From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Uniformity:  miniscule cause and monstrous effect
Date: 12 Dec 1992 00:18:40 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

	At last Ted posts something concise to reply to. I've been
glancing at the debate that swirls around Ted's opinions since his
reappearence in 1990, but I haven't felt much of an inclination to
take him on until now.

In article <170@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>
>In brief, the doctrine of uniformity is forcing natural scientists into
>a tighter and tighter intellectual corner.  Amongst other problems, they are
>continually forced to ascribe giant effects to piss-ant causes.

	Well, indeed, it may be the case that there are some little causes
that break the camel's beck, er is that soropod's back. You have heard of
systems where a small event at the right time can have a big ultimate
effect?

	Now, since you have started with the argument that some stupendous
catastrophies have befallen the earth in the past, tell me why I should
care? Is it to vindicate some Scriptural image as historically factual?
Or is it because at the root of it all you just can't bring yourself to
accept that this world can operate without supernatural intervention to
set it right? 

>For instance, the assumption that the 900 F surface temperature on Venus
>is caused by the tiny to non-existant modicum of solar energy which reaches
>the surface as uv and then, supposedly, cannot escape as ir, despite there
>being no lid on Venus' atmosphere at any level.

	After having begged facts we are left with your initial assertion that
small events can't have big effects, at this point it is still unsupported.

>For instance, assuming that the < 1 degree change in the earth's axial tilt
>over the last 10,000 years due to precession allowed the existance of lush
>pastures in regions above 75 degrees N latitude, where we now find huge piles
>of bones of former herds of giant creatures which positively require constant
>and immense supplies of greenage.

	Again you beg some facts which are not supported here. Who says a
small tile in the earth's inclination changes climate? If you accept the
fact then you would seem to be arguing against your thesis and saying that
small changes do indeed have big effects.

>A little kid once did an emperor a favor by telling him that he was naked, so
>that he would realize his predicament.  The emperor had cause to be angry at
>the swindlers who had caused his predicament, rather than at the little kid.
>
>Likewise, Hyde and others, you have cause to be angry at whoever had sold
>you this doctrine of uniformity, but not at me.  Like the little kid, I've
>ultimately done you a favor.

	If you argue from prejudice for Catastrophism, you may get
people to think about the basis for their acceptance of uniformity, but
not presuade anyone on account of your prejudice.

	You might begin by telling us why it matters that we accept your
facts and your conclusion. Why your conclusion that some celestial billiards
took place amd why anyone should believe in your particular quest of the
truth. What does it matter? Are you a religionist trying to bugger science?
Are you a Christian and a Fundementalist one at that? Do you think that
nature can work without divine intercession? Does nature seem maundane and
Supernatural intervention and miracles excite you? Do you view scientists
as too smug? If we accept the kind of catastrophies you believe in what
does it get us? What if Vel. invented his whole scheme just to make some
verses of Scripture look historically accurate? Why should we be inclined
to see scriptural symbols as literal? Why does Scripture have to be
historically accurate?

Bruce Salem


Newsgroups: talk.origins