Uniformitarianism or catastrophism?

[Mr-Vaquero]

Hello,
Uniformitarianism and catastrophism are 2 ways to look at Earth's geologic history.

Uniformitarianism suggests for example that surface features we see on Earth are caused by long term uniform processes such as weathering or plate tectonics.

Catastrophism suggests that features on Earth can be explained by sudden, short events. Such as Noah's flood or a meteorite impact.

So, what theory do you like best and why?

[Mr-Vaquero]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #10]

What relevance does it have in a "Science and Religion" message board?

the debate between uniformitarianism and catastrophism has played a large role between geoscience and Christianity in the past. people who believe in a young Earth need to rely on catastrophism to explain the rocks in the Earth otherwise there is not enough time to create all of that. people such as Darwin and Lyell opposed that view with their uniformitarianism. In my view pure catastrophism seems lacking and pure uniformitarianism seems lacking to explain our world correctly. And my goal with this tangent was to exemplify that.

[Jose Fly]

the debate between uniformitarianism and catastrophism has played a large role between geoscience and Christianity in the past.

That debate was settled over 200 years ago.

people who believe in a young Earth need to rely on catastrophism to explain the rocks in the Earth otherwise there is not enough time to create all of that.

Young earth creationism has been 100% irrelevant to science for over 200 years now. Some Christians still believe in it of course, but that's their belief.

In my view pure catastrophism seems lacking and pure uniformitarianism seems lacking to explain our world correctly. And my goal with this tangent was to exemplify that.

Well like I said, uniformitarianism includes catastrophes such as large floods, meteorite/comet impacts, earthquakes, etc.

[Jose Fly]

Here, perhaps this will help...

https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD200.html

Claim CD200:
The evolution model is associated primarily with uniformitarianism, but evidence of catastrophism makes the uniformitarian assumption untenable.

Source: Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 91-100.

Response:
Modern uniformitarianism (actualism) differs from nineteenth century Lyell uniformitarianism. The prevailing view in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries was that the earth had been created by supernatural means and had been shaped by several catastrophes, such as worldwide floods. In 1785, James Hutton published the proposal that Earth's history could be explained in terms of processes observed in the present; that is, "the present is key to the past." This was the beginning of uniformitarianism. Charles Lyell, in his Principles of Geology, modified Hutton's ideas and applied this philosophy to explain geological features in terms of relatively gradual everyday processes.

Geologists today no longer subscribe to Lyell uniformitarianism. Starting in the late ninteenth century, fieldwork showed that natural catastrophes still have a role in creating the geologic record. For example, in the later twentieth century, J. Harlan Bretz showed that the Scablands in eastern Washington formed from a large flood when a glacial lake broke through an ice dam; and Luis Alvarez proposed that an asteroid impact was responsible for the extinction of dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Actualism (modern uniformitarianism) states that the geologic record is the product of both slow, gradual processes (such as glacial erosion) and natural catastrophes (such as volcanic eruptions and landslides). However, natural catastrophes are not consistent with creationist catastrophism, such as "Flood geology." First, they are much smaller than the world-shaping events proposed as part of the creationists' catastrophism. More to the point, they still represent processes observed in the present. Meteorites, glacial melting, and flash floods still occur regularly, and we can (and do, as in the examples above) extrapolate from the observed occurrences to larger events of the same sort. The scale of events may change, but the physical laws operating today are key to the past.

Links:
University of Oregon. n.d. Uniformitarianism. http://zebu.uoregon.edu/2003/glossary/u ... anism.html

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Mr-Vaquero in post #9]

Sure we have flooding, erosion and sea level rise today. But the scale of is much much different. our current sea level rise is 1 m per 100 years in the most extreme IPCC estimates https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/chapter/chapt ... mmunities/. We are talking about a sea level rise of 2000m in a few months.
Similarly the discharge and erosion rate are also several orders of magnitude higher than what we know.

There are many examples of past events recorded in Earth's geology that were unusually large examples of more commom and smaller events. For example, the Chicxulub crater thought to have initiated the demise of the dinosaurs (along with the Deccan Trap volcanic eruptions), just to name one. Large meteor vs. smaller ones, and prior to Chicxulub there were many even larger impacts.

Global sea levels also didn't rise 2000m in a few months in the event you are referencing (Zanclean flood). That was the rise just in the smaller depression (now the Mediterranean Sea) that the larger Atlantic ocean water flowed into. There is nothing about this event that requires different physics or mechanisms ... it is simply a larger event than normal proceeding via the same mechanisms as the more common smaller events.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #12]

Young earth creationism has been 100% irrelevant to science for over 200 years now. Some Christians still believe in it of course, but that's their belief.

Well like I said, uniformitarianism includes catastrophes such as large floods, meteorite/comet impacts, earthquakes, etc.

These two statements are not congruent. Lydell's uniformitarianism had to change because of the immense evidence of catastrophism on the earth. Because uniformitarianism had trouble describing many of the features that we see on the Earth.

[Jose Fly]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #12]

Young earth creationism has been 100% irrelevant to science for over 200 years now. Some Christians still believe in it of course, but that's their belief.

Well like I said, uniformitarianism includes catastrophes such as large floods, meteorite/comet impacts, earthquakes, etc.

These two statements are not congruent. Lydell's uniformitarianism had to change because of the immense evidence of catastrophism on the earth. Because uniformitarianism had trouble describing many of the features that we see on the Earth.

FYI, catastrophic events are not exclusive to young-earth creationism. So when geologists conclude that a catastrophic event occurred, YEC's don't get to claim victory.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #0]

There are many examples of past events recorded in Earth's geology that were unusually large examples of more commom and smaller events. For example, the Chicxulub crater thought to have initiated the demise of the dinosaurs (along with the Deccan Trap volcanic eruptions), just to name one. Large meteor vs. smaller ones, and prior to Chicxulub there were many even larger impacts.

This is considered a worldwide event that killed most but not all of the life on earth. So according to you and all other experts, there was a worldwide extinction event. Most if not all fossils are found in sedimentary rock that was deposited by moving water.

Creationist Steven Austin using flood geology actually found what uniformitarians missed because Nautiloids were not supposed to be in the Redwall Limestone (Lower Mississippian) of the Grand Canyon. https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/c ... roceedings

The question is not whether or not there have been worldwide catastrophes everyone agrees that there have been worldwide catastrophes. Which theory can explain the observations that we see on the earth? For example, how could the Colorado River carve out the Grand Canyon when the rim of the Grand Canyon is higher than the headwaters of the Colorado River?

Why is the Chalk that made the white limestone cliffs of Dover so pure?

People may not like the idea of a flood but there is more than enough evidence to support a worldwide flood.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #16]

FYI, catastrophic events are not exclusive to young-earth creationism. So when geologists conclude that a catastrophic event occurred, YEC's don't get to claim victory.

Then you do not believe in uniformitarianism, you believe in catastrophism.

[Jose Fly]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #0]

There are many examples of past events recorded in Earth's geology that were unusually large examples of more commom and smaller events. For example, the Chicxulub crater thought to have initiated the demise of the dinosaurs (along with the Deccan Trap volcanic eruptions), just to name one. Large meteor vs. smaller ones, and prior to Chicxulub there were many even larger impacts.

This is considered a worldwide event that killed most but not all of the life on earth. So according to you and all other experts, there was a worldwide extinction event. Most if not all fossils are found in sedimentary rock that was deposited by moving water.

Creationist Steven Austin using flood geology actually found what uniformitarians missed because Nautiloids were not supposed to be in the Redwall Limestone (Lower Mississippian) of the Grand Canyon. https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/c ... roceedings

The question is not whether or not there have been worldwide catastrophes everyone agrees that there have been worldwide catastrophes. Which theory can explain the observations that we see on the earth? For example, how could the Colorado River carve out the Grand Canyon when the rim of the Grand Canyon is higher than the headwaters of the Colorado River?

Why is the Chalk that made the white limestone cliffs of Dover so pure?

People may not like the idea of a flood but there is more than enough evidence to support a worldwide flood.

Man you creationists really need new arguments.

https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581.html

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Nr42Response.pdf

Then you do not believe in uniformitarianism, you believe in catastrophism.

Already been covered in this thread. Keep up.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #17]

Creationist Steven Austin using flood geology ...

Flood geology? What is that? Geology is geology. If a creationist assumes the biblical flood story is true and then tries to find some evidence to support it, while ignoring the mountains of evidence that show it could never have happened as the bible describes (and when), that can be discarded as wishful thinking.

For example, how could the Colorado River carve out the Grand Canyon when the rim of the Grand Canyon is higher than the headwaters of the Colorado River?

That one again? Here's a simple description that is actually supported by the geologic evidence. A great deal is known about how the Grand Canyon formed, and geology isn't static (uplift, erosion, etc.).

https://earthathome.org/quick-faqs/how- ... nyon-form/

People may not like the idea of a flood but there is more than enough evidence to support a worldwide flood.

Not the one described in Genesis (global flood covering the highest mountains, while humans existed). That is debunked from nearly every discipline of science. For starters ... there's no source for that much liquid water on Earth or its atmosphere ... not even close. But this flood myth has been debated countless times here before. With a YEC scenario, it is even more obviously wrong because of when it was supposed to have happened.