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?

[Jose Fly]

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?

FYI, uniformitarianism is the notion that the same processes we see occurring today, also occurred in the past. So since we see meteorite impacts today, the same occurring in the past is part of uniformitarianism. IOW, uniformitarianism includes catastrophic events.

As to your question, uniformitarianism has been the underlying framework of the earth sciences for well over a century and has been used to generate tangible, useful results (e.g., oil exploration). OTOH, catastrophism hasn't generated results or even been used for.....well, over a century.

So this really isn't even a meaningful question. In the context of practical science, catastrophism is irrelevant.

[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?

FYI, uniformitarianism is the notion that the same processes we see occurring today, also occurred in the past. So since we see meteorite impacts today, the same occurring in the past is part of uniformitarianism. IOW, uniformitarianism includes catastrophic events.

As to your question, uniformitarianism has been the underlying framework of the earth sciences for well over a century and has been used to generate tangible, useful results (e.g., oil exploration). OTOH, catastrophism hasn't generated results or even been used for.....well, over a century.

So this really isn't even a meaningful question. In the context of practical science, catastrophism is irrelevant.

However, if you only look at our world in a purely uniformitarian way you limit yourself to explain some geological features on Earth. For example with the Flood that filled the Mediterranean sea some 5 million years ago https://www.nature.com/articles/nature08555.
Sure, nowadays we also have things that fill up with water, such as lakes however these are not comparable to the aforementioned flood.

First we tried explaining the observations around the Mediterranean from that time in a uniformitarian way. However this didnt give fitting answers. And this catastrophic answer has helped explain what has happened.

[Jose Fly]

However, if you only look at our world in a purely uniformitarian way you limit yourself to explain some geological features on Earth. For example with the Flood that filled the Mediterranean sea some 5 million years ago https://www.nature.com/articles/nature08555.
Sure, nowadays we also have things that fill up with water, such as lakes however these are not comparable to the aforementioned flood.

First we tried explaining the observations around the Mediterranean from that time in a uniformitarian way. However this didnt give fitting answers. And this catastrophic answer has helped explain what has happened.

Again, uniformitarianism isn't "no catastrophes have ever occurred". Large, catastrophic floods are part of uniformitarianism.

[Tcg]

Sure, nowadays we also have things that fill up with water, such as lakes however these are not comparable to the aforementioned flood.

I even have a glass that fills up with water. And the water is perfectly fitted to the glass. It's a miracle.


Tcg

[Mr-Vaquero]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #4]

However, if you only look at our world in a purely uniformitarian way you limit yourself to explain some geological features on Earth. For example with the Flood that filled the Mediterranean sea some 5 million years ago https://www.nature.com/articles/nature08555.
Sure, nowadays we also have things that fill up with water, such as lakes however these are not comparable to the aforementioned flood.

First we tried explaining the observations around the Mediterranean from that time in a uniformitarian way. However this didnt give fitting answers. And this catastrophic answer has helped explain what has happened.

Again, uniformitarianism isn't "no catastrophes have ever occurred". Large, catastrophic floods are part of uniformitarianism.

So far you have told me that uniformitarianism is: "the same processes we see occurring today, also occurred in the pas" and "uniformitarianism isn't "no catastrophes have ever occurred"".

I gave an example of a geologic event that we couldn't explain using processes we see today. First scientists tried explaining it with processes we see today such as river erosion. That didn't quite work so it could not have been explained using the uniformitarian way.
Then later we tried explaining it in a catastrophic way. Not because it is a catastrophe but because uniformitarianism failed. And that catastrophic way, meaning using processes that we don't see occurring today. It doesnt matter that i choose a catastrophic event as an example. The way we found an answer is why i choose that example.

[Jose Fly]

So far you have told me that uniformitarianism is: "the same processes we see occurring today, also occurred in the pas" and "uniformitarianism isn't "no catastrophes have ever occurred"".

I gave an example of a geologic event that we couldn't explain using processes we see today. First scientists tried explaining it with processes we see today such as river erosion. That didn't quite work so it could not have been explained using the uniformitarian way.
Then later we tried explaining it in a catastrophic way. Not because it is a catastrophe but because uniformitarianism failed. And that catastrophic way, meaning using processes that we don't see occurring today. It doesnt matter that i choose a catastrophic event as an example. The way we found an answer is why i choose that example.

What specific process that doesn't occur today do you think the scientists invoked? Looking at the abstract you linked to shows they attribute the features to flooding, erosion, and sea level rise, all processes that occur today.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Mr-Vaquero in post #1]

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?

It really does not matter whether you are a creationist or you believe in deep time.

Both are tied to catastrophism.

“In the latter part of the twentieth century, a new school of thought emerged in geology that has been dubbed ‘neo-catastrophism’ as opposed to the gradualism of Lyell and Darwin. Its adherents embrace a punctuated view of geological and biological history.” Anthony Hallam, Catastrophes and lesser calamities: the causes of mass extinctions Published by Oxford University Press, 2005, ISBN 0192806688, 9780192806680, 226 pages

Catastrophism is the only phenomenon that explains mass extinctions in the fossil record and the subsequence fossilization.

It is not logical to believe that events that caused mass extinctions did not change the surface of the earth.
Facts that can only be explained by Catastrophism.
1. Mass extinction
2. MEGABRECCIAS: EVIDENCE FOR CATASTROPHISM https://www.grisda.org/origins-05039
3. Britain becoming an island.

The evidence cleary points to Catastrophism.

[Mr-Vaquero]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #7]

So far you have told me that uniformitarianism is: "the same processes we see occurring today, also occurred in the pas" and "uniformitarianism isn't "no catastrophes have ever occurred"".

I gave an example of a geologic event that we couldn't explain using processes we see today. First scientists tried explaining it with processes we see today such as river erosion. That didn't quite work so it could not have been explained using the uniformitarian way.
Then later we tried explaining it in a catastrophic way. Not because it is a catastrophe but because uniformitarianism failed. And that catastrophic way, meaning using processes that we don't see occurring today. It doesnt matter that i choose a catastrophic event as an example. The way we found an answer is why i choose that example.

What specific process that doesn't occur today do you think the scientists invoked? Looking at the abstract you linked to shows they attribute the features to flooding, erosion, and sea level rise, all processes that occur today.

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.

This pushes this flood out of reach of our physics that we use to calculate such things for rivers. Which meant the researchers of this paper needed to use a digital model to estimate the effects

[Jose Fly]

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.

Exactly. It's the same processes we see at work today, just on a larger scale.

This pushes this flood out of reach of our physics that we use to calculate such things for rivers. Which meant the researchers of this paper needed to use a digital model to estimate the effects

Yep.

If you have questions about this specific work, why not contact the actual scientists who conducted it? What relevance does it have in a "Science and Religion" message board?