Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 69 (9101 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: sensei
Upcoming Birthdays: AlexCaledin
Post Volume: Total: 904,109 Year: 990/14,231 Month: 990/1,514 Week: 23/234 Day: 4/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is uniformitarianim still taught?
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8975
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 19 of 89 (87589)
02-19-2004 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Silent H
02-19-2004 5:26 PM


That has been my understanding of uniformatarianism (as understood today). That is, physical processes (slow or fast) act today as they have done.
I like the distinction between gradualism, catastrophism and uniformatarianism. They are different axes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Silent H, posted 02-19-2004 5:26 PM Silent H has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8975
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 24 of 89 (87619)
02-19-2004 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Silent H
02-19-2004 7:06 PM


Mostly Right
... it was not wholly wrong
Assuming that even the most strident of 'uniformatarianist' accepted that there was a volcano now and then, that rivers overflowed their banks and that climates varied moderately, it was not only 'not wholly wrong' it was almost 100% right.
There have been, what, 5 or so major 'catastrophes'? Each with a large impact to be sure. But the rest of the time we get things pretty much as they are. In that light even the old view of uniformatarianism isn't all that far off the mark.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Silent H, posted 02-19-2004 7:06 PM Silent H has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8975
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 43 of 89 (87736)
02-20-2004 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Silent H
02-20-2004 12:43 PM


continental drift
continental drift
To spin off on another bit of misunderstanding (stop me if we need to finish with uniformitarianism):
If you want to be nit picky the idea of continental drift was, in fact, wrong. A huge difficulty with the idea of any mechanism was the problem of continents plowing through the sea floors. And, now, we see that they don't "drift". The whole surface of the earth moves and the continents are just carried along.
I think this is important to understand. Wegner's idea was, at some high enough level, 'right' but not 'right' enough to become a compelling theory of geology. It had to be modified significantly first. As he was talking about it the detractors were correct. It isn't possible. (That is as I think he was talking about it, I've never seen anything original by Wegner)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Silent H, posted 02-20-2004 12:43 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Silent H, posted 02-20-2004 1:59 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 46 by hitchy, posted 02-20-2004 2:22 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8975
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 57 of 89 (87820)
02-20-2004 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Buzsaw
02-20-2004 7:09 PM


Re: Cat-astrophism
What has changed relative to radiometric dating, for example?
Though I suppose everything fits under the uniformitarianism topic, it might be a good idea to go to dates and dating for this one.
You could open a "What about changed processes?" or something if you wanted. There is, you know, evidence that the rates have not changed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Buzsaw, posted 02-20-2004 7:09 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Buzsaw, posted 02-20-2004 9:09 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2023