spread slowly because reversals occur about every 700,000 years (according to ocean floor records)

---which are based on dating. Quit going round and round here!!! In other words, the whole case from top to bottom is the assumtion that the past was as the present is!!! That, as you might phrase it, 'the present is the key to the past'. No, not in any way is that true.

on avg. Remember, a reversal ONLY affects rock being formed. After the rock is formed the magnetic alignment is permanently displayed.

So......???

Let's also see some geologic evidence for that global flood you mentioned.

Well, that is a whole different thread, really. But, quickly, the seperation of the continents seems to be after the flood. With all the subduction, mountain building, and plate movements, the uniform evidence you may have expected is, of course violently affected, on a planetary scale.

Spreading rates don't need to be the same, they don't have any speed limits to abide by. But, the spread rates are clearly not catastrophic:

Easy to say, why not?

ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/crustageposter.gif
(again put an http in front of that)
A catastrophic spread would result in a mass of one color, not many strips or ages.

Ah, assuming what??? That nothing else was going on at the same time? No, there was a reason that they split. That reason meant a lot of changes.

According to nature when an element is created it begins to decay at a reliable rate, also known as a half-life. Unless there was any divine interference the current state of decay of elements in the ocean floor allow us to determine how long ago it was when they were created. Also known as radiometric/isochron dating.

No!!! You mean, if an element is NOW created! Not the old elements that are decaying now. You have no idea whether they were decaying when they were created! Do you? That is because the universe now is in a state of decay. If you wonder why there is a lot of daughter material in the rock, or material, that would likely be because the material was already there, doing something else besides being involved in a decay process. An atomic level change.

Cute counter-prophecy. :/

Thanks, The bible is famous for this.

Based on evidence or a book? Did the writers of the bible know everything about science already or were the just speculating? I really doubt bronze age goat tenders had a more thorough grasp on geology, science in general than we do today.

They were making iron, and metal right after Eden. They knew plenty. Plus a lot of what they knew applied to the world of their day.

Dad if you really believe the Earth is 6,000 years old then please explain how this tree has enough rings to be 11-12,000 years old: King Clone Creosote Bush

OK. Easy. Trees in bible times could grow in one week! That is how different it was. So, if we had a tree that grew, in say 77 years after the flood, it could have had, say, thousands of rings on it. Then, we add the 4400 years worth of rings since then, and, presto, we have a lot of rings. Any tough questions?

So using reliable dating methods on the surface material of our planet conclude that their being 4+ billion years old has nothing to do with the fact that you think the Earth is 6,000 years old?

You were misinformed, they are reliably wrong only!

Was the ice age just a hoax as well?

No. Look how many creatures adapted to the cold. Oh, did I mention, that life could hyper evolve in our past??

Did Niagra Falls just spring into place without the 7,000 years of erosion that actually took place?

Didn't have that long, no. But it did have a long time.

You really are fitting evidence to your beliefs whether you believe it or not.

Aren't we all.

 

[ENominiPatri]

Well, so far that is what the evidence seems to indicate, best I can tell.

You haven't provided any evidence yet. :/

Did you miss something? I explained that the so called dating is nothing more than assuming there was decay in the past. That is assumption. So, where is the ages??????

Decay is actually a fact unless you can prove that the rate isn't constant, in which case you would shock the geologic world.

Prove it. All we can say is that it did reverse. Your 'millions of years' is not part of the picture.

Many different methods of radiometric dating have all similarly estimated the age of the Earth to be 4+ billion years old. Where is your method to determine the Earth is only 6,000? Science has reliably provided an estimate for the age of the Earth, it is you who must prove the estimate wrong. All you do is claim science to be wrong though, so you are tripping on your own feet.

Well, we could agree there, where the younger and older are representing days, weeks, minutes, or years. Not long ages. Older and younger are fine with me!

You really don't understand the process by which the crust at the mid-atlantic ridge was created. :/

---which are based on dating. Quit going round and round here!!! In other words, the whole case from top to bottom is the assumtion that the past was as the present is!!! That, as you might phrase it, 'the present is the key to the past'. No, not in any way is that true.

Is dating unreliable due to your superstition or have you tested the age of the Earth yourself using peer-reviewed methods that revealed the rest of mainstream science to be wrong? The key is actually to want to learn, not rationalize.

Well, that is a whole different thread, really. But, quickly, the seperation of the continents seems to be after the flood. With all the subduction, mountain building, and plate movements, the uniform evidence you may have expected is, of course violently affected, on a planetary scale.

If your global flood proposal could tear up continents and build mountains then how did Noah's ark stay afloat? Oh... God did it... [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth].

Ah, assuming what??? That nothing else was going on at the same time? No, there was a reason that they split. That reason meant a lot of changes.

The magma in the mantle of the Earth convects and pushes/pulls/splits tectonic plates. It is a slow process that takes hundreds of thousands of years to cause significant change.

What is this something else going on at the same time you posit? Define it and show your evidence for it that could not have possibly come about through natural forces.

No!!! You mean, if an element is NOW created! Not the old elements that are decaying now. You have no idea whether they were decaying when they were created! Do you? That is because the universe now is in a state of decay. If you wonder why there is a lot of daughter material in the rock, or material, that would likely be because the material was already there, doing something else besides being involved in a decay process. An atomic level change.

Show me modern evidence of where elements are created with a significant amount of decay already in place.

Ice core dating can be used to verify that the decay rates haven't changed, I'm going to study that a little more thoroughly after work tonight.

They were making iron, and metal right after Eden. They knew plenty. Plus a lot of what they knew applied to the world of their day.

And the Sumerians were making beer before the Eden existed....

OK. Easy. Trees in bible times could grow in one week! That is how different it was. So, if we had a tree that grew, in say 77 years after the flood, it could have had, say, thousands of rings on it. Then, we add the 4400 years worth of rings since then, and, presto, we have a lot of rings. Any tough questions?

Again, based on superstition or observed fact?

You were misinformed, they are reliably wrong only!

Because your superstition says so I GET IT!

No. Look how many creatures adapted to the cold. Oh, did I mention, that life could hyper evolve in our past??

Your point? Your evidence? Your burden.

Didn't have that long, no. But it did have a long time.

Okay okay.

Aren't we all.

No, I take the evidence and then create my beliefs. I am rational and logical. You take your beliefs and throwaway the evidence that disagrees. Religion has been doing that since the beginning. Irrational. Illogical.

Anyone wanna help verify my stances, I might be incorrect about certain scientific views. This is a promising discussion join up.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

This is a promising discussion join up.

You're new. After awhile, you'll learn that it's pointless to try to discuss certain scientific topics with certain creationists here.

 

[dad]

You haven't provided any evidence yet. :/

I mean all that man has at the moment. You name it. For example, the fact that the continents did seperate.

Decay is actually a fact unless you can prove that the rate isn't constant, in which case you would shock the geologic world.

No one agues it is a fact. It is. Is is well known by science. But it was not in the different past, which may be the reason you can't prove it was.

Many different methods of radiometric dating have all similarly estimated the age of the Earth to be 4+ billion years old. Where is your method to determine the Earth is only 6,000?

All based on the same premises, and priciples. It is quite simple, there must have been a same past with decay for ANY of it to be valid. So, prove it, and I will have to accept your dates. Otherwise, they are only as valid as your assumption of a same past. Which is not at all valid.

Science has reliably provided an estimate for the age of the Earth, it is you who must prove the estimate wrong. All you do is claim science to be wrong though, so you are tripping on your own feet.

No, I simply check their work they have done in the past, and see that it is actually all in the present, the rest is all assumption and belief. Naturally, that must be exposed.

You really don't understand the process by which the crust at the mid-atlantic ridge was created. :/

Which was...what that affects anything discussed here??

Is dating unreliable due to your superstition or have you tested the age of the Earth yourself using peer-reviewed methods that revealed the rest of mainstream science to be wrong? The key is actually to want to learn, not rationalize.

It can't be tested, because it is gone. What we do have does not tell us that it was the same or different. When peering through time, your peers can't help.

If your global flood proposal could tear up continents and build mountains then how did Noah's ark stay afloat? Oh... God did it... [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth].

I thought I said I thought that the seperation was after the flood? What are they teaching kids in school these days, where they feel they have to rinse every time God is mentioned? It makes me spit.

The magma in the mantle of the Earth convects and pushes/pulls/splits tectonic plates. It is a slow process that takes hundreds of thousands of years to cause significant change.

No, that is a dream. There is magma down there, yes. It has only been here thousands of years, though. Anyone can sit there spinning some yarn.

What is this something else going on at the same time you posit? Define it and show your evidence for it that could not have possibly come about through natural forces.

The split. The universe was changed, down to the fabric itself. The spiritual was seperated from the physical, we are in the temporsry state here, and now, of the physical only.

Show me modern evidence of where elements are created with a significant amount of decay already in place.

I didn't say that. They were there, likely as part of the former process, that stabalized matter, rather than left it unstable, and in decay, as it now is. When the new state of the universe came to be, the process changed, and the stste of matter itself, so as that the process became a decay process. The daughter material found a new job, in the decaying process.

Ice core dating can be used to verify that the decay rates haven't changed, I'm going to study that a little more thoroughly after work tonight.

Great. Let us know how the present deposition of ice occurs, and how they assume it was always so, will you?

And the Sumerians were making beer before the Eden existed....

No, show us how the dates were arrived at! Seriously.

No, I take the evidence and then create my beliefs.

Fine, you think manufactured beliefs, based on the present temporary state of things, where we can't even now detect the spiritual elements is some great belief to have, you are welcome to it. I didn't create my own belief, I simply tried to believe the creator.

I am rational and logical. You take your beliefs and throwaway the evidence that disagrees. Religion has been doing that since the beginning. Irrational. Illogical.

From the beggining??! Where was that, the pond, or the garden? It was man that threw God away, and doesn't admit what he got instead. The devil. Soon, according to the bible, the charade and games will be over, and the devil in the flesh will be here and demand to be openly worshipped. Since most of the world does it anyhow dishonestly, they will comply.

Anyone wanna help verify my stances, I might be incorrect about certain scientific views. This is a promising discussion join up.

Most of the old agers were already licked on the major issues, and can't fight the split. They are licking their wounds. They may pop up, warning some to run while they still can! That's about all the fight they have left.

 

[ENominiPatri]

Dad, I give up with you. All you can do is say I wasn't there so I can't know it happened. A kindergardener might argue with that, but an adult?

Using your holy logic I can't conclude that my parents were born because I wasn't there.

Bye bye now.

 

[dad]

Dad, I give up with you. All you can do is say I wasn't there so I can't know it happened.

You can't, all we can know is certain things about the past. If the universe was in a same or different stste is not one of them. Same with the future. These are the real limits of science. A kindergarden kid ought to realize that.

Using your holy logic I can't conclude that my parents were born because I wasn't there.

A cop out. No one is talking about your parents having lived back till around the time of the flodd. Unless they are 4400 years old, you really have no case. Next time, careful about making sweeping statements about the past that require a past that was the same as the present, when you have nothing to back that up. Welcome to science proof creation. Have a good life.