Are Uniformitarian Assumptions Becoming Irrelevant?

Holding on to the uniformitarian philosophy causes complications when empirical evidence is discovered! It began with Copernicus who invented a theory which suggests that the Earth is nothing special, what has been going on in the Universe, has been going on for billions of years and will proceed to do the same for more eons to come!

A step by step evolutionary process of H2 forming a dust cloud with some of them having convoluted serpentine shapes, which in turn is a nursery for the formation of stars and then as the result of star formation, planets being shaped by gradual, ongoing processes!  At least in theory anyway, because star formations and the supposed evolution of planets have been a great mystery to researchers for many years.

Secular scientists decided to embrace Copernicus, so much so they began to hate the idea of change because that would mean we are living in a universe that has something special to it! But with new discoveries, some scientists are now abandoning Copernicus and are now saying we living in special times.

In nature

Observations of the distant reaches of the Solar System made in the past few years are challenging that concept. The most active bodies out there — Jupiter’s moon Io and Saturn’s moons Enceladus and Titan — may be putting on limited-run shows that humans are lucky to witness. Saturn’s brilliant rings, too, might have appeared relatively recently, and could grow dingy over time. Some such proposals make planetary researchers uncomfortable, because it is statistically unlikely that humans would catch any one object engaged in unusual activity — let alone several…”

Scientists are observing young phenomena (which the Bible advocates and has been confirmed by empirical science) that is contrary to old-age assumptions embraced by evolutionists, intelligent design proponents, and old-earth creationists about the universe.

Nature goes into great detail on why the phenomena is young…

1) Saturn rings are like a car, when you store a car outside with seasonal changes, the car is going to show wear especially after a long period of time! Likewise space is a harsh environment and Saturn’s rings are 90 percent water ice which should appear a lot dirtier as a consequence of being billions of years old. Of course, these scientists did not embrace a young universe rather they increased the complexity in the explanation by invoking the ad hoc solution which was an icy interloper that broke apart and became the rings within the last few million years. This creates another problem, because that is only a small portion of what the assumed age is.

So researchers are using Cassini in years to come in order to try and find where all of the billions of years of dirt went to and speculation has the dirt supposedly hiding somewhere in the B ring. If the Cassini cannot find it there and the results point to a low mass for the rings then it will increase the complexity of the old-age assumption which is not a good sign if you believe in the old-age.

2)  The geysers of Enceladus represent young phenomena! 16 gigawatts of power which is enormously greater than any internal radioactive heating and the reporter of nature admits that it is very difficult to keep the geysers going for 10 million years let alone for billions of years! Nearby Mimas they say should be producing more heat than Enceladus. So scientists are doing the unthinkable, and that is, they are treating it as a special event!

3) If you think 16 gigawatts of power is difficult to explain in the old-age assumption, try 90,000 gigawatts with its volcanoes! Referring to Saturn’s moon Io. The gigawatts is well above the predictions from models of tidal interactions which is also is well above man’s imagination because planetary scientists cannot not even come up with a scenario to explain it like it often times happens in other areas.

4) Then there is the grand daddy of them all, Saturn’s largest moon, Titan! Atmospheric methane is a known substance to be short-lived rather than something billions of years old. So trying to locate the sources of replenishment has been the focus as well as invoking another explanation! So something special may have happened, one researcher suggested, the sun was the source by being able to warm up to a tipping point for tens or even hundreds of millions of years ago, levitating the frozen nitrogen and methane into an atmosphere that “rained like hell” onto the surface! It will be interesting what else they come up with!

And it’s not only Saturn’s rings and its moons but also Mercury, Venus, Earth, the Moon, Mars, Jupiter and its moons, Uranus and its moons and rings, Neptune and its moons and rings, Pluto and comets, asteroids, and dust. Basically the whole system!

Do you believe science is about honestly, following the evidence where it leads? Then these same scientists would have to conclude that the solar system is much younger than previously thought! You take away old-age assumptions, it clears up all the confusion! No need to invent a story to fill in the falsifying data.Your following the evidence where it leads which brings about clarity not confusion!

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Are Uniformitarian Assumptions Becoming Irrelevant?

  1. Holding on to the uniformitarian philosophy causes complications when empirical evidence is discovered! It began with Copernicus who invented a theory which suggests that the Earth is nothing special, what has been going on in the Universe, has been going on for billions of years and will proceed to do the same for more eons to come!

    Sorry, Michael. That the Earth is “nothing special” is the “Copernican Hypothesis,” and has nothing to do with uniformitarianism.

    And Copernicus proposed no age for the universe. As far as he knew, the age corresponded with the biblical time frame.

    Elementary mistakes such as these expose your profound ignorance of both science and history. The only appropriate response is BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAA.

    Stupid.

  2. Michael lugs around a truly bizarre idea of what uniformitarianism is.

    Basically, this hypothesis avers that the physical laws that operate here today also operate everywhere all the time.[1] It most certainly does not imply that nothing ever changes, or that events we see today have been happening forever.

    Does uniformitarianism fall under the rubric of observable fact? As Stephan Jay Gould said[2]—

    “The assumption of spatial and temporal invariance of natural laws is by no means unique to geology since it amounts to a warrant for inductive inference which, as Bacon showed nearly four hundred years ago, is the basic mode of reasoning in empirical science. Without assuming this spatial and temporal invariance, we have no basis for extrapolating from the known to the unknown and, therefore, no way of reaching general conclusions from a finite number of observations.”

    That is, without this principle, there is no justification for proposing any theory about anything. The world becomes a hall of mirrors where the moon’s orbit today bears no relationship to its orbit tomorrow—or yesterday.

    Michael seems to have it stuck in his noggin that uniformitarianism precludes any changes in the universe—geysers cannot start on Enceladus; they must have been there since the cusp of time. The Mediterranean Sea could not have been been filled 5 million years ago; it must have been there forever and aye. The Fukushima tsunami cannot have been a one-off affair just a year ago; the world must be only one year old.

    This is ridiculous on its face. It is a transparent attempt to shoehorn events into a preconceived theory. It demonstrates a desperate attempt to keep his world from crumbling into ashes[3] in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence.

    Michael, please add “uniformitarianism” to the list of words whose meanings you should learn before you use them.[4]

    ====================

    [1] Three centuries ago, uniformitarianism applied only to geology, and was more narrowly defined. Since then, the concept has been broadened and modified. See, e.g., Bowler & Morus, The Making of Modern Science (U. Chicago Press 2005)

    [2] Gould, S. J., “Is Uniformitarianism Necessary?” Am. J. Science 263:223–228 (1965)

    [3] “Solvet saeclum in favilla,” as the requiem mass phrases it; “teste David cum Sybilla.”

    [4] Like, oh, “circular reasoning,” “strawman,” “entropy,” “explosion,” and others that you misuse constantly.

  3. [4] (continued) And “irrelevant.” You need to look up that word. It does not mean “incorrect” as you suppose in the title to this post.

  4. Olorin,

    You say…“Michael seems to have it stuck in his noggin that uniformitarianism precludes any changes in the universe—geysers cannot start on Enceladus; they must have been there since the cusp of time. The Mediterranean Sea could not have been been filled 5 million years ago; it must have been there forever and aye. The Fukushima tsunami cannot have been a one-off affair just a year ago; the world must be only one year old.”

    The geysers on Enceladus are quite remarkable. Its eruptions come from the south pole, reaching incredible heights of hundreds of kilometers, with some particles leaving the tiny moon altogether! As for what you said, do you even know how old scientists think the geysers are on Enceladus or when the geysers became active? Here is an indication for you, Kelly Beatty from SKY and Telescope wrote this in his blog

    “…But it spawned another: how could an ice ball no larger than the British Isles be so active? What’s going on inside Enceladus to make it spout off?”

    “And let’s not forget that the icy moon hasn’t seen the last of Cassini. The spacecraft will fly through the tenuous plumes on November 2nd, skirting just 62 miles (99 km) above those tiger stripes on the surface below!”

    Prior to the Cassini mission, every planetary scientist assumed that such a small icy moon could not support active “geology” nor tectonic movement. So they were shocked to discover the geysers were active which was previously thought to be cold and dead long ago! Why would scientists think that? Because they believed in the old-age assumption! You take away, billions of years of it’s assumed age, and there is not a problem with this moon being active with a traditional theory!

    You on the other hand is like trying to play cards with me on this by coming up with a straw man argument by then trying to bluff your way through a falsification with your rebuttal!

    As for you saying this…Michael seems to have it stuck in his noggin that uniformitarianism precludes any changes in the universe…”

    Here is the definition from the dictionary…“The theory that all geologic phenomena may be explained as the result of existing forces having operated uniformly from the origin of the earth to the present time.”

    You either don’t know what your taking about, or your a liar. My view on what uniformitarianism is, is correct! It doesn’t change its definition because the surface of a moon is different than the Earth’s…:)

  5. Here is the definition from the dictionary…“The theory that all geologic phenomena may be explained as the result of existing forces having operated uniformly from the origin of the earth to the present time.”

    You either don’t know what your taking [sic] about, or your a liar. My view on what uniformitarianism is, is correct! It doesn’t change its definition because the surface of a moon is different than the Earth’s

    You should go back and pay attention to your “Science Wars” lectures, if you think that a two-line entry in a general-purpose online dictionary on a complex philosophical concept is authoritative. Even CreationWiki, a devoutly creationist source, disagrees with your definition—

    Uniformitarianism is a guiding principle of origins science that says that the same processes that operate on the universe now have always operated on the universe in the past, and at the same rates; and that the same laws of physics apply everywhere in the universe. A uniformitarian is one who believes in the principles, or any number of aspects and/or assumptions of the philosophy of uniformitarianism.

    But this definition is but an intermediate step toward the current usage of that term.

    Uniformitarianism started out three centuries ago as a purely scientific geological concept—that the earth formed from the same processes we observe today, at the same rates. This is the 3-century-old concept that your Online Free Dictionary definition refers to. Further evidence found that several aspects of this definition were incorrect. Different environmental conditions varied the processes and the rates. Today, no geologist accepts the form of universal uniformitartrianism according to your definition.[1] So all your bloviating about the relevance or correctness of geological uniformitarianism is feckless. It’s a dead issue.

    Then uniformitarianism was broadened and streamlined, as noted in my previous comment, from a purely scientific geological theory to a central principle in the philosophy of science.[2] It is an axiom necessary for all research in every field of science. Your superficial online definition does not begin to portray this modern formulation, which is essentially the same as Abelard’s concept of explanatory closure.

    Before you start calling people liars on the basis of stupid dictionary definitions, you should learn just a little about science and its underpinnings. About what is reasonable in science and what is not. About how scientific research operates. About what a scientific theory is—and is not.

    Michael, the only thing that your comment demonstrates is an abject and apparently incurable ignorance of the subject you purport to discuss. Please at least review your copy of “Science Wars” again.

    =================

    [1] So why is it in the dictionary? All kinds of disproven theories are in the dictionary. Phlogiston. Lamarckianism. Creationism. And almost all dictionaries omit a strictly scientific definition of a word that is also found in common usage. For example, I looked up “information” in a dozen dictionaries; the only one that included the technical meaning (Shannon information) was the 23-volue Oxford English Dictionary.

    [2] RationalWiki “Uniformitarianism.” also sets forth creationist arguments against uniformitarianism, using the definition I gave above. You are ignorant even as to what your comrade creationists know. Sad.

  6. Olorin,

    You write…“You should go back and pay attention to your “Science Wars” lectures…”No! I pay attention to what you write which says…“Michael seems to have it stuck in his noggin that uniformitarianism precludes any changes in the universe…” And then when I respond, you finally define uniformitarianism. The problem with you is, there is no error whatsoever in my posts about uniformitarianism. Your posts are the epitome of what a heckler is!

  7. Olorin, you asked: Does uniformitarianism fall under the rubric of observable fact? So what’s the answer? You didn’t answer this even after quoting Gould.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s