Uniformitarianism

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.

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.

The full quote is: Given that we are talking about uniformitarianism in general and the geological application of it in specific, origins of life is a non sequitur and something of a red-herring here, although I have no problem with it at all.The real point though is that the article you quoted is claiming that the evidence does not speak for itself, that it deceives the observer with false witness, that it lies, and that once you make this claim you cannot then claim what the evidence can support any argument. This is no "alternate explanation" rather it is denial of evidence What scientific fundamentalism? What contradiction? You are faced with an intellectual choice: either the evidence tells the truth or it lies. Logically the latter offers no way to determine any hypothesis at all, while the former is testable and falsifiable. The only choice that leads to logical conclusions and testable results is that the evidence is telling the truth. This is why any explanation of reality must include explanation of all the evidence. Not at all. There may be many subjective as well as objective views, but because the only logical course is to assume that the evidence is telling the truth, we can then test these views against the evidence and see which works and which doesn't.An example here could be the Piltdown hoax. Many people believed (subjective) it was true, others (also subjective) believed it was false, but it was only through testing of the different views against the evidence that it was shown to be a hoax: the evidence showed the truth of the matter. My original response was This still holds true in spite of your changing "prediction" to "intertwined" -- uniformitarianism says that what we see in the geological column is due to geological processes operating in the past according to natural laws in the same way as they operate today. This is known as an ad hominem, an attack on the person and not the message, an emotional rather than rational response, especially when made to an argument that is simply an observation of truth. The truth is that denial of reality is delusion: continuing to believe that the Piltdown man is true, for instance, is delusional because honest evidence contradicts this belief. This is yet another weak self-deluding typical YEC PRATT argument, for science is entirely different from faith in many ways. It seems that only those who are incapable of thinking of things in any manner except by faith often fall into the trap that everyone thinks that way. As the signature says "we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand" -- and science is not faith.In my Perceptions of Reality I mention three basic forms of knowledge, science, philosophy and faith. But the major difference is that science is based on evidence, while faith is based on belief in spite of an absence of evidence one way or the other: This is why delusion is not faith, because delusion is belief in spite of evidence. God may well have made the natural laws and processes -- that is after all an essential element of deist belief eh? However those laws and processes are then no more supernatural than all things created, from people to toads, and there is a world of difference between then letting those laws and processes operate and interfering with them to change the result. Another ad hominem. Sorry, but that is not the definition.The real question is whether you have any argument that uniformitarianism is not valid, rather than arguments that evade the issue or use logical fallacies.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.

Welcome back TheWay, The evidence tells a story, and it is not a matter of interpreting it so much as understanding it. All the evidence taken together tells the same story: the story that the evidence tells is truth, reality. If we assume that there are two valid interpretations *- two stories -* then this leads to the conclusion that there are two truths or two *(or more)* realities, and we run into *sever logical* problems - or we come to the conclusion that one (or more) version is false and we need to test them to see which is correct.We can assume that a piece of the story being told is true or false. If we assume that any piece of the story told by evidence can be a falsehood, then you cannot reach any real conclusions, for you can pick and choose whatever evidence you like and ignore the rest ...... and likewise you can never tell whether any conclusion is real, true, valid. No matter what you chose, it could always be your evidence that is false.It is only when you assume that the story told by all the evidence is the truth, that it is reality, that you can make valid conclusions and test them. It may take a while to get it right, but in the end there is only one valid result, one reality.Anyone who says things like "do not reflect what actually happened" and "do not reflect the actual age of the rocks" is saying that the piece of the story told by the rocks is false - it's a denial of evidence and not an alternative explanation. *Anyone who tells you there are two valid interpretations is saying that there are two stories, two truths, two (or more) realities.* Rather than talk about creationists and evolutionists, let's talk about tested ideas and untested ideas. Both groups can *and do* have tested and untested ideas and concepts. The earth being an oblate spheroid orbiting the sun is a tested idea that has held up to testing. The earth being a flat surface at the center of the universe is also a tested idea that has not held up to testing. There is no difference to the validity of these concepts that depends on who holds them.Any untested idea is as good (or bad) as any other untested idea. It is only through testing that we can weed out the bad ideas. Rather they are simple concepts, and easy to test. You can test them yourself. They can also be tested against each other and against other evidence. Because all evidence must tell the same story (their part of it). If you assume that some evidence can be false, then you can never tell whether any conclusion is real, true, valid. No matter what you chose, it could always be your evidence that is false. It is only when you assume that the story told by all the evidence is the truth, that it is reality, that you can make any valid conclusions and test them.*Now you could say that the conclusions that rely on less evidence being false are more valid, but the logical conclusion is that the conclusion that requires no evidence to be false is as valid as you can get, and is the same result as assuming that all evidence is telling the truth.* A rational, objective method of investigating reality. But you can't logically make a hypothesis that no hypothesis exists. Yes you can assume that the evidence lies and does not tell us what reality is - the buddhist version where all is illusion, but then no conclusion is valid, not even that all is illusion. There are lots of things we can't explain yet, but what is better: to say "I don't know" or to claim that some untested concept is true? No, objective views can be tested for validity regardless of you philosophy or whether or not you believe there is such thing as objectivity in opinion. That tree rings are annual rings is an objective view that can be tested. We can determine that tree rings tell the age of the earth with an accuracy of 8,000 +/- 37 years (0.5%) because this is objective information that can be tested.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : dupEdited by RAZD, : *added by edit*

---

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.

"Understand" has connotations of accept, appreciate, figure out and perceive, while "interpret" has connotations of adapt, depict and portray.When I read an post like yours, the evidence of what you want to convey, the meaning of your post is written in letters and words. My purpose in reading it is to understand what your words mean, not to interpret them in a way I want to. I do not need to interpret the letters to read the words -- an "A" is an "A" -- there is only one interpretation of the reality of the letters posted. Nor is reality some romance novel storyteller making stuff up, rather it is a drab unemotional recorder of events. Vesuvius erupted in 79 AD. This event is recorded in ash deposits and history. We don't need to interpret the evidence to know that Vesuvius erupted, nor are there different interpretations of the evidence possible that would mean that Vesuvius did not erupt in 79 AD.Like your letters, a sedimentary layer is a sedimentary layer, a layer of Flabellinas rugosa shells is a layer of Flabellinas rugosa shells,and a measured level of radioactivity in an object is a measured level of radioactivity, tree summer growth is a tree summer growth, and tree winter growth is a tree winter growth, and each one is different from the other. These things do not need to be interpreted: they are what they are.The words are assembled when the evidence of the letters is assembled in the proper order -- the order in which they are found on the page. Again, I do not need to interpret the words, as they have their own meaning, meaning verified by context of the rest of the evidence ("right" as in "correct" as opposed to "not left"). Again, my purpose in reading it is to understand what your words mean, not to make various interpretations based on my world view. One could "interpret" words differently, but the meaning of the post is lost, and this invalidates those interpretations as false when they are tested by the context of the whole set of evidence - the letters and the words formed by the letters.For example, summer tree growth is summer tree growth, and winter tree growth is winter tree growth, each is different from the other due to climate change with the seasons, and together they make a distinct annual ring, a "word." Ten (10) tree rings would be a longer "word" composed of tree ring letters, each with a winter side and a summer side. A tree with 4,839 rings is still a single word. The rings are physical facts that are not subject to alternative "interpretation" - they cannot be "interpreted" as not-rings.We can also look at the evidence of Vesuvius and understand that there have been many eruptions at different times and of different intensities in the past, and we can determine which are older and which are younger from understanding the evidence. We cannot interpret the evidence to mean there are different orders of the ages for the various eruptions.We don't need to interpret the evidence that light is bent by gravity to understand what it means. No, it is not a matter of assumption, rather it is a conclusion based on what the evidence shows. As you point out, Hutton came to this conclusion in the late 1700's, well before Darwin used their results in understanding geoplogyJames Hutton - Wikipedia

quote:

---

James Hutton (3 June 1726 OS (14 June 1726 NS) Edinburgh, Scotland ” 26 March 1797) was a Scottish geologist, naturalist, chemist and experimental farmer. He is considered the father of modern geology.[1][2] His theories of geology and geologic time,[3] also called deep time,[4] came to be included in theories which were called plutonism and uniformitarianism.

​

At Glen Tilt in the Cairngorm mountains in the Scottish Highlands, Hutton found granite penetrating metamorphic schists, in a way which indicated that the granite had been molten at the time. This showed to him that granite formed from cooling of molten rock, not precipitation out of water as others at the time believed, and that the granite must be younger than the schists.[5][6]

​

He went on to find a similar penetration of volcanic rock through sedimentary rock near the centre of Edinburgh, at Salisbury Crags,[2] adjoining Arthur's Seat: this is now known as Hutton's Section.[7][8] He found other examples on the Isle of Arran and in Galloway.[6]

​

Hutton reasoned that there must have been several cycles, each involving deposition on the seabed, uplift with tilting and erosion then undersea again for further layers to be deposited, and there could have been many cycles before over an extremely long history. In a 1788 paper he presented at the Royal Society of Edinburgh,[3] Hutton remarked, "we find no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end."

---

Yes, it's a massive evolutionary conspiracy to impose a concept on geology and other sciences, and it was secretly organized many decades before evolution was a gleam in Darwin's eye. Those biologists are dangerous criminals. OR your ignorance and paranoia is showing.Why would physicists assume that radioactive rates have stayed the same when they have actually tested this concept and found no measurable change in this or in other known constants (like the speed of light).Could it be that the concept is pervading "multiple scientific disciplines" because it is a many times tested valid conclusion based on the evidence we know today? Because there is no evidence that shows it is not a valid conclusion? Again, evolution has no relationship to the validity of geological conclusions, the structure of geology is independent of the conclusions of evolution. Evolution is not some "overview" of reality. This is a false representation usually made by ignorant creationists that don't understand science in general and the division of science into many independent disciples in particular. A geologist does not need to understand evolution to understand and do geology (obviously, when Hutton worked out basic principles used today before Darwin was born). Likewise a physicist does not need to understand evolution - or geology - to understand and do physics, including radioactive decay, or gravity affecting light.Nor does a biologist need to understand geology or physics to understand biology and evolution. Nor does biology or evolution depend on uniformitarianism. No, because reality does not depend on interpretations or assumptions. You can start with assumptions and then test them against reality, and those that are false will be seen to be invalid. The flat earth is one example. A young earth is another. Assuming these concepts to be true does not make them so. Assuming you can interpret evidence to make these concepts true is also false, as they will remain false regardless of your assumptions and interpretations.The only assumption that we need is that the evidence of reality is true, so that understanding the evidence means we understand reality. If we change this assumption then the only conclusion is that there is no way to understand reality as every concept can rest on false evidence. Nor two realities. Rocks don't tell (multiple, fanciful, fictional, arbitrary) stories, they tell you history, their history. Who is "the evolution community" eh? Do you mean every person who does not happen to believe in certain religious concepts no matter how educated or what culture they live in? Which community would pastors in favor of teaching evolution be in?Are you saying that creationists have NO tested ideas? They think gravity is a figment of imagination? Bizarre. No, not necessarily, but an idea that does not stand up to testing is false. The flat earth is a false idea because it does not stand up to testing. The idea that the earth is young is false because it does not stand up to testing. The concept that the earth is old does stand up to testing, that doesn't mean that it is correct, just the best idea of the age of the earth that we have so far. There is a difference between annual varves and rapidly forming varves, and varves aren't assumed to be annual nor is some " uniformitarian assumption" involved. You look at what the varve evidence includes. For instance, in Lake Suigetsu there are alternate layers of diatom shells and clay, with the diatoms coming from summer blooms of diatoms dying and falling to the bottom, and clay from settling slowly so that they only accumulate without the shells during the winter when no diatoms grow. Reality. Try this then: "true" = demonstrates reality, "false" = does not demonstrate reality. Cool. It's subjective because it is recent??? No, tree rings are objective, you can cut a tree down and count the rings, you can go find the Prometheus stump and count the rings, other people can go and count the same rings and they won't come up with a different subjective count.You can also measure the carbon-14/12 ratio in the different layers and find that indeed the ratio is different in different layers, and there are two things that show up:(1) there is an 11 year cycle of max and min values of variations in the tree ring counts that matches pattern of the dark spot cycle of the sun (which affects the production of carbon-14 in the atmosphere),http://www.windows.ucar.edu/...n/activity/sunspot_cycle.html

quote:

---

The number of sunspots seen on the "surface" of the Sun changes from year to year. This rise and fall in sunspot counts is a cycle. The length of the cycle is about eleven years on average. The Sunspot Cycle was discovered in 1843 by the amateur German astronomer Samuel Heinrich Schwabe.

​

​

The Sun is usually very active when sunspot counts are high. Sunspots show us where the Sun's magnetic field might be "twisted up" enough to cause solar flares and coronal mass ejections. The Sun gives off more radiation than usual during solar max, and this extra energy changes the uppermost layers of Earth's atmosphere.

---

and(2) even with the variations from those 11 year periods, the general trend is for the inner layers to have lower carbon-14/12 ratios than outer layers in a pattern that matches radioactive decay for the half-life of carbon-14 plus the 11 year dark spot cycle: That makes three independent clocks in the evidence that agree with one another: annual tree rings, 11 year solar cycle, carbon-14 decay rate. Notice that this is evidence that validates the tree rings being annual, and both the solar cycle and the radioactive decay being uniformitarian processes.There is other evidence from the agreement from radiometric dating and its correlation with sedimentary layers. We can talk about this evidence, especially seeing as it is more related to the topic than dendrochronology:Are Radioactive Dates Consistent?

quote:

---

For example, Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) dating was tested against the Cenozoic-Era North American Land Mammal ordering. By ordering, I mean that rock layers were given numbers, with bigger numbers at greater depth. Each fossil was given the number of the rock layer it was found in. (Geologists call this stratigraphic order.) Here are the results:

​

The standard geological idea is that "deeper is older". (It's called the Principle of Superposition, and was invented two centuries before Darwin.) In this table, Superposition and K-Ar dating are mutually consistent.
The above is one example from

A response to creationist criticisms on radiometric dating, G. Brent Dalrymple, USGS Open-File Report #86-110, United States Geological Survey, 1986.

but if the subject interests you, it is much easier to obtain his book, The Age Of The Earth.

---

There are other examples on another thread that I can look up if you are interested. What's the paradox? What does Mt St Helens have to do with it? Or are we still not understanding what the term uniformitarianism means? What? This sounds like creationist gibberish to me, selective misuse of evidence and other forms of misrepresentation. Care to elaborate? Probably should be a new thread as it is off topic. Of course you are free to deny reality in any belief you care to have. Everyone is so entitled, but in doing so they are also denying that they are interested in the truth about reality. The probability of such beliefs has yet to be demonstrated, but that is off topic on this thread - care to start a new one?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.

Where the actual data diverges from the line representing a constant C-14 level in the atmosphere by less than 10%, and that shows the actual C-14 age to be 110% of the calculated age based on that line?Even with this being a source of error, it still shows that the minimum age of 12,405 years based on tree rings would have to be 13,645 years old based on C-14. Small consolation. Again demonstrating that you don't know what you are talking about, in spite of having been over this data how many times? All that is shown is uncalibrated results against a the line representing a constant C-14 level in the atmosphere. And of course we know that the C-14 level varies. Why do your trucks always drive on flat tires with broken transmissions and no engine?For someone who hides behind multiple screen names, who misrepresents information time and again and who essentially admits that you would rather a universe that lied to you than one that tells a truth that you don't like, one has to wonder what you think truth is.It's not whatever you want it to be.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.

Then you should also accept Thesaurus.com

quote:

---

Synonyms: adapt, annotate, clarify, comment, commentate, construe, decipher, decode, delineate, depict, describe, elucidate, enact, exemplify, explain, explicate, expound, gather, gloss, illustrate, image, improvise, limn, make of, mimic, paraphrase, perform, picture, play, portray, re-enact, read, render, represent, solve, spell out, take*, translate, understand, view

---

versus Thesaurus.com

quote:

---

Synonyms: accept, appreciate, apprehend, be aware, catch, catch on, cognize, conceive, deduce, dig, discern, distinguish, explain, fathom, figure out, find out, follow, get*, grasp, identify with, infer, interpret, ken*, know, kumtux, learn, make out*, master, note, penetrate, perceive, possess, read, realize, recognize, register, savvy*, see, seize, sense, sympathize, take in*, take meaning, tolerate

---

The synonyms show the different connotations of the words, including the ones I had noted, and which do apply to this issue.Again, the basic difference is that we want to understand reality as shown by the evidence, rather than interpret it to suit our whim. We can interpret evidence to show that the earth is flat, but when we understand the evidence we know that it shows the earth is an oblate spheroid. We can interpret evidence to show that astrology is valid, yet I believe we can agree that this is not scientific, and thus that because we can interpret evidence to mean what we want it to, that doesn't make the result scientific or any more real than a flat earth or astrology.This is the fundamental difference between the scientific approach and the creationist\IDologist approach: scientists are interested in understanding what the evidence really means, what is real, what is true, while creationists\IDologists are interested in making the evidence fit their story. Part of that attempt is to portray science as something it is not, such as saying it is only a theory, it is only an interpretation, and implying that there are other concepts just as valid, just as tested. The level of radioactivity in the samples is reality, fact, truth, and different levels in different rocks is due to different times of decay no matter how you "interpret" the results. If you are really interested in this topic see threads Feedback about reliability of dating, Correlation Among Various Radiometric Ages or Radioactive carbon dating ... or start one of your own.There is nothing fancy about the math - it is quite simple. There is also evidence that decay rates are the same now as they were in the past -- it is not just an assumption, but a tested concept. For instance the decay rate of cobalt-56 is confirmed by evidence from SN1987A (see Message 76) 168,000 years ago, among other things.The evidence shows that, not only is there no reason to postulate a change in decay rates, but that such a change would require several basic changes to the elemental behavior and the fine structure of physics that would result in evidence that has not been seen, while several things that have been seen could not have occurred. Changing the decay rate would mean that the Oklo natural reactors would not have occurred when and how they did, some 2 billion years ago.You talk about "fanciful math" in relation to the rate of decay of radioactive elements, but you have no concept of the truly "full of fancy" math that would be needed to (1) produce a different decay rate and (2) maintain the evidence of what has occurred. This is one of the reasons that these arguments are not about "alternative explanations" -- because there is no attempt to complete the explanations, and and no attempt to develop predictions that would invalidate them. The chemical composition of rocks is not a matter of interpretation, but a fact that can be understood. The level of radioactivity in a rock is also not a matter of interpretation, but a fact that can be understood. The presence or absence of different elements and isotopes of elements is also not a matter of interpretation, but fact that can be understood. This evidence does not need to be interpreted to be understood.You can develop concepts of how these facts came to be - theories - and then test them against the evidence to see which ones are valid representations of reality and which ones are false.The validity of these concepts is not a matter of interpretation, but of testing against the evidence, against reality. The issue is NOT whether you can interpret evidence to suit your fancy, but whether you can understand the reality they represent. Science does not behave like faith. You complain a perceived straw man in my argument between the usage of understand and interpret, and then you foist this representation of the whole field of geology as the assumption of a child looking at a canyon. WOW.Please read through Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up. and Was there a worldwide flood? and feel free to post this question there.The short answer is that Timmy's concept is not tested or validated the way that geology is. Geologists would test the erosion rates of different rocks and see what the evidence of slow erosion and fast erosion would look like in different strata, and then compare that with observations of the Grand Canyon. Nor would they assume a constant rate of erosion, as there are several different layers that - on a first assumption basis - would erode at different rates.To state\think that the geological conclusion that the Grand Canyon has eroded over considerable time is just an assumption based on a cursory observation is really rather insulting to geologists. Yes, in the philosophy of science it is an assumption, the application of it to geology and physics is based on observation and testing and validation. To understand how uniformitarianism is viewed in geology we can look at the material cited in the OP (Message 1): Those physical and chemical laws have also been tested to see whether this assumption is valid and to date this assumption has not been invalidated. This is not an assumption of a child standing on the lip of the Grand Canyon. Well if you were going to be scientific about it, rather than just have a philosophical conversation (the intellectual game of "what if" ideas: what if the Pilgrims had thanked the indians instead of their religion ... ), then you would propose a theory that would explain the existing evidence, make predictions of what you would see that would be different from the "standard model," and test those predictions. As noted on several other threads (particularly Was there a worldwide flood?) there are several sever problems that need to be overcome from the start.Now I won't pretend that you won't find some evidence that could show fast erosion (there have been a couple partial blockages of the canyon that have resulted in fast erosion downstream when they collapsed for instance), but you will not be able to explain all the evidence, especially the evidence for slow erosion that invalidates this concept. This would be like the evidence that you can find for a flat earth, or astrology. That is the impression that creationists give with their ad hoc statements portraying evolution as some philosophical overview that controls how people think. Simple solution: don't mix evolution with geology and assume some evolutionist conspiracy governs geology (or any other science) and has controlled it since before evolution was developed by Darwin. It's a silly idea that deserves no respect. The fact that it is common to creationists does not make the idea less silly. Nope. This may come as a shock to you, but the young earth model could be true and evolution would still be valid. This is because the argument creationists have is not with evolution -- the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation -- but with the concept of common descent and the evidence for a single common ancestor population rather than a multitude of (as yet undefined number or level of development) of first ancestors.That the age of the earth is very old is a fact that has nothing to do with evolution, but with the reality of geological, physical and astronomical evidence. The evidence for an old earth can be demonstrated without any reference to biology to say nothing of evolution.The natural history of earth and the life on it, from fossil records to present day genetics, is not predicated on evolutionary "needs" or on what "evolution needs" to have happened in order to be correct, rather it is evidence of the truth of reality - whether that truth involves evolution or not. Evolution does not control how other sciences work. Nope. Glad you had a chuckle, but you missed the point: your hypothetical article in "Geology Today" does not depend on evolution to come to it's conclusions, nor does any article in any professional journal of geology, but on the evidence for geology.Not only that, evolution will still be observed to occur every day, and the theory of evolution will still be valid in explaining the observed changes in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. Is it? Only one course mentions "evolution" or "life" in the whole list. You can also look for the frequency of "fossil" in the course descriptions: 4 times in 46 graduate level classes. A shocking 8.7% of the course descriptions, even without looking at WHAT is involved ... and none of which are pre-requisites for geology courses that don't involve fossils, life or evolution. Not one of the courses mentions evolution theory.Biostratigraphy involves the study of the relationship of index fossils to certain sedimentary deposits, this is just using information available in the study of geology.
Micropaleontology involves the study of the morphology, classification, ecology and geologic ranges of important microfossil groups, particularly index fossils.Heavy knowledge of evolution required there.Finally, from Page not found | The University of Maryland Graduate School

quote:

---

Master of Science (M.S.)
The Department of Geology offers a Master of Science degree. There is no single prescribed curriculum. Although 24 credit hours of course work and 6 credit hours of thesis research are required, the entire course of study is individually developed for each student by his/her graduate program committee as approved by the Graduate Committee. The M.S. degree is awarded following the successful completion of the course requirements, submission of a satisfactory thesis, and an oral defense of the thesis. The M.S. normally requires two years of work.

​

Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.)
For the Ph.D. degree, requirements include satisfactory completion of course work, preparation of a research proposal, an oral candidacy and research proposal examination, and a successful dissertation defense. The Ph.D. commonly requires three to four years of work, if conducted after the completion of an M.S. program, or four to five years from the time of admission if pursued directly from the bachelor level.

---

Neither degree requires that a single one of those four (4) out of 46 courses be included in those taken by the students. The degree requires 24 of the possible 138 credit hours of all the classes with only 12 possible that use (shudder) fossils.Gosh, I'm whelmed by the load of evolutionary biology that is forced on geologists to understand their field! So many different course combinations could be taken without a single one involving fossils (such scary things) that this really makes my point:

quote:

---

A geologist does not need to understand evolution to understand and do geology

---

Thanks for the validation. Yes. It is rather a rational concept don't you think? whereas thinking that reality can be subjective or that there can be two or more "objective" realities is really, in essence, believing in fantasy -- isn't it? Not "liking" the rest of my post is one way to avoid reality, isn't it? What a cozy world you have, where you only need deal with issues you "like" eh?Do you think you can run away from reality?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.

Let's take another tack, and look at where the concept of "interpret" takes us. The issue is whether scientists and creationists make "different interpretations" of evidence on which they then base their theories. We'll start with your definition: You complain about my use of communication analogies, yet the word "interpret" is tied to communication and the analogies cannot be avoided. You "explain" or "tell" the meaning in understandable terms, "other languages" are interpreted so that you can understand the meaning in your own language, but the object is to understand the meaning. That is the point of good interpretation.The interpreter\interpretation can also make mistakes or intentional changes to better fit preconceptions, it is possible to have bad interpretations.So the question is not whether you can have several multitudes of interpretations, but whether any of them are accurate, and whether they represent a true understanding of the meaning.This comes down to the purpose of the interpretation. If the purpose of the interpretation is to make the evidence fit a preconceived notion of the world, then when the interpretation is made the job is complete, done, finished - those who need their preconceptions fulfilled are happy. They don't care whether the interpretation is 'good' or 'bad' in relation to the true meaning of the evidence but whether it is 'good' or 'bad' in relation to the preconceived notion, and the only "test" is whether or not it agrees with their preconceived notion.If the purpose of the interpretation is to make sure you really understand the true meaning of the evidence, the truth, the reality, then the work is not done, even when your interpretation is compatible with your current understanding of reality. It is not done for the simple reason that you don't know whether the interpretation is 'good' or 'bad' in relation to the true meaning of the evidence. It has not been validated.It is possible to have several interpretations that all seem possible, but to determine which (if any) help us understand the true meaning of the evidence, the interpretation(s) must be tested and validated (or invalidated) by the evidence. The results of these interpretations must be consistent for all the evidence, and they should allow us to make predictions of things not yet known to increase our understanding of reality.In science we call these interpretations "theories" - scientific theories - because they are based on evidence and their purpose is to improve our understanding of reality through standard testing and validation procedures.Thus the "interpretation" of evidence does not happen between evidence and theory, nor does evidence need to be interpreted before it can be used to form a theory, rather the interpretation is the theory, and evidence is taken as what it is, evidence of reality, whether it validates or invalidates the theory.Does that help?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.

Perhaps I did not phrase it as well as I could have. If you accept the dictionary as the sole source of meaning of terms, then you should also accept the thesaurus as a source of connotations for the meanings of the words, connotations gained from common usage. Does it really matter that terminology and usage is not necessarily as clear as it can be? You are the one complaining about my use use of communication analogies, of saying that evidence "talks" yet you need the same basic analogy to use "interpret" in your argument. The issue is about understanding each other more than anything else.See Message 60 for more. You may also be interested in the Is Logic a Valid Science in the establishment of ID as Scientific.?, which in spite of the title is more about what logic is and how it can be used. Sorry I don't buy the "you think like I think because I can only think of one way to think" argument. Accusing evolution (or science in general) of doing things the "creationist way" does not make it so. It may hold is some specific instances with some specific people, as that is certainly human nature in creationist types, and we should not, rationally, expect better in all scientists. Ernst Haeckel can be accused of doing this kind of thing but in the end his theory was discarded because it was contradicted by the evidence, and he was discredited personally when it was determined that the drawings were falsified. Against this splashy occasional example of bad science is the quiet pursuit of good science by millions of scientists that don't make headlines because they don't falsify data or force evidence to fit concept.But the real question in this whole issue is what is the final arbiter of truth in science (and yes, you are arguing against all of science not just evolutionary biology, when you equate geology with "evolutionist").The final arbiter in science is the test of theory against fact, evidence, reality. When there is a conflict between fact and theory such that the theory cannot be true the theory is discarded or revised until it can be true, then it is tested again. And again. And again.What is the evidence that this is actually true for science? Falsified theories that are actually discarded. Hoaxes that are uncovered and discredited. There are many such items in all branches of science - from evolution to physics to chemistry to astronomy to paleontology, etc. etc. etc. ... Can you name one science that has not discarded any falsified theories or a hoax? Can you name one that still uses a falsified theory or a hoax? (and not the usual PRATTs please ... ). Haeckel is an excellent example of how falsified theories AND hoaxes are discarded in science in general and evolution in particular.The final arbiter for creationists and IDologists is conformance to preconception of reality, making the evidence fit the model and ignoring anything that can't be made to fit. Testing of concepts for being true is not desired or necessary to affirm conformance to belief. They don't care about reality.What is the evidence that this is actually true for creationism\IDology? The fact that falsified concepts and hoaxes are never discarded but are endlessly recycled. This is why they get called PRATTs (points refuted a thousand times). The fact that they use outright falsehood regularly to the point that it should be really embarrassing for any honest creationist. If creationism were true why does it need to use falsified concepts, hoaxes and falsehoods (is any of it true?). What is evolutionism? Really. Can you find a definition that includes geology?All I have done is to "maneuver" some reality into the discussion of what "evolutionism" is and not let a creationist use it to demonize all of science while pretending to only attack evolution (such as in saying "The only thing insulting is your incessant evolutionist gibberish") when actually talking about geology and evidence or concepts that have nothing to do with evolution. When you use the term "evolutionist" in regard to arguments about geology YOU are conflating evolution with science. I'm just being honest in what you are actually talking about. Naive and absurd statements have a tendency to strike nerves of sensible common reason. Especially if one should know better. Yet the evidence shows that your assessment is so rudimentary you apparently don't know what reality is: you think the drainage of a great flood is a better explanation of the canyon, without realizing how totally absurd this is ... without even considering uniformitarianism and different rates of erosion. The difference would be so striking that even Timmy would notice. So I take it you don't want to get into geology enough to develop an alternative theory for the formation of the Grand Canyon, determine differences that would occur if it were true instead of the "standard model" used in geology and then test those predictions against the facts in the canyon. That would be doing research that applies to the thread topic wouldn't it? You'd rather repeat your assertion that a child at the rim of the Grand Canyon knows better. Then don't listen to creationists, for they are the ones telling you this. It's one of their favorite falsehoods. Certainly nobody on the Clergy Letter Project List would tell you that.But if you really want to discuss this issue, then start another topic, you've wandered far enough into standard anti-evolution rhetoric that has nothing to do with geology in general and uniformitarianism in specific. Yet you can verify that this is actually the way evolution is taught, studied and used in the field of biology. Now this is off-topic here, but you can continue this discussion at the MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? if you want to. Yes, it's shocking when you use it to include geology and the facts show your error in thinking. But you already have -- nothing in your post is about geology, it is a rant against evolution, and this means you are not going to address any issues related to geology in general and uniformitarianism in particular. Rants against evolution, with silly assertions about the way science functions, claims of being insulted by arguments are not geology.That's a basic problem with creationism - it's hard to find evidence to support a belief at odds with reality. That would at least be relatively on topic. Message 1: We assume the evidence tells\shows\demonstrates\witnesses the truth of reality.If there is only one reality it is a matter of understanding it, not interpreting it.So can you find any evidence that the physical and chemical laws have not been constant? Any evidence that radioactive rates have changed at some time in the past?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : subtitleEdited by RAZD, : ..Edited by RAZD, : topicEdited by RAZD, : No reason given.

---

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.

If you don't want me to label replies to your posts as "rants against evolution" then don't talk about evolution on a geology thread, talk about the geology. Nothing "PC" about it.It's that simple. There is nothing obscure or subtle about the issue of what is the final arbiter of truth nor is it a red herring. You have already agreed that for creationism it is a preconceived belief. You claim science is the same -- it isn't, and your denial of the evidence that it is different does not change the reality.How long it takes is irrelevant -- how long did it take to go from geocentric universe to our modern understanding? Does that affect the validity of the current understanding?Remnants exist of Haeckel's theory exist, because those remnants are true. Didn't you read the wikipedia article that explained this? The parts that are false have been discarded. You have not shown an invalidated theory that has not been discarded. There is nothing obscure about the fact that the a basic element of the scientific method is to discard theories that are invalidated or falsified by evidence of reality. Your attempt to label things obscure that are part of science are amusing, for they can only be obscure to someone who does not understand science very well. We start with the assumption that evidence is real and true to reality -- what do you start with?I've never gotten anything more than "accepting the bible as true" as a basic assumption of creationism (and starting with an assumption is not science: you need a theory and something to test that will differentiate that theory from other concepts, and without that you don't have a "creation science").Is there any other assumption made in creationism?We are supposedly talking about geology on this thread, or about science in general (a more universal application of uniformitarianism). Curiously you keep raising evolution not me. Insults are nothing more than ad hominem logical fallacies and do not replace actually dealing with the arguments.Sometimes the truth is "asinine and repugnant" and hard to take when you first come into contact with it. That can't be helped when your purpose is to find out the truth rather than live in fantasy land. Let me word this a little differently: it is easy to demonstrate that false concepts are repeated on creationist sites even after they have been shown to be false, and there is no effort in the creationist camp to weed out such information at any known level. Do a google on "Lucy's Knee" if you want an example, or look at Lucy - fact or fraud?, where this issue can be discussed in greater detail if you like. The evidence is that creationist websites do not care about truth. Again with the rant against evolution. You can assert this, but you cannot show that this is the way that evolution is taught, studied and used by evolutionists. The basic problem here is that if you are in a conversation involving your "evolution" (= particles to people evolution, including common ancestory and not without an old universe) with a biologist's evolution (= change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation), then you are not talking about the same thing.You can see this happening when you say things like "the theory of evolution is LONG overdue for the trash heap." -- if you mean the concept of evolution as "particles to people evolution, including common ancestory and not without an old universe" then you are not saying this applies to the concept of evolution as " change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation" -- you are not talking about the same thing, not meaning the same thing, you are talking about a straw man. If you want to discuss this further you can go to Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking..This applies to all sciences -- it is very simple: when you are talking about a science you use the terminology used in that science or you are NOT talking about that science, but some misunderstanding, fantasy or delusion you have about that science.As a corollary, when you are having any conversation where you want to communicate clearly and be understood you will make an effort ensure you are using the same common definitions of the terms used in your conversation.As another corollary, when your purpose is to obscure, obfuscate, and confuse the issues, then using different definitions is an easy thing to do. You wanted an example of creationist sites perpetuating false information, and one of the best examples of this is the consistent, pervasive and unnecessary false portrayal of what evolution really involves. If creationism is true then why do creationist sites need to lie about what evolution is? No, they are "married" in the sense of using the evidence we have to understand reality. The fact that they (and all other sciences) come to understand the same reality is not a big surprise: it would be shocking if they didn't. But you are confusing the evidence of reality with the theories involved to further our understanding of reality. The earth IS old, that is a fact for geology, physics, astronomy, biology, paleontology, archeology, etc ... and they come to the SAME conclusion from different investigations of reality with independent evidence.The geologist, the physicist, the astronomer, the biologist, the paleontologist and the archaeologist do not make up the evidence or the dates that they get for objects, they measure the evidence that shows one thing is older than another thing, and use the results in making and testing theories. One of the basic assumption they use to derive actual dates from that evidence is that " physical and chemical laws are constant" (Message 1). There is no evidence that this is a false concept. Perhaps you should start a thread on your "Flood Event catastrophe" if you think (1) you have a solid grasp of reality AND (2) it is more plausible than the geological understanding of what has happened there.Or post on Was there a worldwide flood?. They are not all catholics. The point - what you have not answered is that they have no problem with living with faith and evolution. The people that tell you there are problems are not evolutionists nor christians per se but creationists who want you to believe what they say. Where's your skeptic meter? Then respond to the OP about this, that is where that quote comes from, it's not my misrepresentation at all.What we are discussing here (supposedly) is whether "physical and chemical laws are constant" (Message 1), not evolution, not flood fantasy. To argue that they have changed one needs to present some information\evidence\substantiation and not just assert that things are different.If you feel you MUST talk about evolution then go to one of the threads I have linked to for further discussion and stop taking this thread off topic. This is not semantics or obscure -- it is what the debate is about: science doing science and creationism trying to undo science in order to fit reality into their preconceived universe.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.

The appalling thing, in my humble opinion, the TRULY APPALLING THING about this, is that "Creation science" has had some 220 years to come up with a THEORY that explained evidence as well as Hutton's uniformitarianism, and literally THOUSANDS of years to develop a "science" of " Flood Event catastrophe" and they don't have one. They haven't even started one - here you are in late 2007 proposing to develop one.Geologists that came to the Grand Canyon the FIRST TIME had theories of the formation of geological structures that they could apply to the evidence and test for demonstrating their understanding of the geological processes involved:Grand Canyon: Solving Earth's Grandest Puzzle | Chapter 1: Six Feet | InformIT

quote:

---

The Grand Canyon was declared altogether worthless by the first Europeans to discover it, and even the first Geologists to visit the natural wonder could not have grasped the sheer volume of information that could be gleaned from the vast trench. This chapter introduces the mysteries and scientific wonders uncovered in the Grand Canyon.

​

Not until John Strong Newberry, the first geologist to arrive, did anyone begin to appreciate the Big Caon. He wrote, "The Colorado plateau is to the geologist a paradise. Nowhere on the earth’s surface, so far as we know, are the secrets of its structure so fully revealed as here." The next geologist on the scene, John Wesley Powell, concurred, saying, "The grand caon of the Colorado will give the best geological section on the continent." The third, the dry, Euclidian Grove Karl Gilbert, said: "The Plateau province offers valuable matter in an advantageous manner"”for him, praise indeed. The scenery and geology inspired Clarence Dutton, the one Grand Canyon geologist who also qualified as a poet, to write, "It would be difficult to find anywhere else in the world a spot yielding so much subject matter for the contemplation of the geologist; certainly there is none situated in the midst of such dramatic and inspiring surroundings."

​

The four geologists were among the greatest of the nineteenth century, or, for that matter, any century. Collectively, they redefined the science of geology and gave it a distinctly American cast, while on the other side of the Atlantic, Charles Darwin was redefining biology and giving it a rather British complexion. The Colorado Plateau was a fount of scientific insight for these American scientists in the way the Galapagos Islands proved to be Darwin’s land of inspiration. The plateau provided raw, variegated rock unobscured by vegetation or glacial drift; layer cake bedding with few faults and folds; incised canyons to provide the essential, but usually scarce, third dimension.

​

Though the rock exposures of the Colorado Plateau are nakedly displayed and appear simple to understand, in fact the geologic history of the Colorado River and its canyons turns out to be deceptively complicated, vastly more so than the history of that ideal American river: the Mississippi.

---

Or is the reality of the whole development of our understanding of geology started with people you would now call "creation scientists" ... and the theories they developed turned into modern geology.They saw that the geology of the Grand Canyon could not be explained by some flood fantasy, and faced reality.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.