Okay, what tests or observations support uniformatism over the lifetime of the earth which don't rely on a prior presumption of uniformitism?
I'm compelled to make sure you understand what we mean by uniformatism. I believe that in its strictest definition it is the idea that changes in geology or eveolution are uniform over time, but in modern science it is more closer to the idea of actualism. Actualism is the idea that the process we see today are the same as the processes that will effect the future and the processes that had effected the past. Catastrophies have happened and will continue to happen. The rules of physics are the same today as they were billions of years ago. Any other conclusion would be irrational. As far as clues to this effect we point you to the following
: Glacial Ice cores, Ocean sediment cores, Changes in the seafloor due to changes in the magnetic field, dendrochronology. We don't have to presume uniformatism when we see the data. It cries it out. Why do you think that many great minds during the enlightenment, in their search for the turth of the bible, came to understand the old age of the earth?
Reliable science during which uniformitism could be measured is about 100 years old. The earth is supposedly 4,5 billion years old. The data for 'your' uniformitism is 1/45,000,000 of the total, ie: a single dot on a graph. On what objective basis do you base your extrapolation. You need some basis on which to stand before you can determine another basis to be false - surely?
This is patently false. Again we point to the following: Glacial Ice cores, Ocean sediment cores, Changes in the seafloor due to changes in the magnetic field, dendrochronology. Each of which holds data that is much older than 100 years!
Read it again. The assumption isn't hidden. It says x billion years ago and analyses the nuclear reaction times based on what precisely?
The analysis of nuclear reactions happened BEFORE they realized the age of the earth. Before the study of nuclear physics the age of the earth was estimated as being in the millions of years. The heat of nuclear reactions sent an epiphany through geologic circles. So your assumption of a presumption is false. The study of radioactive decay pointed to a much older earth than previously believed and NOT vice versa.
Logically, given powerful enough hind legs and a desire to do so, cows could jump over the moon. We aren't dealing logically here, we're dealing practically. The mechanisms described for evolution eg: rate of genetic mutation requires x amount of time to occur. If the world were younger you could say that genetic mutations occured more rapidly previously, but you would have no observational/scientific basis for saying so. That strand of 'evidence' would dissolve. Would it not?
And what logically follows is that since observations of the rates of evolution point to a slow process, the earth must be older than 6000 years.
Basically your whole argument is based on an irrational backward thinking. Prediction, explanation, observation. If the observation doesn't fit the prediction, change the observation to fit the prediction and therefore no testing of hypothesis's allowed. Individuals who presume to test hypothesis are claimed to be heretical or burned at the stake (not necessarily in that order.)
™ Version 4.2