Talk:Uniformitarianism

Made

Made from red link. Was inebriated. Still think it is smert. Need main space artikl on it. Don't delete, improov pleez. ħuman 06:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Iz good. Your drunk artiklz beat my sober ones. I think I see the solution presenting itself... also, I make this the fourth new articles sprouting from 101 evidences. This site is growing rapidly drunk! Totnesmartin 07:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Definition

It seems to me that the YECs extrapolate Uniformtarianism to other processes like the rate of meteor impacts which may vary over time but not because of any change in physical laws. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 10:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Exceptions and Emphasis

Science is pretty sure that there are exceptions to uniformitarianism, singularities like Black Holes and the instant after the big bang as well as the time before the big bang. We should also (I think) place much greater emphasis on the fact that this is an axiom, really the main axiom, on which the formulation of science based based. It cannot be proven, as far as I know, but if assumed to be true than it leaves us free to draw empirical conclusions. And refute a lot of YEC claims. Am I OK to make the changes (New here, not sure what protocol is)?MertonVsHislop

1. Methodological naturalism, not uniformitarianism, is the basis for science.
2. Uniformitarianism is no axiom. There were modern scientists who were catastrophists, but the uniformitarian theories won out as the evidence rolled in.
3. The cited "exceptions" to uniformitarianism are not really exceptions.

ListenerX^TalkerX 01:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware there was any axioms in science besides we can determine the truth by constant evaluation and re-evaluation of physical evidence. Axioms, like proofs, are for mathematicians. - π 02:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Methodological naturalism is an axiom of science. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Science does rest on the axioms, or assumptions if you will, that the laws of the universe are consistent independent of position in space or time of observation. ħuman 02:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Uniformitarianism was arrived at according to at least some evidence; the work of Niels Stensen indicated that the earth's rock strata had formed one by one, and James Hutton, upon further study of the strata, made the first uniformitarian geologic theory. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean about methodological naturalism, but singularities still are...messed up. I don't think they follow the regular rules.MertonVsHislop 01:38, 14 October 2009‎ (UTC)

J Harlan Bretz, a geologist studying the Channelled Scablands in eastern Washington State, developed the theory that they had been created by at least one catastrophic flood of proportions massively outstripping anything recorded in human history or, for that matter, the rest of the then-available geological record. For this he was dismissed as a catastrophist by established scientists overinvested in the then-current understanding of uniformitarianism, which perhaps could be better described as anti-catastrophism. He then spent the rest of his career accumulating scientific evidence for his theory. (We know this story: the heretic scientist who devotes his life to upending the hidebound traditionalists that reject his theories. Cranks of all sorts try to paint themselves as heroes on the Bretz model. But Bretz was the real thing: a scientist following the scientific method, and he was right — Flood actually did do it in this case.) Once the evidence became strong enough to convince, those scientists not only reversed their views, but realised that they needed a new understanding of uniformitarianism to accommodate occasional catastrophic events. This is, in my opinion, one beautiful example of how science works, and how it compels revision of misguided ideas. ^{— Unsigned, by: 66.233.207.101 / talk / contribs (signed by bot)} 04:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Uniformitarianism is not an assumption, it is a principle. There is a vast body of empirical evidence which supports the principle, not the least of which is astronomical spectroscopy, via which we can determine that the light we see today emitted in the distant past by remote stars and galaxies was produced by the exact same process of hydrogen burning (nuclear fusion) as operates today in the sun. This makes uniformitarianism a posteriori knowledge and not assumption. ^{— Unsigned, by: 58.96.104.208 / talk / contribs 14:49, 26 September 2015}

CreationWiki Page

OMFG, I just got done looking over the Uniformitarianism page on CreationWiki, and I was slapped straight in the face by what is the most mind-bogglingly non-cited assertion:

However creation science has provided a conceptual framework to support the idea that the speed of light may have varied in the past. This is an idea that has been accepted increasingly as a topic for study by cosmologists, as existing "paradoxes" for the Big bang scenario became too numerous to ignore and new astronomical evidence was found that implied a slowing.

If anyone has access to this "new astronomical evidence" (I'm presuming this refers to evidence of an astronomical nature, rather than an astronomical amount of evidence, though you never can tell over there), please, PLEASE give us a link. I simply cannot wait to see what research implies that the speed of light is slowing (in a vacuum, that is, since light travels at different speeds through different materials). Reverend Lucifer (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Great Oxygenation Event

I feel like the Great Oxygenation Event would be a good mention on this page since it is like a real-life version of the Great Flood and caused massive amounts of extinction while drastically altering the Earth. 76.106.251.87 (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

EvoWiki

Some content from http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/How_we_know_physical_laws_are_constant_over_time Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 19:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)