Uniformitarianism

[Jbuza]

gone

[Kurieuo]

If some sort of uniformitarianism isn't advocated, then is it possible as Paul says, that God can be clearly seen and understood through what has been made? (Romans 1:20) Or do the heavens really declare God's glory, and the skies proclaim the work of his hands? Do they really pour forth speech and knowledge that we can know and understand? Do Christians have a monopoly on this, or is such speech and language able to be heard by all? (Psalm 19:1)

If you answer these questions in the same way I would, I think one would end up at my conclusion that God does not hide himself, or deceive us through the language universe by having created it to "look old".

Kurieuo

[Jbuza]

gone

[Kurieuo]

I agree that there is a certian unifromity and order to God's creation, but disagree that we can know the processes of the past by looking at the processes we see today.

How does the world look old? It looks new and vibrant to me. The age is a conclusion based on uniformitarianism.

Well it is a matter of defining what is "uniform" then, and getting it out on the table. For I do not see why or how processes should differ from today, then in the past, without evidence that it did so. To claim it is so is to me entirely deceptive and goes against the passages I quoted. Yet, I also believe the earth to be old also based on Scripture...

For example, the figures of speech used in Psalm 90:2-6, Proverbs 8:22-31, Ecclesiastes 1:3-11, and Micah 6:2 all serve to depict for us the immeasurable antiquity of God's presence and plans. Considering phrases in Scripture such as, "Before the mountains were born, or you brought forth the earth and the world," are inspired from God, then it seems to me that such verses are letting us now that the earth has been around for quite some time before humanity—the world. Habakkuk 3:6 directly declares the mountains to be "ancient" and the hills to be "age-old." We constantly see mountains being refered to as ancient, but why is this the case if mankind has been around just as long?

Kurieuo

[sandy_mcd]

Well it is a matter of defining what is "uniform" then, and getting it out on the table. For I do not see why or how processes should differ from today, then in the past, without evidence that it did so

You might also want to define what you mean by "processes" and perhaps give examples. Are you referring to laws, such as radioactive decay rates or gravity ? Or applications of laws such as amount of vulcanism, effect of percentage oxygen in the atmosphere, etc ?

[Kurieuo]

Well it is a matter of defining what is "uniform" then, and getting it out on the table. For I do not see why or how processes should differ from today, then in the past, without evidence that it did so

You might also want to define what you mean by "processes" and perhaps give examples. Are you referring to laws, such as radioactive decay rates or gravity ? Or applications of laws such as amount of vulcanism, effect of percentage oxygen in the atmosphere, etc ?

Good point. And also why it is alright to accept some processes are uniform, while others are not?

Kurieuo

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Well it is a matter of defining what is "uniform" then, and getting it out on the table. For I do not see why or how processes should differ from today, then in the past, without evidence that it did so

You might also want to define what you mean by "processes" and perhaps give examples. Are you referring to laws, such as radioactive decay rates or gravity ? Or applications of laws such as amount of vulcanism, effect of percentage oxygen in the atmosphere, etc ?

Good point. And also why it is alright to accept some processes are uniform, while others are not?

Kurieuo

Well of course it cannot be assumed either way that a process is gradual or violent. Evidence of a gradual or violent nature of a process determines, weather or not such an approach can be taken, when extrapolating data.

[Kurieuo]

BGood, are you talking about the same topic here?

Kurieuo

[Jbuza]

gone

[Jbuza]

gone

[Kurieuo]

Good point. And also why it is alright to accept some processes are uniform, while others are not?

Kurieuo

I agree. So since some processes are not uniform how can I accept that some are?

Well let me put forth the idea of consistency. For example,

Evidence for older Earth and uniformitarian processes (quoted from http://www.reasons.org/chapters/spokane ... tter.shtml):

Coral Layers

Like the layers of tree rings coral layers vary in density according to seasonal changes. The unique gift they offer to researches is that they not only present us with annual bands but also daily bands. In other words, for every yearly band found we also detect 365 daily bands. This is an indirect way of telling us that the lengths of each day are 24 hours long. Astronomers have made measurements using atomic clocks on the rate of deceleration of the rotation period of Earth. The results present a deceleration time of 0.000015 sec per day. Although we would have reason to expect fluctuations in this rate we can estimate that at 10 million years ago the length of a day would have been approximately 200 seconds less. Extrapolating from this figure back we would expect the Devonian period (360 — 410 million years ago) to be characterized by days of 21.8 hours in length or 400 days per year.

Ancient coral layers dated to the Devonian era via thorium 230 and protactinium 231 radiometric methods provide an independent test for the astronomical calculations mentioned. The exciting discovery from ancient coral was that daily growth lines counted between the extreme values of 385 and 410 leaving us with an average for that period that correlates very well with the astronomical methods. Coral from the Pennsylvanian (late Carboniferous: 290 — 325 million years ago) era from two different geographical regions gave 390 and 385 lines per annum. These results imply that the lengths of each day have increased as the earth has slowed down over the 100 million years since the Devonian period and provide further collaborative support for uniformitarian processes.

Ref: John Wells Coral Growth and Geochronometry 1963, http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... rowth.html

Now I really don't think "uniform processes" has anything to do with your position. I think that you have accepted the doctrine of a Young Earth, so it is perhaps more Scriptural and systematic theological reasons that you gravitate towards it. Therefore the topic of this thread isn't nearly as important as may be perceived, and the discussion of the Earth's age would be better suited to these areas. For example, if what you "evidentally" see in Scripture, goes against what we see in nature, which are you going to accept?

Kurieuo

[Jbuza]

gone

[Kurieuo]

Since you posted that information in another thread I looked for any information I could find on Coral Formation, and their are several processes involved including sedimentary "growth" and organic "growth". Your proof for an old earth includes the presupposition that the coral being measured is almost Four Million life times old.

Not quite a "presupposition" since this conclusion was arrived at post-analysis.

Further this example also disproves, if one accepts the interpretation of the observations, that uniformitarianism is true, as it points out that the Day-Night process hasn't remained stable. I question the interpretation, and will continue to look into this for myself.

The fact that the day-night process hasn't remained stable, and can be determined, I believe shows some uniformitarianism. Yet, this is not how i intended to show evidence for uniform processes for dating. In my quote we have two independant methods which agree with each other (measurements using atomic clocks, to make a prediction which coral layers dated to the Devonian era back). This corroboration of these two independant analysises I put forward shows at least in this case, the process in the formation of coral layers are uniform. And so the related dates are true.

You are correct that I beleive the earth to be young, I have stated that elsewhere. Their is evidence to suggest that the world is young both within our world and within the Bible. I hope that I continue to accept the Word of God over the interpretations of Man.

It is just a shame that Man needs to interpret the Bible, hence understanding the word of God involves the process of Man's interpretations. I do believe the Bible supports a Day-Age position over and above the Young-Earth however.

Perhaps you have misinterpreted my intention. I am not trying to proove the age of the earth here. I am trying to point out that one of the major tennents of evolution is false. Darwin himself said about unifromitarianism "in several of his writings how it excited him and changed his entire outlook on life, giving him the ideas that led to his theory of evolution. -rea.org" I think my post providing examples, and your post about coral provide strong evidence to suggest that this underpinning of evolution is false, and thereby throws evolution out the window.

I feel uniformitarianism is actually irrelevant to evolution which is suppose to thrive on chance and "random" mutation and processes. Perhaps it is relevant if one believes God cut in about 6000-10000 years ago to create everything, but then we would expect, for example, amongst other things that the coral rings would not have been planted by God to look old. Wouldn't such be deceptive? God could have created us a few seconds ago, with our memories and all and we'd never know. Yet, I just can't help but feel such would make God the ultimate trickster. I find it more satisfying and less absurd to think I was born, have lived many years, that my memories are memories of true experiences, that God is honest, and that the dependability of natural laws reflects something of God's own dependability.

Kurieuo

[Jbuza]

gone

[Jbuza]

gone