Uniformitarianism

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
It sounded respondable untill you said that it combats a 'model that makes an appeal to the supernatural' as I have done no such thing in all of my posts, I use naturalistic phenomena to explain what we observe in science today. The uniformitarian assumption seems to be contracted from it being an explenation that 'explains the evidence as it is simpler', scientific data is not about simplicity, as this method was used by ancient civilizations, finding that nature was too overwhelming for them to explain, so they resolved to simplicity, ie everything is the way it is because of the Gods. As this would be reduced to an analogy of what we are discussing, it makes a point. Just because a method is simple, doesn't mean it is the right method.

​

---

"respondable"? "combat" (where did I say combat?)All my post said was that if there are two theories pertaining to a phenomena the simpler one is better [b]if it explains the event fully[b]. A theory that makes appeal to the supernatural i.e Goddidit is necessarily more complex (containing as it does a factor that is by definition unknown) and therefore under a reductionalist methodology is less satisfactory than a theory that relies on no such factors."I use naturalistic phenomena to explain what we observe in science today."I`m sorry this sentence makes no sense to me what did you mean?

"Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale
Circular Reasoning or Reliable Tools?
at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html
Contains an very good summary of the various ideas (including uniformatarianism) that are at the foundation of the geologic science thought process."
--Thats great, so what part would you like me to comment on?-------------------

All my post said was that if there are two theories pertaining to a phenomena the simpler one is better if it explains the event fully."
--This is not neccessarelly true, as I gave the analogy of mythology to explain the phenomenal, and today we know it as otherwize. Another analogy is, it is easy to say that there is a river of light in the atmosphere that is created when moonlight strikes the poles, but we know today that this is not what causes the aurora, and the aurora is much more complex than this."A theory that makes appeal to the supernatural i.e Goddidit is necessarily more complex (containing as it does a factor that is by definition unknown) and therefore under a reductionalist methodology is less satisfactory than a theory that relies on no such factors."
--I would have to say it is wrong that it is more complex, it is pretty much the simplest case because all there is is....Goddidit, there, closed case. But this has no relevance to our discussion, as I make no relevance to impede that, 'Goddidit' as I have emphesised throughout my posts."I use naturalistic phenomena to explain what we observe in science today.""I`m sorry this sentence makes no sense to me what did you mean?"
--I mean 'I use naturalistic phenomena to explain what we observe in science today.' I meant what I said, and I said what I meant. Creation science has nothing to do with the causes of inflicting divine intervention to explain naturalistic phenomena, that is, to explain why/how things are the way they are. It is pure natural science.-------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-26-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
1)This is not neccessarelly true, as I gave the analogy of mythology to explain the phenomenal, and today we know it as otherwize. Another analogy is, it is easy to say that there is a river of light in the atmosphere that is created when moonlight strikes the poles, but we know today that this is not what causes the aurora, and the aurora is much more complex than this.

​

2)I would have to say it is wrong that it is more complex, it is pretty much the simplest case because all there is is....Goddidit, there, closed case. But this has no relevance to our discussion, as I make no relevance to impede that, 'Goddidit' as I have emphesised throughout my posts.

​

3)I mean 'I use naturalistic phenomena to explain what we observe in science today.' I meant what I said, and I said what I meant. Creation science has nothing to do with the causes of inflicting divine intervention to explain naturalistic phenomena, that is, to explain why/how things are the way they are. It is pure natural science.

​

---

1)The fact remains that an appeal to the supernatural results in an unresolvable complexity in a theory this is as true of mythology as Goddidit.The simplest acceptable theory should still be supported by evidence (I think you will find that the moonlight striking the poles fulfills less evidence than the current solar wind theory).2)Appeals to the supernatural are unresolvably complex because they are by definition appeals to the unknown and unknowable. Hence Goddidit is not simple but an increadibly vague theory.3)Most people use science to explain phenomena rather than the other way round.......

"1)The fact remains that an appeal to the supernatural results in an unresolvable complexity in a theory this is as true of mythology as Goddidit."
--I see what your saying, though since we cannot experiment on the supernatural or observe it, we can get no information out of it, thus is a simple statement as to say 'Goddidit' and end it there."The simplest acceptable theory should still be supported by evidence (I think you will find that the moonlight striking the poles fulfills less evidence than the current solar wind theory)."
--Yes I agree, though this does not mean it is correct, it could be a far cry from what actually happend."2)Appeals to the supernatural are unresolvably complex because they are by definition appeals to the unknown and unknowable. Hence Goddidit is not simple but an increadibly vague theory."
--Because of its scale of vagueness it is simple, we cannot experiment on anything with the supernatural, thus there is no data and you resolve to the statment that well, 'goddidit'."3)Most people use science to explain phenomena rather than the other way round......."
--Ofcourse, that is why creation science is science. But anyways, what was the topic we were discussing subfacing?------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
1)I see what your saying, though since we cannot experiment on the supernatural or observe it, we can get no information out of it, thus is a simple statement as to say 'Goddidit' and end it there.

​

2)Yes I agree, though this does not mean it is correct, it could be a far cry from what actually happend.

​

3)Because of its scale of vagueness it is simple, we cannot experiment on anything with the supernatural, thus there is no data and you resolve to the statment that well, 'goddidit'.

​

3)Of course, that is why creation science is science. But anyways, what was the topic we were discussing subfacing?

---

1)But you said yourself that you can have no information about the supernatural. Ergo any appeal to the supernatural muddies the waters. Hence a theory rested upon the supernatural is MORE complex than a theory that excludes the supernatural....2)You got a better theory than charged particles from the solar wind interacting with the Earths magnetic field? Hey how about you advance a competing theory involving the supernatural and we can see which is simpler....Vague is not simple, vague is by nature unspecified and complex, if it were simple it could not be vague....3)Look back at your post pal you said 'I use naturalistic phenomena to explain what we observe in science today'. Most people do the exact opposite they use science to explain phenomena....A phenomena is an event, it happens, it doesn`t explain anything, in fact it requires an explanation to be understood. Thus most people use science to explain phenomena rather than the other way round...To put it mathmaticaly in the sentence "I use naturalistic science to explain what we observe in phenomena today" phenomena and science are non-comutative....

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 01-28-2002]

A scrap, brought over from message 14, of the "Flood Stories" topic
(which is at http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=11&t=15&p=5 ):

quote:

---

Moose: Care to bring your thoughts on uniformitarianism to the uniformitarianism topic I started?
TC: Sure, would you just like me to reply to your first post?

---

The first two postings just contain information. The questions start in message 3.TC, in message 14:

quote:

---

Would Uniformitarian be merely a philosophical idea or is it based on or include evidence that the way it is happening today is how it has always happend (with some bending as I breifly explained above).

---

In a perhaps oversimplification, uniformitarianism states that "generally, the geologic processes we see happening today, are the same geologic processes that happened in the past". Certainly, some conditions have changed, never to happen again; And unusual, catastropic events are also recognized to have happened in the past. Yes, uniformitarianism is an assumption. A very reasonable assumption.Is there a real reason why the uniformitarianism assumption should be abandoned, such that vast amounts of the geologic record can be a result of the Noahtic flood?I don't wish to stray off into something better covered in another topic. But, the the geologic record is extremly complex, and well explainable in the frame of uniformitarianism.To any and all - please also see the other messages between the beginning and this posting. As of now, there aren't that many.Regards,
Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

"In a perhaps oversimplification, uniformitarianism states that "generally, the geologic processes we see happening today, are the same geologic processes that happened in the past". Certainly, some conditions have changed, never to happen again; And unusual, catastropic events are also recognized to have happened in the past. Yes, uniformitarianism is an assumption. A very reasonable assumption."
--Sertaintly, I must be in the place to relatively concur with you."Is there a real reason why the uniformitarianism assumption should be abandoned, such that vast amounts of the geologic record can be a result of the Noahtic flood?"
--It is my interperetation that will say yes."I don't wish to stray off into something better covered in another topic. But, the the geologic record is extremly complex, and well explainable in the frame of uniformitarianism."
--Sertaintly is.------------------

Anyone want to carry the topic of Uniformitarianism anywhere?------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Not really an assumption more a reductionalist methodology, i.e if you find a model that requires only natural phenomena and explains the evidence it is simpler (and therefore preferable) to a model that makes an appeal to the supernatural....."
--It sounded respondable untill you said that it combats a 'model that makes an appeal to the supernatural' as I have done no such thing in all of my posts, I use naturalistic phenomena to explain what we observe in science today. The uniformitarian assumption seems to be contracted from it being an explenation that 'explains the evidence as it is simpler', scientific data is not about simplicity, as this method was used by ancient civilizations, finding that nature was too overwhelming for them to explain, so they resolved to simplicity, ie everything is the way it is because of the Gods. As this would be reduced to an analogy of what we are discussing, it makes a point. Just because a method is simple, doesn't mean it is the right method.

---

No, TC, the "Godidit" argument is not simpler; it is merely simplistic.Very different.It doesn't explain anything if it explains everything, if you get my meaning.Simple explanations are those that explain a phenomena in the most elegant way, but they are still explanations."Godidit" actually adds complexity because it raises more questions than it answers. What is the nature of this God? What mechanism did this God use to do what you say it did? etc. etc.A naturalistic explanation, no matter how complex in details, is always simpler than a supernatural explanation.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-21-2002]

"No, TC, the "Godidit" argument is not simpler; it is merely simplistic.Very different.It doesn't explain anything if it explains everything, if you get my meaning.Simple explanations are those that explain a phenomena in the most elegant way, but they are still explanations."Godidit" actually adds complexity because it raises more questions than it answers. What is the nature of this God? What mechanism did this God use to do what you say it did? etc. etc.A naturalistic explanation, no matter how complex in details, is always simpler than a supernatural explanation."
--I see what your saying, however, I don't think I can fully agree, because when you are going to contrast with details, on a natural level you simply come to an unpredictably infinite numbers. This is especially true in Meteorology. I also don't think that the notion that it raises more questions than it answers is all to relevent in the way that I put it. Simply because the Goddidit argument is simply, that Goddidit, and we don't care about the details. However, if you really want to go into all the philosophical possibilities, sure you could come up with as much a complex scenario as you wish, it will vary based on opinion and imagination.------------------

Giving this topic a bump, to bring it to TB's attention.The YEC view of the earth's geology seems to be badly at odds with the uniformitarianist perspective.I'm posting this, with a relation to my current message at the "YEC Geologic Column - Created With Apparent Age?" topic, at:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=25&m=22#22Any comments on uniformitarianism, TB?Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Bumpity, bumpity, bump!See the earliest messages of this topic also.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

I'll read the early stuff more carefully but1. I believe in actualism. I am convinced that the layers were formed by flowing and settling water and not miraculously.2. Uniformitarianism would be a great theory if it weren't for the possibility that a huge flood generated much of the geological column. The huge beds worldwide only approximately match existing sedimentary environments. It is an extent issue. Paleocurrents and the spatial extent of beds make the stance of uniformitarianism quite ludicrous.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I'll read the early stuff more carefully but

​

1. I believe in actualism. I am convinced that the layers were formed by flowing and settling water and not miraculously.

---

JM: Of course that water was a miracle according to you. It was created by a god who so loved the world and his creation that he decided to kill it all and start over.

quote:

---

2. Uniformitarianism would be a great theory if it weren't for the possibility that a huge flood generated much of the geological column. The huge beds worldwide only approximately match existing sedimentary environments. It is an extent issue. Paleocurrents and the spatial extent of beds make the stance of uniformitarianism quite ludicrous.

---

JM: Yes, and we've shown you elsewhere the folly of your naivete.CheersJoe Meert