Historical Science

Is it truly reliable, or is uniformitarianism a crock of shit?

Other urls found in this thread:

answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/ape-man/
rednuht.org/genetic_walkers/
answersingenesis.org/are-humans-animals/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Man if you were gonna whine about computational modeling of some shit maybe but uniformitarianism? Yes, really, rocks are real and stay where they're put with some famous exceptions.

...

Typical science focuses on precision. Historians on the other hand can only claim what probably happened.

>therefore magic is real

Ok, you win, checking into suicide watch as I type

...

recognising the potential flaws in a methodology and believing in god are two different things

you need to calm down

There is literally no challenge to uniformitarianism except from young earth creationists who think God changed the rules to hide the flood and plant fake dinosaurs.

So if anyone wants to know this actually works, it's that layers that can be reliably dated work as reference frames, and relative to the reference frames you can establish relative chronology using the fossils.

For example, an eruption causes a bed of ash to be deposited. The ash will all be deposited at more or less the same time, and can be dated using the radioactive decay of some of its Potassium into Argon. Sedimentary layers are deposited on top of the reliably-dated layers, and the ages of those layers are then estimated using the changing morphology of a particularly-suited species as it evolves. Other species that aren't as good for tracking time are then dated relative to the sedimentary layer they're found in. It's a little messy (and my explanation is simplified and ignores other techniques used to calibrate and check the results) which is why the margins of errors are often measured in thousands or millions of years. That seems big, but relative to the billions of years they're measuring and cataloging it isn'the as bad as it seems.

Not fake dinosaurs. Fake dates.