>The 'uniformitarian vs. catastrophist' debate is a hoax, a pseudo-issue.
>This issue has long since been settled. The two views are not opposites;
>they can coexist, and in fact there are numerous examples of catastrophic
>events, including huge floods, volcanoes, meteors, ice ages, plagues, and
>even natural nuclear chain reactions. No conventional earth scientist
>disputes these.
Interesting over the years how the meaning of uniformitarian has changed to
encompass the entire range of the catastrophist. Thus the theory remains
essentially unfalsifiable, and according to Popper, no theory at all. What
magnitude of event would it take to open your eyes to the possibility of a
global catastrophy. If I could for example, show you continent-wide trends
in paleocurrents in North America, would that cause you to reconsider?
What if I showed you the same trends in South America as in North America?
At what stage would you sit up and begin to rethink your premises?
>That's one of the reasons, by the way, why I admire unusual people like
>Glenn Morton, who has been willing to confront this evidence at face value,
>and change his mind, and find a way to resolve the problems to his own
>satisfaction. I commend his rational approach to us all.
Will a rational approach explain the birth of Christ, the redemption of the
world, or the creation of life? You may think so, but I think not.
However, I doubt that I am any less objective than you. I just operate
within a different paradigm, one that I believe is ultimately more useful
than yours.
Art
http://chadwicka.swau.edu