Do Creationists understand scientific terminology? Case in point - uniformitarianism

[KerrMetric]

The trend of opinion among many scientists is that the Earth has been devastated by numerous major impacts during her supposed four billion years of existence. There seems to be no denying that impacts have occurred in the past with catastrophic results, contrary to the widely embraced doctrine of uniformitarianism.

I saw this on the Creationist subforum. I see this mistake made again and again on Creationist websites and also posts on here.

Will someone tell me how on earth this is at odds with uniformitarianism?

I can only assume that in a typical headlong rush that the term has just been misunderstood OR a deliberate con job is being performed.

 

[KEPLER]

Basic categorical mistakes.

These people would believe that Blue sleeps faster than Wednesday if the Bible said it.

A basic course in logic and a good dictionary would do them a lot of good.

 

[Mallon]

All I know is that I'm still waiting for an answer to this question from YECs: If uniformitarianism is so wrong, how can we be sure that the Genesis "day" was 24 hours long???

 

[laptoppop]

Mallon -- because God very specifically qualified it in Genesis one. He didn't just say "day" he specified it out.

 

[laptoppop]

These people would believe that Blue sleeps faster than Wednesday if the Bible said it.

Is it so wrong to trust God? When God told Abraham to sacrifice his son, should he have refused?

 

[KerrMetric]

Is it so wrong to trust God?

He said "if the Bible said it". He didn't say anything about God saying it.

Having said that if God said "Blue sleeps faster then Wednesday" then I'd have an instant crisis of faith - or at least I wouldn't believe it was God talking. Absurdities are absurdities, period.

 

[laptoppop]

I saw this on the Creationist subforum. I see this mistake made again and again on Creationist websites and also posts on here.

Will someone tell me how on earth this is at odds with uniformitarianism?

I can only assume that in a typical headlong rush that the term has just been misunderstood

The point which is made is that conventional geology assumes that history is dominated by the same processes we see now, with a few events thrown in, while YEC believes that the geologic formations are dominated by deposits from the global flood. In the days of Lydell, special events were not recognized, while modern interpretation allows for a lot more.

OR a deliberate con job is being performed.

Nice respectful attitude.

 

[Deamiter]

The point which is made is that conventional geology assumes that history is dominated by the same processes we see now, with a few events thrown in, while YEC believes that the geologic formations are dominated by deposits from the global flood. In the days of Lydell, special events were not recognized, while modern interpretation allows for a lot more.

So you agree with the quote in the OP that uniformitarianism does not or did not include the possibility of meteorite impacts??

 

[KerrMetric]

The point which is made is that conventional geology assumes that history is dominated by the same processes we see now, with a few events thrown in, while YEC believes that the geologic formations are dominated by deposits from the global flood. In the days of Lydell, special events were not recognized, while modern interpretation allows for a lot more.

So do you agree with the quote I posted in the OP - OR do you think as I do that it is a stupid assertion that does not characterise uniformitarianism?

Nice respectful attitude.

Call 'em as I see 'em.

 

[laptoppop]

I understand what the person being quoted was meaning and don't see a need to pick it apart.

 

[KerrMetric]

I understand what the person being quoted was meaning and don't see a need to pick it apart.

In other words you know they were wrong but you don't want to concede the point.

The fact is they were operating under a false understanding of what uniformitarianism was - a false understanding put out deliberately by the known creationist groups so as to sow seeds of doubt.

It's just this kind of intellectual fraud that symbolises the Creationist position for the most part and why they receive no respect from either academic or governmental agencies.

 

[Deamiter]

I understand what the person being quoted was meaning and don't see a need to pick it apart.

All I can glean from the quote in the OP is that the author of the quote thinks that meteorite impacts are contrary to uniformitarianism thus leading to the conclusion that uniformitarianism is wrong.

I too understand that they're simply trying to build an argument against science they disagree with on Biblical grounds, and by that I suppose I understand what they meant. However, the statements itself is grossly misrepresentative of uniformitarianism by claiming that catastrophic events are ruled out by, and thus prove false, the concept that the same processes we observe today (which actually include meteorite strikes) were no different in the past.

This seems like an ideal post in which a creationist might step up and correct another's rather harmless misunderstanding of the term "uniformitarianism." I'm not going to go looking for the source of the quote or anything, but perpetuating wildly inaccurate information (of which this certainly is!) can hardly be called 'fellowship!'

 

[laptoppop]

Hmmm, I'm supposed to correct everyone -- but you let the "deliberate con" statement stand without correction. Seems like a major double standard, or you agree with the slanderous characterization. Its one thing to say that someone needs a bit more knowledge -- declaring lying or con job is a different level.

As I've said multiple times before, the best discourse is done using the most mature and developed expression of the viewpoints. We can both point to folks who support either viewpoint that do it without complete information -- but that adds nothing to the discussion but name calling.

 

[gluadys]

I understand what the person being quoted was meaning and don't see a need to pick it apart.

Who is saying anything about picking it apart?

Would it not be an act of brotherly love toward a fellow creationist to correct a term badly misused rather than, by your silence, allow him/her to go on thinking that "uniformitarianism" means something that it doesn't?

Uniformitarianism does not and never did preclude meteor strikes. If you know that, why allow some one to continue in the misapprehension that it does?

 

[HypnoToad]

These people would believe that Blue sleeps faster than Wednesday if the Bible said it.

A basic course in logic and a good dictionary would do them a lot of good.

And Kepler joins the hunt.

 

[KerrMetric]

And Kepler joins the hunt.

Oh I think he found it just fine.

 

[Mallon]

Mallon -- because God very specifically qualified it in Genesis one. He didn't just say "day" he specified it out.

Not quite sure what you mean by this, pop. How did God "specify it out"? Are you referring to the "evening and morning" reference? If so, how does this support your case that a Genesis "day" was 24 hours long? Regardless of how long the day was, there would have been a morning and an evening.

 

[laptoppop]

If you know that, why allow some one to continue in the misapprehension that it does?

Do you agree with the slanderous reference to deliberate con? If not, then why haven't you said anything about that?

I am responsible for myself. I am not responsible for correcting everything that someone might think needs correcting. Since I understood the intent of the poster, I didn't consider it worth correcting, and still don't.

 

[laptoppop]

Not quite sure what you mean by this, pop. How did God "specify it out"? Are you referring to the "evening and morning" reference? If so, how does this support your case that a Genesis "day" was 24 hours long? Regardless of how long the day was, there would have been a morning and an evening.

Bro, we can go round and round on this and not convince each other. To me, the first chapter of Genesis is very specific in human terms communicating single normal days. If I'm wrong, we'll both know in heaven.

 

[KerrMetric]

Since I understood the intent of the poster,

What was the intent?

To be clueless?