You speak of science as if it is a religion, I agree.
Do we
really need to go over the differences again? Science can back up its claims with evidence. Science can replicate its results upon demand. Science changes its models to reflect reality when new data is introduced. Religions do none of these things. One of these things is not like the other, TheWay. Stop equivocating. "Oh yeah?! You do it too!" is a childish response.
. My "take it or leave it" is what I see with uniformitarianism. Some aspects seem to be undeniable and reasonable. However, the assumption that the "past" was billions of years ago is unacceptable. Am I denying reality? I'm denying whatever reality your in; I also believe I am right. Without this conviction of spiritual knowledge I wouldn't care for evolution or creation.
And yet if we throw uniformitarianism away, we can literally make
no statements at all. If we allow that modern evidence is not necessarily related in any way to the past, we must also give up on the idea of causality, and all rational thought disappears.
Since we have a running record of such things as actual observations of phenomena occurring and what evidence they leave behind (ie, sediment layers at the bottom of lakes), and we see
exactly the same evidence stretching back to what appears to be millions of years worth of iterations of the same phenomena, uniformitarianism is a logical and reasonable conclusion. Pulling some intellectually vapid scenario out of your ass and saying that these millions of years worth of iterations, the last few of which we have actually
watched occur, may have instead been caused by some global flood for which there is no further evidence than an old mythological text, is
not, as an example, a reasonable conclusion.
Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
™ Version 4.2
