Uniformitarianism or catastrophism?

Mr-Vaquero · Post by **Mr-Vaquero** » Wed Oct 26, 2022 9:37 am

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?

The Barbarian · Post by **The Barbarian** » Wed Nov 16, 2022 8:36 pm

I'm just showing you that river meanders form slowly, not by floods. As the paper you cited says. If you don't agree with geologists, why did you cite a paper by geologists?

EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 11:43 am [Replying to The Barbarian in post #72]
Slow is a relative term. What do you mean by slow?

Couldn't happen in a one-time flood, for example. Meanders form over decades or centuries in most cases.

Ok, let's get really basic here.
So all streams start as gullies. Do you know what can cause gullies? Floods can cause gullies.

What they can't form is meanders.

As viewed in the links above runoff can cause deep cutting into the soil and rock if there is a lot of water.

We actually have an example in the Washington Scablands. But as you learned, such floods can't cause meanders, which happen by slow differential erosion of outer banks and deposition at inner banks.

Secular scientists say:

So you cannot say that the Grand Canyon could not have been created by a flood because there are a growing number of geologists who believe the evidence from the Canyon that it was formed from flooding.

As you know. floods don't cause meanders. So you're still stuck with the fact that the river had to be an old, uplifted river. And it appears that these geologists have acknowledged the fact.

Look at the gullies at Mt. St Helens. No meanders. Washington scablands. No meanders.

EarthScienceguy · Post by **EarthScienceguy** » Thu Nov 17, 2022 11:05 am

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #81]

As you know. floods don't cause meanders. So you're still stuck with the fact that the river had to be an old, uplifted river. And it appears that these geologists have acknowledged the fact.

Look at the gullies at Mt. St Helens. No meanders. Washington scablands. No meanders.

The geologist from Arizona and Utah do not agree with you.

Jose Fly · Post by **Jose Fly** » Thu Nov 17, 2022 12:27 pm

EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 11:05 am [Replying to The Barbarian in post #81]

As you know. floods don't cause meanders. So you're still stuck with the fact that the river had to be an old, uplifted river. And it appears that these geologists have acknowledged the fact.

Look at the gullies at Mt. St Helens. No meanders. Washington scablands. No meanders.
The geologist from Arizona and Utah do not agree with you.

LOL....seeing a young-earth creationist tell someone else "scientists disagree with you" is positively hilarious. Thanks for a good laugh.

EarthScienceguy · Post by **EarthScienceguy** » Thu Nov 17, 2022 12:46 pm

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #0]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #80]

How so? Are you referring to Gentry's polonium halos ideas? Here are two takes on that ... which one is the most reasonable?

https://ncse.ngo/gentrys-tiny-mystery-u ... ed-geology

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/ra ... g-bullets/

Has nothing to do with halos.

1. meteors contain 8 ppb uranium. Which is actually a little higher than what is estimated out in space which is .2 ppb. https://world-nuclear.org/information-l ... .021%20ppm.

Where did all of the uranium come from? The primitive mantle contained 0.021 ppm or at least that is what it was estimated at. It is theorized that it was moved to transfer to the crust. But where did all of the uranium come from? With the density of core being somewhere around 12-13 and iron having a density of 7.8. The core would have to have a significant amount of uranium in it. https://world-nuclear.org/information-l ... .021%20ppm.

The Barbarian · Post by **The Barbarian** » Thu Nov 17, 2022 2:58 pm

EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 11:05 am [Replying to The Barbarian in post #81]

As you know. floods don't cause meanders. So you're still stuck with the fact that the river had to be an old, uplifted river. And it appears that these geologists have acknowledged the fact.

Look at the gullies at Mt. St Helens. No meanders. Washington scablands. No meanders.
The geologist from Arizona and Utah do not agree with you.

But you can't show where they say that sudden floods can produce meanders? I'm pretty sure we all know why you can't. If you're claiming that they say there are meanders at Mt. St. Helens or the Scablands produced by a flood, now would be the time to show us.

Post by **DrNoGods** » Thu Nov 17, 2022 3:03 pm

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #84]

Where did all of the uranium come from?

It came from supernovae or other super high energy cosmic events (eg. colliding neutron stars). Stars can only fuse elements up to the production of Fe in normal stellar fusion. So the source of the uranium doesn't seem to be a mystery ... it came from the same source as gold and other elements heavier than iron. Did you read the entire article you linked above? What is the mystery ... how the uranium is distributed? That is a very different question than where it came from.

EarthScienceguy · Post by **EarthScienceguy** » Thu Nov 17, 2022 3:43 pm

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #85]

But you can't show where they say that sudden floods can produce meanders? I'm pretty sure we all know why you can't. If you're claiming that they say there are meanders at Mt. St. Helens or the Scablands produced by a flood, now would be the time to show us.

Sure whatever There are both creation flood geologists and secular geologists that say you are wrong. So better luck next time.

EarthScienceguy · Post by **EarthScienceguy** » Thu Nov 17, 2022 3:48 pm

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #86]

It came from supernovae or other super high energy cosmic events (eg. colliding neutron stars). Stars can only fuse elements up to the production of Fe in normal stellar fusion. So the source of the uranium doesn't seem to be a mystery ... it came from the same source as gold and other elements heavier than iron. Did you read the entire article you linked above? What is the mystery ... how the uranium is distributed? That is a very different question than where it came from.

How did it arrive on Earth? Is that better?

Meteors only have 2 ppb. The mantle has 21 ppb. The core would have to have a higher percentage than that.

brunumb · Post by **brunumb** » Thu Nov 17, 2022 4:20 pm

EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 3:48 pm How did it arrive on Earth? Is that better?

New stars and planets form from the debris of stars that have died in events like massive supernovae where the elements heavier than iron are formed.

Post by **DrNoGods** » Thu Nov 17, 2022 4:53 pm

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #88]

How did it arrive on Earth? Is that better?

Meteors only have 2 ppb. The mantle has 21 ppb. The core would have to have a higher percentage than that.

Presumably it was present in the accretion disk material and therefore became part of Earth during its formation. That is, it was part of the original material that formed the planet. It didn't "arrive" via impacts after the primary formation event.

Debating Christianity and Religion