"Uniformatism is boggus science at best!!!"

1. What is "Uniformatism"? :-) :-) :-) This is certainly a new term unless,
like a few geologically-impaired Young Earth creationists, who have web
pages posted on the Internet, you are talking about "uniformitarianism".

If "Uniformatism" = "uniformitarianism", your lack of knowledge of how
to spell this word is only equaled by your lack of understanding of the
fact that the overwhelming / vast majority of Earth scientists regard
"uniformitarianism", as originally defined by Lyell, to be bogus science.
The fact of the matter is that Earth scientists are now quite happy with
"Earth catastrophes" as explanations for various events and rock units
when there is hard evidence to support them. Over geologic time,
catastrophes are such a regular part of Earth history that they are actually
an integral part of "uniformitarianism" depending on how it is defined,
i.e. as in case of when "uniformitarianism" is the same as actualism.

A major problem is how does wirelessguru1 define "uniformitarianism"?
I ask this question because in the 175 years since Lyell first defined this
term, it has been misused, used, and redefined to the point that it has become
a "garbage pail" term defined and used a variety of different ways that are
quite different in meaning and philosophy from each other. The difference
in the different ways that people define and use "uniformitarianism" Is
such that simple statements such as "I accept uniformitarianism"; I
reject uniformitarianism"; "Uniformitarianism is bogus science: and so
forth are for practical purpose meaningless statements unless a person
defines how specifically either he or she defines uniformitarianism".
What I have to wonder about is when some alternative archaeologists
engage in their obligatory rant against ""uniformitarianism" of some
sort, I always wonder if they have any understanding at all of which
specific definition of "uniformitarianism" with which they are unhappy.
I have to wonder if they are completely and utterly ignorant of the fact’
that according to some definitions of this term, "catastrophism" is an
integral and acceptable part of "uniformitarianism".

Uniformitarianism, as defined by Lyell in 1830, consisted of four principles:

1. uniformity of law

2. uniformity of process (actualism)

3. uniformity of rate (gradualism)

4. uniformity of state (steady-statism)

Immediately, Charles Darwin, noting that his theory of evolution
contradicted principle 4 (steady-statism), of "uniformitarianism"
as defined by Lyell in 1866, directly and in print challenged the
validity of "uniformitarianism" as Lyell originally defined it. In
addition, the periodic mass extinction (disappearances) of fossil
organisms noted by both Culvier and Darwin also refuted principle no. 3
(gradualism), of Lyell’s original "uniformitarianism". By the 10th
edition of Lyell’s "Principles of Geology" in 1866, Lyell started
to back peddle from his support of principle number 4, uniformity
of state (steady-statism). By 1872, Lyell had completely abandoned
it in the 11th edition of his "Principles of Geology". Thus, about 133
years ago even Lyell had ceased to be a strict "uniformitarianist" as
he originally defined it by conceding that uniformitarianism, as
originally defined by all 4 principles wasn't a workable concept.

At this time, Earth scientists reject principal no. 3, uniformity of
rate (gradualism), and principal no. 4, uniformity of state
(steady-statism). Therefore, they readily regard "uniformitarianism"
as originally defined by Lyell as bogus science. Unfortunately, what
people, including many geologists, call "uniformitarianism" is in
reality some form of actualism, which with the rejection of gradualism,
readily allows for catastrophism to be an integral part of this
type of "uniformitarianism".

In fact, a number of Earth scientists, when dealing with Precambrian
prehistory or Hot-House climates, also question the use of principal
no. 2, uniformity of process (actualism). This is because the
paleoenvironment and paleobiology of the Earth was so different at
these times, than in the present that the physical processes in
operation at the time were quite different then those, which can
be observed in the present. As a result, actualism is of little use
in explaining Banded Iron Formations, komatites, climatic circulation
during the Eocene, Snow Ball Earth, and do forth and Earth
scientists have to use principal no. 1, uniformity of law, to
understand what happened during those times. A standing comment among
many geologists is "The Present is the Key to the Pleistocene" (and
other periods of Ice-House climate).

What Earth scientists are both unhappy with and often find a constant
source of amusement is the knack that a number of alternative
archaeologists have for inventing imaginary catastrophes for use as
a Deus ex Machine to explain either the destruction of various "lost"
civilizations; end of the Ice Age; mass extinctions; or combination
of these. It is quite remarkable how often either comet or asteroid
impacts have been used to explain the disappearance of various "lost"
civilizations and the collapse of known ones without a single shred
of hard evidence to support such a catastrophic event. For a good
example of the imaginary catastrophes, of which I talk about, a person
can go to [www.hallofmaat.com].

In case of another favorite Deus ex Machine of alternative
archaeology, Earth Crustal Displacement, not only is the evidence
lacking for the catastrophe having occurred lacking, but a
scientifically defensible mechanism for the catastrophe itself is
also completely lacking. The deficient of a plausible mechanism
for Earth Crustal Displacement is such it is considered a
completely fictional / imaginary in nature to the point that it
is regarded by Earth scientists as scientifically silly as Young
Earth creationism. In fact, there are more geologists, who believe
in Young Earth creationism than believe in Earth Crustal
Displacement. Some web pages on Earth Crustal Displacement and
Charles Hapgood can be found in [www.intersurf.com] and [www.intersurf.com].

Real catastrophes have occurred throughout Earth prehistory. However,
alternative archaeologists are quite prolific at inventing imaginary ones
when they need a Deus ex Machine to explain what happened to their
favorite "lost" civilization, i.e. Atlantis, Lemuria, etc. Also, other
alternative "science" proponents have a habit of running about like
Chicken Little warning everyone about imaginary "Earth changes" on
the basis of earthquakes, hurricanes, lakes disappearing down sinkholes,
etc., which when closely examined, prove to be nothing but the normal
restless nature of our planet Earth. These are the "vague and imaginary"
"catastrophic Earth changes" of which I talk about not the real ones
have occurred in the past and will occur in the future.

Best regards,

Paul H.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 06/13/2005 01:08AM by Paul H..