Uniformitarianism for the rest of us

[Joe Meert]

Socrates (in another thread) made several common mistakes regarding Uniformitarianism. There are several key pieces of information that are important to clarify and expand upon. The first is that Hutton did not coin the term “uniformitarianism”. The term “uniformitarian” is based on the Lyellian view of earth history. Of course, the ideas forwarded by Lyell had their roots in the work of Hutton. Hutton would be classified as an old earth creationist in today’s vernacular. He noted the process of fluvial erosion and deposition, recognized the importance of igneous processes and attributed these the work of a divine creator. He argued that the erosion cycle, superficially destructive, was the divine solution to the creation of new land. Hutton recognized catastrophes, but argued that they had little power in shaping the land when compared to erosion. Nevertheless, next to the Noachian diluvialists, Hutton’s ideas regarding the land rising out of the sea, is one of the most geologically catastrophic events ever proposed. Lyell, also recognized the cyclic nature of erosion and it is Lyell’s views that became known as uniformitarianism. However, it is incorrect to pretend that catastrophes had no place in Lyellian geology. Lyell’s claim was that catastrophes happened at the same frequency in the past as they did in the present. Lyell recognized that volcanoes erupted and that floods and earthquakes also helped shape the land, but they were simply expressions of a long-term uniformity of process. Most other workers of that period also recognized catastrophes (e.g. De la Beche and Cuvier) and Lyell’s stance was viewed as extreme by other scientists of the time. The concept of uniformitarianism is useful in historical discussions of earth science, but it was long, long ago recognized that actualism is a better description of how the earth works. We can indeed, use the present as a key to the past keeping in mind that the rates, intensity and frequency of these events may have been different in the past. The oft-made assertion that uniformitarianism did not include or recognize catastrophes is simply false. There are several good books out there including both Hutton’s and Lyell’s manuscripts on the subject. Greene (1982) provides a comprehensive summary of the times and the views of geologists during those times in his book “Geology in the 19th Century: Changing views in a changing world”.

Cheers

Joe Meert


Joe,
This section is for creationists only. If you would like to discuss this topic then by all means start a thread in the Natural Science section. I've saved a copy of your post, let me know if you want to start this in the other forum and I'll PM it to you.

[dizzle]

Joe already received several warning for calculated and willful and flagrant rules violations. I am willing to work almost endlessly with people who's intentions appear to be good, and who simply get too impassioned for their own good, or who get caught up in the heat of the moment. This is not the case here. He has been suspended from this site.

In regards to an inaccurate rumor that people are getting suspended "left and right" there have been two such caes for willful, calculated, and flagrant rules violations after repeated warnings. If that is "left and right" then perhaps "left and right" literally means the number of hands on most humans, then that would be correct.

[rach12]

Not to cause any problems, but I am wondering why Joe Meert's post simply wasn't moved over to the Natural Sciences forum automatically, just as mine was moved here.

In my case, I'm a bit confused by the structure here, so I can see why Joe might have posted in the wrong forum.

[dizzle]

Dear Rach:

Joe's post was not moved because his post indicated that he was aware of the rules and chose to post here instead. Additionally he was made aware of this forum's requirements by posts in the open science section. This section is current under a period of heavy moderation. This is not the first time that Joe has willfully and flagrantly violated the rules (he before deleted a Moderator's comments and tried to pretend like the comments were never made), and was given adequate warning. If you have any further concerns, please direct them to me by PM or in the appropriate forum.

[dizzle]

Also, Rach, I would like for you to do an experiment. Hit "post new thread" in this section and tell me what you see.... there is no possible way that Joe did not know what he was doing was wrong. This is what he saw:

To post in this section, you must agree to the terms as laid out in the Cosmogony 101 Guidelines.

If you disagree or would like to debate an issue take it to it's respective forum section. Thank you.

If you accept and adhere to the guidelines stated, click "Proceed" to continue.

If you do not accept and/or not adhere to the guidelines stated, click "Cancel" to return to the previous page.

Any violation of these guidelines will result in a warning and/or being put under moderation status otherwise suspension as explained in the Campus Decorum. A new page will load up.