Uniformitarianism – A Big Guess

I irrigate my property for 7 months a year with a system which gets its water from the Gunnison River. I have a settling pond that the water runs into – much of the silt and mud carried by the water settles out here before the water travels on to a larger holding pond that I pump the water out of for irrigation. Because the branch of supply water is at the end of a line, without this settling pond, the pipes and sprinklers carrying the water would plug up with mud and silt in a very short time.

Sediment that was removed from the settling pond.

About every year, I need to remove the built up mud and silt from the settling pond. Last year we had abundant snow in the mountains that supply the Gunnison River, resulting in a high spring runoff carrying a lot of silt and mud. This year we are in a drought, resulting in a low spring runoff … thus a lot less mud and silt to settle out in the settling pond. When I remove the silt and mud this year, I expect to get only one quarter (1/4) – if that much – of the amount I removed last year.

Herein lies a huge problem for uniformitarian types of dating methods.  Uniformitarianism basically states, “The present is the key to the past.”  Many secular geologists observe what they see today and then extrapolate that into the past. They believe that slow and gradual processes have created the geology we see today.

Settling pond after the removal of sediment with a 4 ft measuring stick.

If you were to observe the amount of mud accumulated this year, and try to extrapolate it into the past, then by measuring the amount of mud accumulated last year (and assuming you were not there to observe its deposition), you would come up with a date about 3 to 4 times longer than actuality.

Now some would argue that we can observe deposition rates for several years to establish an average rate of deposition.  However, can that rate be extrapolated back millions and millions of years … would not catastrophic floods, tsunamis, volcanoes, and mudslides have a drastic affect on that extrapolation?

The Bible gives a historical account of a catastrophe that reshaped the world – the Flood. The geology we observe today fits a cataclysm such as the global Flood. As Andrew Snelling (Noah’s Flood and the Age of the Earth, 2009) said, “The past is the key to the present” not “The present is the key to the past.” The Bible explains the geology we see today in a way Uniformitarianism cannot.

 

Lanny Johnson

 

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing. Thanks for your partnership.

3 Comments on "Uniformitarianism – A Big Guess"

  1. Anthony Magnabosco says:

    You answered your own question: averages over time and variability.

    If anyone could prove that there was a biblical flood and this was confirmed using the scientific method, that person (or persons) would have a Nobel Prize for having turned science on its’ head. What is keeping these folks from not coming foward with their evidence for peer review and independent conifirmation?

    Do you realize that the majority of the (theist and atheist) geologists and scientists on our planet today completely disagree with the biblical flood story in your bible?

    The overwhelming evidence that we can observe and independently confirm shows that our planet is around 4.6 billion years hold and our universe is about 14 billion years old.

    It is sad (and frustrating) to see YEC’s like yourself to frantically trying to swat away these unbiased, independently-confimed, scientify observations day after day. Further, to see you poison the minds of young children with your wishful thinking is disgusting and reprehensible.

    Why would a book written by ignorant men struggling to understand their world 2,000 years ago have any bearing on our world today? Open your eyes and remove your biblical blinders – the view of reality is great from here.

    • In regards to answering our own question, that is a practice that is crucial to science and is used in testing a hypothesis. So I am glad that you feel we answered our questions.

      Addressing your second comment, there are several items out that develop and present the case for the Flood of Noah’s day and the subsequent evidence. A very expansive dealing of this subject would be Dr. Andrew A. Snelling’s two volume set titled, “Earth’s Catastrophic Past – Geology, Creation, and the Flood.” There are many articles and books that have also been written by Dr. Steve A. Austin, one being, “Grand Canyon – Monument To Catastrophe.” There are also numerous sites that you can avail yourself to in addition to ours, such as: ICR (http://www.icr.org/), CMI (http://creation.com/), and AIG (http://www.answersingenesis.org/). These sites have an amazing amount of resources to read and evaluate. You can even pick up a Creationist book in the Grand Canyon’s bookstore called “Grand Canyon – A Different View” by Tom Vail.

      We do realize that we are in the minority at the moment, but so were Copernicus and more recently Alfred Wegener with his initial ideas of continental drift. They were ridiculed as well and dismissed, until enough evidence bore out their findings.

      If you are interested, there are also many articles and publications on the difficulties and assumptions of the different dating methods used today. There was actually a study done over the course of 8 years, from 1997 – 2005, called R.A.T.E (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth), that looked at and evaluated these claims.

      In regards to the last two comments, I think that you can find a lot of information from non-yec sites about the bias and unconfirmed conclusions that are abundant in the scientific community, primarily against any that disagree with current theories. Also, I am not sure why being 2000 years old requires that the authors be ignorant of what they spoke on. I am assuming you have read the bible and have drawn these conclusions on your own, and have not attached to sound bites that you have not researched. That would be very ignorant in trying to understand the real issues, and not just repeating old sterile arguments.

      Thanks for your comments, and we hope that you will take time to evaluate the resources mentioned. Some are available from our store – http://www.discovercreation.org/store.htm.

    • Thanks for your comments. In response, it seems certain that you have totally accepted what you have been taught without looking into the data yourself objectively from a non-biased perspective. I am afraid that if you did, you would find that much of current science is certainly “biased.”

      You are also using the same type of sarcastic and emotionally charged rhetoric that they tried to use on Galileo to keep him in the “scientifically accepted box” of his day. If he didn’t argue from the Bible (which you out of hand dismiss and which flies in the face of the flat earth ideas of his day), as well, from his own research, you yourself likely would be still arguing for a flat earth. This is especially the case when you appeal to the majority vote in science.

      Concerning some of your comments on the blog, please read my responses along with yours for answers and another response also posted for you.

      “If anyone could prove that there was a biblical flood and this was confirmed using the scientific method, that person (or persons) would have a Nobel Prize for having turned science on its’ head. What is keeping these folks from not coming foward with their evidence for peer review and independent conifirmation?“

      Answer: Would you really accept it as a reality if the criteria you mentioned is given? . . . Or is there something else that would hold you back. Actually there is great evidence for the Flood not only historically (from Noah’s “ship log” found in the Bible, from accounts found in cultures all around the world, from historical data confirming that each culture can trace lineages back to Noah, and from other solid historical lines of reasoning), but also geologically (yes, my training is in geology). There are also geologic models put forward which really “hold a lot of water” so to speak. These explain a lot of things that I was never able to explain as a geologist before I began to research the evidence from the “ignorant” Biblical Flood potential. Let me know if you are willing to look into some works by Baumgardner, or maybe from one of my theses regarding salt deposition, etc.

      “Do you realize that the majority of the (theist and atheist) geologists and scientists on our planet today completely disagree with the biblical flood story in your bible?”

      Answer: Most scientific advancements have been made by people bucking the “system.” Besides, science is not about majority rule is it?

      Dave Nutting

Got something to say? Go for it!