it's slowing down a little...for now, anyway

but this mountain has slain assumption after assumption and produced lots of reality since its major eruption in the 80s

mt st helens

uniformitarianism?...stop it please

slowly, slowly, slowly (gradualism)?...stop it please

not only has it been a real time, real life lab since its major eruption (as opposed to what geologists usually get to work with...ie, extant geological features about which they make assumptions as to their formation because they were not there to see them), but this 9600+ ft landmark mount was only about 4000yo before it blew its top...

sorry, mr hutton; sorry, mr leyell et al...you were wrong then and still wrong now

ahh well...another one bites the dust :-)

Non sequitur. Assertions are not facts.
Nothing in uniformitarianism says that catastrophic events don't occur. You think Lyell wasn't aware of volcanoes and earthquakes?

"Stop it please" may count as an argument in the hood or in the trailor park, but I doubt many scientists would consider so. It probably plays a lot better to a bunch of back-slapping Jethros than it does here.

which makes your assertions (among those of others) precisely what...

reality is reality, regardless of what you might believe...or, what you believe neither changes that which is real nor do your beliefs change truth

sure they were aware of catastrophic events...they just didn't pay them much mind

and the way that uniformitarianism (an assumption) is applied in actual calculations as an aggregate claims to take catastrophic events into consideration, but actually mostly ignores them

a mountain (albeit volcanic) ~9600ft that has been a dominant feature of the landscape for all of recorded history (ie since the *european* settler's first saw it...and also has a place in more ancient *indian* lore...means that it has been around pretty much as is for a long time

which implies that if it is only 4000yo, then it must have relatively suddenly appeared as a geologic feature on the face of the earth not long ago

catastrophic mountain building is another subject related to catastrophic plate tectonics

i can help you with the synthesis and critical thinking if you are unable to connect the dots :-)

"i can help you with the synthesis and critical thinking if you are unable to connect the dots"

Well, sure, and your previous analyses have been so insightful.

"which implies that if it is only 4000yo, then it must have relatively suddenly appeared as a geologic feature on the face of the earth not long ago"

a bit of backwards reasoning? Nothing you've said is evidence that mount st helens is of recent origin. It might be for some scientific reason, but not for any reason that you've mentioned thus far.

All the principle of uniformity says, anyman, is that the processes we see at work today are the same or similar to the processes that occurred in the past. That includes catastrophic events.

This is another, classic creationist strawman argument. You define the principle of uniformity incorrectly, and then attack your incorrect definition.

now i not only need to geive you lessons in synthesis and critical thinking, but in critical reading as well...no, this doesn't even require critical reading, just rudimentary reading skills

i didn't need to say or show it, the article makes the claim...you can take it up with them

i didn't imagine that you and soilguy would replace dano for gaff material...but you're working on it :-)

whoa, thanks for that enlightening explanation, soilguy

the problem though is that while what you say sounds very lovely (and oh so very evolutionary, and oh so very very reigning paradigmatic), the reality is that when the apply the principle to the calculations, they are 100% uniformitarian or 99% uniformitarian/1% catastrophic

the catastrophic aspects of earth history figure little or virtually not at all in the actual calculations

to help you out with your critical reading/thinking skills, do you know what *aggregate* means

when i used that word above, i was saying that they claim to figure catastrophic events into the mix for calculation purposes, but that they emphasize gradualistic uniformitarianism maximally, and (deemphasize) catastrophic processes minimally

so what are you on about anyway

then you offered this pearl:

oooohh...thanks for that enlightening profundity...aaaahh

you inflicted serious damage there, dude

a) your reading skills are wanting

b) i didn't incorrectly define uniformitarianism; i didn't define it at all

c) i did correctly describe how it is used (or rather misused) in the measuring process (ie, old earth, etc)

i can offer a popular definition, however: the present is the key to the past

if you would like a more technical definition, i can manage that as well...but you can google it and do fine

much of what you and ff, et al write in response to me are classic evolutionary strawman arguments, or adhom jazz

so you say i fluff my straw; i say you fluff your straw...and that gets us precisely where

but you welcome to keep on fluffing your straw :-)

the problem though is that while what you say sounds very lovely (and oh so very evolutionary, and oh so very very reigning paradigmatic), the reality is that when the apply the principle to the calculations, they are 100% uniformitarian or 99% uniformitarian/1% catastrophic

What calculations? Your statement above is double-talk.

the catastrophic aspects of earth history figure little or virtually not at all in the actual calculations

What "calculations" are you talking about? Where are the "equations" that you must be talking about here?

The "fluff" is all your own. You imply your definition of the principle of uniformity to mean gradualism, and you know it. Gradualism is an archaic line of thought. "The present is the key to the past," only means that the processes are the same. Any particular process has its own range of possible rates. That includes violent, rapid processes as well as slow, gradual ones.

The mountain is just 4,000 yo. I missed it. You were right. I apologize.

Why do you beleive the article? Do you believe the claims of mountains vastly older than 4K yrs?

Given that the Chinese and many other civilizations can trace their ancestry back further than that it is rather amazing they didn't notice all this stuff going on: Another miracle no doubt.

"The mountain is just 4,000 yo. I missed it. You were right. I apologize."

ff, your apology is noted, accepted, and appreciated...don't run into many decent enough to go there in this game

you're follow up q is poignant and i hope to respond later...right now, i need some sack time; i fly out in a few hours for some good golf time...sorry, priorities, eh :-)

I'm sure you've all argued with evolution-deniers and found they accept scientific evidence when it suits them and dismiss it when it doesn't. I look forward to anyman's response to TheFallibleFiend's point about four thousand year old mountains.

I'm sure people caught up in the San Francisco earthquake didn't regard it as an example og uniformitarianism but it surely was.

DA Morgan. The Chinese did notice the Taupo eruption about 150 AD. Bigger than Mount St Helens. I suppoes anyman would take this as another nail in the coffin of uniformitarianism.