Talk:Uniformitarianism

Someone wrote: "This presumption can be critiqued as follows:   * Just because we must assume something in order to study the past does not mean that what we are assuming is actually true. It may well be that the laws of nature are not constant, and we therefore cannot meaningfully study the past. It is non sequitur to argue that because a certain presumption is necessary to perform a particular act, that the presumption itself is actually true.    * The presumption is dangerous, because of the temptation not only to presume that the laws of nature themselves are immutable, but also that the laws of nature as we understand them are immutable. If we fail to consider evidence that nature behaved differently in the past than we understand it to behave today, we will fail to grasp the deeper, more nuanced laws of nature which explain both types of behavior."

If we actually make this statement, we might as well forget doing science! There is nothing in the Bible that even hints that the nature that God invented is not as unchanging as he is. Our presuppositions are based on the Bible. And science is based upon the presuppositions. Scientific hypothesis do not form and cannot change the presuppositions.

Uniformity of Law and Uniformity of Process are NOT scientific hypotheses and cannot be falsified! They are philosophical presuppositions logically derived from the primary philosophy -- I.e. Creationaism. The supposed critiques are attempts to treat these presuppositions as if they are scientific hypotheses. This is flawed logic.

Uniformity of Rate and Uniformity of State are not presuppositions or assumptions. They are hypotheses. They can be [and have been] falsified. please do not confuse presuppositions/assumptions with hypotheses.


 * I'm afraid my critiques have been misunderstood. They were not intended to argue that the presuppositions are false or even bad -- only that they are not proven and are easily misused.  I look forward to working together with you on this ... Ungtss 23:34, 7 June 2006 (CDT)


 * For purposes of discussion:
 * If we actually make this statement, we might as well forget doing science!
 * I don't think either statement should have that effect. I think they simply put the presupposition into context, and instill some humility to our thinking.  The second statement in particular acknowledges that the laws of nature as they are may be immutable, but we ought not treat the laws of nature as we know them as immutable to the extent that we ignore evidence that nature behaved differently in the past.  The first statement neither states that the presupposition is true or false, but only points out that it is not proven.  I hope my changes clarified that point.  Ungtss 23:48, 7 June 2006 (CDT)


 * There is nothing in the Bible that even hints that the nature that God invented is not as unchanging as he is.
 * But there is nothing to say that nature is unchanging, either. There are a number of accounts of parting seas and resurrections, however, which violate the laws of nature as we understand them ... Ungtss 23:48, 7 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Our presuppositions are based on the Bible. And science is based upon the presuppositions. Scientific hypothesis do not form and cannot change the presuppositions.
 * Why not? What if we discovered (by the scientific method) that gravity functioned differently in the first years of the universe than it does now?  Wouldn't we be forced to alter our theory of gravity to account for its different behavior at different times?  Ungtss 23:48, 7 June 2006 (CDT)

I have a problem with this:

There is a great deal of physical evidence of massive, Earth-wide cataclysm, which falsifies this hypothesis. The facts of ancient cataclysm is even acknowledged by evolutionists who believe that massive worldwide catastrophe led to the extinction of the dinosaurs. Further, all ancient cultures worldwide bear a historical record of an ancient global flood. To dismiss this evidence is to violate Chattam's antirazor by selecting an explanation that does not adequately address all the evidence.


 * The controverys between evoutionism and creationism is not about scientific/physical evidence, but rather in it's interpretation. Each philosophy interprets the data just a logically as the other.  The choice for evolutionism or creationism is not over evidence, but over belief -- are you going to believe what God has said or not?  The rocks can be interpreted either way.  Which way is best depends upon which one fits one's beliefs best.  One would expect that interpretation of the data within a creationary cataclysmic model will provied the most satisfying explanation both physically, philosophically and religiously.
 * You make a strong argument, and we should make the article reflect your perspective. On the other hand, is it not possible for the evidence to falsify one interpretation or the other?  For instance, what if we were to find Noah's Ark on top of some mountain in Turkey?  Wouldn't that falsify one interpretation in favor of the other?  Ungtss 23:58, 7 June 2006 (CDT)

I just want to emphasize at this point how much I appreciate your excellent work here. The wiki is desperately in need of minds like yours:). Ungtss 00:03, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

Ark on Ararat

 * That question has been set before Talk.Origins atheists and they will deny everything to their dying breath. After all, it is impossible,therefore, the creationists must have built it up there, or it is a huge fabrication, just like the government'e "man on the moon" project.  everyone knows it was all done in a studio on earth...... Or every one is halucinating but them...


 * it would certainly convince those who already believe, but not those who don't believe.  SIGH.....
 * True, there would be some diehards ... but do you think it's fair to say that most people -- at least reasonable people would be led by that evidence to favor a biblical interpretation? Ungtss 00:09, 8 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Its hard to say. Just consider how many Christians (about half) accept contorted versions of the Creation and Flood due to the apparent scientific truth influenced atheistic ideas.  Chances are they will for the most part continue in their ways by ingoring or twisting such evidence.  People usually only make small changes in their beliefs over time.


 * I've got to call it a night. I'm going to put this article in the back of my mind and come back in a few days with perhaps some improvements.

presumption vs presupposition
While presumption can be a synonym to presupposition, it's most common meaning is "Behavior or attitude that is boldly arrogant or offensive; effrontery." Therefore I prefer that we use presupposition.


 * Actually, after reading up on definitions, I'm switching to axioms rather than presuppositions....