Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.
The author differentiates between empirical gaps and logical gaps. Is this something evolutionists would find controversial?I think he also shows that uniformitarianism runs into logical gaps. First, various results can occur over at widely differing rates. So one is unjustified in using some uniform clock based on how long the process normally takes today. Not sure what is meant by this.Consider radioactive decay rates. There is no reason to assume variable decay rates in the past in the absence of empirical evidence or theoretical necessity. If the observed laws of physics successfully explain past events, then there is no reason to believe those laws were different in the past. On the other hand, mutation rates could vary considerably depending on environmental conditions, such as the presence of an ozone layer for example. So whether the assumption of a uniform "clock" is justified or not is dependent on the particular "clock", the available data, and the underlying theory.Second, if one does want to assume uniformitarianism is somehow extra scientific; then one runs into serious questions that need answers. For example, one has to justify the belief that the universe is eternal. To do this one has to avoid entropy problems etc. If one then gives up the universe being eternal, then one has the issue of either something from nothing or creation ex-nihilo. Either solution is a death blow to uniformitarianism.The part of classic uniformitarianism considered dogma in modern science is that the laws of physics observed today is the same as in the past. This does not require gradualism, an eternal universe, or creation from nothing.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |