Common Creationist Arguments - Pseudoscience

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Arguments/Pseudoscience.shtml ^

[JediGirl]

Common Creationist Arguments

Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience is a scientific-sounding argument which in fact has no scientific validity whatsoever. This type of argument is based on the fact that the average layperson knows so little about science that he or she is liable to judge a scientific argument solely on its style and presentation (eg- "does it sound scientific?", or "does it incorporate scientific-sounding terms?") for lack of any other method of judging its validity.

Suggested Tactics

This type of creationist argument is difficult for most people to defend against, unless they are fairly knowledgeable about science (that's why it's so popular with creationists- they may not know anything about science, but they're gambling that you don't either). In my case, I simply call upon my knowledge of certain basic scientific principles that I learned in university, but I can't instruct everyone to do this, since not everyone has a technical background.

Therefore, it's difficult for me to recommand tactics for laypeople to counteract this sort of argument, but we should keep in mind that creationist pseudoscience arguments are almost never generated out of the mind of the creationist himself. They all tend to come from the same widely distributed pool of creationist literature, which is one of the reasons that creationists all over the world tend to spout the same pseudoscience arguments. I can offer the following suggestions:

Remember that if your opponent has no direct knowledge of the science involved, and is merely claiming truth because "I read it somewhere", this constitutes a fallacious appeal to authority. Point this out to him. One should always be able to explain the logic and science behind one's argument rather than simply making vague reference to an anonymous source.

Since these arguments are actually second hand arguments, demand to see the original source for his claim. When you see the source, check the credentials of the author. If they aren't fraudulent, check up on the university where the author got his degree. Odds are that the degree is either honorary, or it comes from a cheap diploma mill (or worse yet, one of the many church-run schools set up expressly for the purpose of handing out degrees to creationists). If you don't have the resources to check up on universities, try looking up the Talk.Origins website at www.talkorigins.org, which maintains a list of discredited creationist "experts" and their bogus credentials.

Examples follow:

"Occam's Razor is a scientific principle which says that when faced with two theories, we should always choose the simplest theory. Evolution theory requires billions of years of chemical reactions, environmental effects, and genetic mutations. Creation theory simply says "God did it". Creation theory is obviously simpler, therefore Occam's Razor demands that we must select Creation theory on scientific grounds."

This is perhaps the single most moronic creationist idea I've ever heard (it's also been used to "prove" the existence of God, by arguing that the concept of God is much simpler than the study of science). It's a classic example of creationist pseudoscience. They learn the term "Occam's Razor" and they learn just enough about its definition to abuse it, but they make no effort whatsoever to learn its true meaning.

"Choose the simplest theory" is an oversimplification of the concept of Occam's Razor. The term is named after the 14th century philosopher and theologian William of Occam. It might strike some as strange that a scientific principle might have come from a theologian, but good scientists do not practice appeals to authority or ad hominem attacks. If an idea makes sense, it doesn't matter who it came from, and the universal acceptance of Occam's Razor is a perfect example of that philosophy.

In any case, he argued that we should never "multiply entities unnecessarily". In other words, cut out extraneous terms from an equation. He used that principle (which is really just an argument against redundancy) to show that it was impossible to deduce God's existence through reason alone, so one would have to take it purely on faith. The irony is that a theologian realized that there was no logical basis for God's existence more than 600 years ago but modern fundamentalists still can't figure it out, and actually use his name to "prove" the exact opposite of what he himself argued!

For those who cannot appreciate the simplicity of Occam's Razor in its original form, Isaac Newton restated it thusly: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." In plain English, when faced with two scientific theories which make the same predictions, choose the simpler theory. Or, as Stephen Hawking put it: "Cut out all the features of the theory which cannot be observed." (taken from A Brief History of Time).

Like all scientific principles, Occam's Razor is accepted not because William of Occam said it, but because it makes sense. You don't need to appeal to authority or take its validity on faith. If you are faced with two competing theories between which you have no other method of deciding, is it not obvious that the theory containing extra or unverifiable terms must therefore contain redundancies? The fact that the simpler theory can accomplish the same descriptive and predictive feats while utilizing fewer terms and not relying on unverifiable or unobservable phenomena is evidence of superiority.

Consider the analogy of two mechanical devices for making widgets. Both perform exactly the same function. In repeated, exhaustive tests, both are shown to produce exactly the same quality of widget, at the same rate, with the same raw materials. Both produce the same amount of waste. Both consume the same amount of electrical power. They cost the same. In other words, their performance is identical in every measurable way. The only noticeable difference is that device #1 is much simpler than device #2. It contains fewer components and mechanisms, and its operating principle is therefore simpler. Which one would you choose?

Suppose the salesman for device #2 is quite upset that you are leaning toward device #1, and he promises to do better. The next day, he returns with a new device (we'll call it device #3) which is completely sealed in black plastic (the classic "black box"). He says it's the latest, most advanced widget-making machine in the world. You feed it electricity and raw materials, and it spits out widgets. Its performance is no different from device #1 and device #2, but it is not user servicable. You can't see inside to figure out how it works, and the salesman refuses to let you see diagrams or schematics, ostensibly because the operation of the machine is beyond both your intellectual capacity and his. The salesman argues that device #3 is actually simpler than both device #1 and #2 because it has just one component: the black box. Does this make sense to you? Again, which device would you choose?

Occam's Razor is merely a name given to a logical and intuitively obvious thought process of eliminating redundancies. It cannot be used to choose between competing theories whose predictions are vastly different, any more than the simplicity of a drill press can be used to prove that it's superior to a fighter plane. Now that we are equipped with an understanding of the reasoning behind Occam's Razor, we can list some of the reasons that it cannot be used to support either creationism or the existence of God:

1. Occam's Razor is a method of choosing between competing scientific theories. It is irrelevant when comparing a scientific theory to the concept of God or creationism because God and creationism are not scientific theories. There are no objective terms in the concept of God. No equations. No mechanisms. No limits. No methods through which it can be used to predict the outcome of natural processes. No methods through which it can be tested, or disproven. The concept of God is actually the antithesis of a scientific theory, in that one resorts to the divine only when one's reason has either failed or been voluntarily suppressed. In the analogy above, Occam's Razor was used to evaluate a pair of machines. It couldn't be used to evaluate a machine versus, say, a piece of music.

2. "God" is actually not a "simpler theory" than science. "God" is merely a three-letter name which is affixed to a deity whose machinations are supposedly so complex that they are beyond mortal comprehension! If God's methods are inscrutable and incomprehensible to humans (as claimed in the Bible and by all Christians), then what business does anyone have claiming that they are "simpler" than a theory which humans can understand? In the analogy above, the concept of God is very much like the "black box". The salesman may argue that it's simpler because it's a nice smooth black box instead of a set of gears and motors, but that's a childish superficiality at best, and a bald-faced lie at worst.

3. Occam's Razor is not invoked unless the competing theories make identical predictions. It is a method of eliminating redundancies, as William of Occam first reasoned, and it only applies when the performance of the competing theories is identical. When two theories make vastly different predictions (as is the case with science and Biblical literalism), then Occam's Razor is completely irrelevant. In the analogy above, Occam's Razor was used to evaluate a pair of machines whose performance was identical. If the two machines made widgets of vastly different characteristics, Occam's Razor would be irrelevant.

The use of Occam's Razor to "prove" the existence of God or the validity of Biblical literalism is a classic example of creationist pseudoscience, because it is so emblematic of their method: take a real principle and grossly misinterpret it to mean the exact opposite of what it truly means.

"The second law of thermodynamics makes evolution impossible. It states that complexity cannot be spontaneously created, so it is impossible for natural processes to create a complex organism from a simple organism!"

This is one of the oldest, and most popular creationist pseudoscience arguments. It's been kicking around for more than a century, thanks to general public ignorance of thermodynamics. In fact, it's wrong on so many levels that it's hard to know where to start! Perhaps we should start at the beginning, with the definition of the second law of thermodynamics. According to my engineering thermodynamics textbook, the second law of thermodynamics has two basic postulates:

1. All physical processes create entropy (microscopic disorder).

2. The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease, ie- entropy can be created but not destroyed.

That's a lot different from "complexity cannot be spontaneously created", isn't it? Big surprise- creationists don't know anything about thermodynamics. Now that we've established their bizarre misconception about the second law of thermodynamics, we should try to understand what strange mental contortions were necessary to go from "the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease" to "complexity cannot be spontaneously created."

Upon further questioning, creationists invariably reveal the following beliefs about the second law:

1. "The entropy of a living organism can't decrease."

2. "The creation of complexity requires the destruction of entropy."

3. "The second law of thermodynamics applies to spontaneous events, but not to the deliberate acts of man (or deity). That's why humans can build a complex structure but natural processes can't."

These three beliefs are all completely wrong, and they all indicate a frightening ignorance of scientific principles. Let us examine each belief separately:

1. Actually, the entropy of a living organism can decrease, because a living organism is not a closed system. Since it is an open system, entropy can leave and enter. Entropy doesn't have to be destroyed- just moved. The concept of the closed system vs the open system is one of the most basic concepts that we teach kids in high school, and if someone thinks a living organism is a closed system, he must be staggeringly ignorant. Food, water, and energy enter and leave your body all the time, thus making it an open system. Furthermore, an entire species is even less of a closed system than an individual life form, and evolution occurs from one generation to the next, not in a single organism as it ages.

2. Complexity is not the destruction of disorder or the creation of order. In fact, there is more disorder in complex systems, as any student of chaos theory (or government bureacracies) can tell you. There is far more entropy in a nuclear power plant than there is in an ice cube, and a pretty snowflake has much more complexity than the drop of water from whence it came.

3. Physical laws apply all the time, to everybody, regardless of intent or intelligence. If the second law of thermodynamics truly prohibited the creation of complexity, then it wouldn't matter whether the complexity is created by "deliberate" acts or by random happenstance- it would be impossible in both cases. It is utterly unbelievable to me that creationist ignoramuses would interpret any physical law to only apply in the absence of deliberate intervention. No other physical laws of physics are interpreted to apply only in the absence of intelligent intervention- does gravity shut off when humans intervene?

This argument has been so thoroughly disproven, so many times in so many ways, that it's almost comical when people keep bringing it up. They might as well just tattoo their foreheads with the words "scientific ignoramus."

"By taking a random mixture of elements and analysing the probability of elements randomly forming into the correct combinations and orientations to make a simple amino acid, I can show that it is probabilistically impossible for the simplest amino acid to form, never mind the first living cell. Therefore, a Creator must have formed the first organisms, if not all of them."

This argument is invalid for the following reasons:

1. Spontaneous formation of amino and fatty acids has been observed in the laboratory, by subjecting an atmosphere of hydrogen, water vapour, ammonia and methane to electrical discharges and ultraviolet radiation. This simulates primeval Earth environmental conditions, therefore it is an observed fact, and not subject to debate.

2. Chemical reactions are not random! Elements only bond in certain combinations. Light a match in a cloud of hydrogen and oxygen, and countless trillions upon trillions of hydrogen and oxygen atoms will react to form H2O. Not H8O, and not H5O, but H2O. Purely random combinatorics are a completely invalid way of modelling chemical reactions.

3. The first living cell did not have to form from raw materials. It would have formed from more primitive components such as RNA, which was proposed many years ago as the first self-replicating molecule. It was even experimentally found to have catalytic capabilities for adding new nucleotides to the end of the chain or removing them, leading to the term "RNA World" to describe the origins of life. But even if RNA is not the candidate we're looking for, there is certainly no need to assume that the first organic self-replicators would have been full-blown single-celled organisms. The early self-replicators (such as RNA, if it was indeed the first self-replicator) would not have left fossils.

4. This entire attack is a red herring, because evolution theory and abiogenesis (the formation of organic self-replicators from simpler organic materials) are two completely different theories. Lumping them together is just as fallacious as lumping evolution theory with Big Bang theory. The process of evolution is heritable change in populations over multiple generations. Because the process of evolution requires multiple generations to occur, it cannot possibly happen before the first living organism! It doesn't kick in until after the first living organism already exists! Even if abiogenesis could be disproved, evolution theory would still be valid.

I should also note that this argument is generally coupled with the fallacious reasoning that "anything we don't understand is proof of divine intervention." Poorly understood phenomena are not invalidations of science- they are opportunities for scientific investigation. If we treat every gap in our understanding as proof of divine intervention, we would be no better than the tribal primitives who attributed divine intervention to everything from solar eclipses to rain. Visit the Probability page if you want to know more.

"Some older species fossils can be found on top of newer fossils. This inconsistency in your so-called 'progressionism' proves that creation theory is correct, since it means that all species were created at the same time."

More bad science, since this only occurs with animal remains that are on the surface. What happens is that severe erosion or a geological upheaval can occasionally expose strata bearing fossils, and of course, when Skippy the Dog runs away and dies near these old fossils, the "Young Earth Creationist" crowd immediately interprets this as disproof of the entire fossil record, the entire field of geology, the age of the Earth, etc.

As usual, their argument is based on ignorance of proper scientific method. This evidence would be disproof of the fossil record if it was impossible to rationalize its existence with that record. However, that is simply not the case. Geologists can examine patterns in the rock to determine whether a region is old or new, cross-cut, the result of upheaval, etc. It is the creationists who will look at a region, assume its age without using proper methodology, and then use fossil findings in that region to "disprove" geology and evolution theory.

"Evolution can explain changes in a species, but where does a whole new species come from? Speciation is the downfall of Evolution Theory!"

This is another case of creationists projecting their own pseudoscientific attitudes onto evolution theory. In this case, they are predisposed to believe that the creation of a species is a sudden, dramatic event at some fixed moment in time. One moment there's species A, and then the next moment there's species B. Much as God created Man from dust, and Eve from Adam's rib, they imagine that "evolutionists" describe evolution creating a man directly from an ape. But evolution theory does not work that way.

Speciation is not a sudden, miraculous transformation from one species to another. The way creationists envision evolution theory, a pregnant female ape went into labour one day and a human being popped out! It is a gross understatement to say that this is a misrepresentation of the truth. In reality, evolution theory merely proposes that a great many small changes eventually caused an animal population to become intersterile with its ancestors.

Of course, this would mean that there should be fossil evidence of various intermediate stages between successful species, and there is. Naturally, creationists explain all of the evidence away by pointing the finger at their favourite whipping boy: the global conspiracy of evil scientists, who work tirelessly to cover up the truth and fabricate false evidence. These people watch "X-Files" too damned much.

"I know we've observed micro-evolution, but what about macro-evolution? There is no evidence for macro-evolution!"

The creationist invention of the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" is a good example of how they try to mutilate the terms of science to their own advantage. Biologists do not differentiate between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, any more than mathematicians differentiate between micro-addition and macro-addition.

Their argument that there is no evidence for "macroevolution" is ridiculous because "macroevolution" is simply the result of adding a lot of "microevolution" together, and "microevolution" is, by their own admission, completely supported by various forms of evidence.

The other problem for this argument is that there actually is evidence to directly support what they describe as "macroevolution", and it's called "the fossil record". It's evidence because it is consistent with prediction. Of course, that's not enough for the creationists- they demand direct observation of massive evolutionary change in living animals, even though they know that we would have to observe living animals for millions of years in order to obtain the evidence they seek. Can you see the problem with this demand? It's pretty obvious- they are deliberately asking for a form of evidence which is impossible to obtain (millions of years of direct observation), and ignoring a form of evidence (the fossil record) which is relatively easy to obtain.

The universe operates on tiny processes, affecting tiny particles, which add up in tremendous numbers to cause large changes. If someone is going to claim that a slow, steady process cannot create large-scale changes given sufficient time, he had better provide some evidence and reasoning, rather than simply stating it as a fact and demanding impossible forms of evidence to disprove it. Are we to assume that all gradual processes eventually hit "brick walls" and stop, for mysterious and unknown reasons?

Do we question tectonic plate theory on the basis that we've observed small-scale tectonic plate movement but not large-scale tectonic plate movement? Do we insist that no one should believe in tectonic plate theory until we've been able to observe it for millions of years, so we can see long-distance movements firsthand? Do we deny the possibility of large-scale rock erosion because we've only seen small scale rock erosion? Why would a gradual process like tectonic plate movement, rock erosion, or evolution suddenly stop after an arbitrary length of time? What would make it stop? Why make this ridiculous distinction between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution?" Where is the line drawn between the two? What causes the barrier? These are questions that the creationists don't attempt to ask or answer, because like O.J. Simpson's defense lawyers, they're not serious about uncovering the truth. They just want to create "reasonable doubt" in the minds of a gullible audience.

The "microevolution vs macroevolution" argument is an example of creationists projecting their own mentality onto evolution, and then attacking the resulting strawman, ironically, for the very aspects that come from creationism. Creationism describes separate and distinct species: "each according to its kind". Creationists therefore make the same assumption: species are separate, indivisible, and disconnected. When they project this mentality onto evolution, they run into an obvious problem: there is no way for the process of evolution to "jump" over the invisible "barrier" between species. The problem is that they are assuming that this barrier exists! The terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are not found in biology; they are creationist inventions. Gradual changes eventually add up, and can turn one species into two, or they can cause a species to change so much that it becomes a distinct species from its predecessors.

As a thought experiment, consider human beings. It is generally assumed that any male/female pair of healthy human beings can produce children. But biological reproduction is a complex process, and it requires great genetic commonality. We know that two modern human beings can produce children, but what about a modern woman and a man from ten thousand years ago? What about a modern woman and a man from fifty thousand years ago? Is there still enough genetic commonality? Species are not delineated by distinct, clear boundaries. Rather, they are defined by intersterility and overt physical characteristics, and there is no "barrier" between species for the process of evolution to hurdle.

[Doctor Stochastic]

The Univac 1101 was the thirteenth machine design in that series. Followed by 1102, 1103....

[medved]

Basic reality, you look at any sort of a real river which is more than a mile wide, the Volga, Amazon... and you expect it to be shallow, at least at the edges. I mean, you don't expect to take three steps into the Volga and then go straight down 1500'. Nonetheless, that's precisely what you see on the edges of the Grand Canyon, is this unbelievable vertical drop of 1500 or 2000 feet, sharp pristine edges everywhere you look mesas which would have been 2000' below the surface with sharp, pristine edges and features everywhere... Rivers just don't do that sort of thing. Moreover the topology of the river is basically fractal, with sinuous rills just everywhere and thousands of micro-tributaries if you want to call them that; you don't see that sort of thing with real rivers.

Basic bottom line, the Grand Canyon was blasted straight out of the rock by a fantastic electrical discharge between this planet and some other cosmic body, a comet, asteroid, or another planet, and most of the material from the canyon was either vaporized or blasted straight out into space. Real interesting spectacle, but you'd have wanted to watch from a considerable distance...

[Heartlander]

False. Odds are not products of probabilities.

Please explain…

Selection creates dependencies.

Sir, with all due respect, I believe your argument to be dependencies create selection.

[Junior]

Number one, the river is wearing away at the rock -- at no point was the river 2000 feet deep; it may have only been 20 feet deep, but over the years the water wore away at the rock and the canyon formed. Also, the river bed changed course numerous times over millions of years, causing the various channels to be cut. One need not postulate any other mechanism than water erosion and time.

[Virginia-American]

it seems to me that what we have is a designer who used some parts of his "building blocks" in different places with as far as evolutionary theory goes no sense at all

Seems to you based on what? Where are the chimeras?

so if both man and chimp have it, then the other apes should have it too

Please explain, I don't see this at all.

[Aquinasfan]

Ah yes. Clearly if one doesn't know everything then one doesn't know anything.

Although there doesn't exist any fossil evidence for variation by small mutation, proponents of evolution can usually come up with a story to explain the developmental stages of any particular creature. In the case of the woodpecker's tongue, they can't even come up with a remotely plausible story.

The historical evidence for evolution also shows a remarkable sequence of misrepresentations or outright frauds, which I've highlighted. (All of these "scientific facts" were taught ot me in 10th grade biology in the late '70s, and I'm not very happy about being lied to)

* The Miller-Urey Experiment: evolutionists claim that it demonstrated the emergence of primitive life from Earth’s early atmosphere. Wells shows why, for at least a decade, most geochemists have been convinced it did nothing of the sort.

* Darwin’s "Tree of Life," showing the branching of species from a common ancestor: supposedly reconstructed from a large and growing body of fossil and molecular evidence, it has actually been "uprooted and turned upside down" by the evidence

* Similiar bone structures in vertebrate limbs (e.g., a bat's wing, a porpoise's flipper, a horse's leg, a human hand): Darwinists claim they indicate origin in a common ancestor -- but Wells points out the faulty logic underlying this claim, and the gaping hole in the theory built around it

* "Haeckel's embryos": evolutionists use these famous drawings of similarities in early embryos to argue that amphibians, reptiles, birds and humans are all descended from a fish-like animal, and that embryonic development "recapitulates" the stages of evolution. Trouble is, Wells easily proves, the drawings are fakes, misrepresenting the embryos the purport to show! (And they're deceptive in another crucial sense, too)

* Archaeopteryx, a fossil bird with teeth in its jaws and claws on its wings: for over a century, Darwinists have called this the "missing link" between ancient reptiles and modern birds, and "unimpeachable" evidence for evolution. But Wells demonstrates that "paleontologists now agree that Archaeopteryx is not the ancestor of modern birds, and its own ancestors are the subject of one of the most heated controversies in science. The missing link, it seems, is still missing."

* Peppered moths on tree trunks: most textbooks illustrate natural selection with photographs of the two varieties of peppered moths resting on light- and dark-colored tree trunks. But Wells explains why "biologists have known since the 1980s that the classical story has some serious flaws" -- beginning with the fact that peppered moths in the wild don't even rest on tree trunks, and that the textbook photos have been staged!

* "Darwin's finches" on the Galapagos Islands: legend has it that they were instrumental in helping Darwin to formulate his theory of evolution, and that field observations in the 1970s provided evidence for the theory by showing how natural selection affects the birds' beaks. Both claims are patently false, Wells demonstrates

* Four-winged fruit flies: Wells explains why they're "no better than a two-headed calf in a circus sideshow" for proving that genetic mutations supply the raw materials for evolution. Why, then, has it become popular to feature them in textbooks and public presentations defending Darwin's theory? Because they help conceal a deeper problem with the evidence

* A "branching tree" pattern of horse fossils: since the '50s, Darwinists have campaigned to replace the old "linear" icon of horse evolution -- which suggested that evolution may have been "directed" by some supernatural or internal agency -- with this one. But, as Wells shows, the new icon isn't an inference from the evidence, but an imposition of materialist philosophy on it

* From Ape to Human: a series of drawings showing a knuckle-walking ape evolving through a series of intermediate forms into an upright human being. Wells calls this "the ultimate icon" of evolution, and shows why the pitifully meager "evidence" for it lends itself to interpretations that are "heavily influenced by personal beliefs and prejudices"

Then there are the other fraudulent "fossils" like Nebraska Man and Piltdown Man.

[Aquinasfan]

Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution.

1. ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth -- when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?

2. DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor -- thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

3. HOMOLOGY. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry -- a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?

4. VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry -- even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?

5. ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds -- even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?

6. PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection -- when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?

7. DARWIN'S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection -- even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?

8. MUTANT FRUIT FLIES. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution -- even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?

9. HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident -- when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?

10. EVOLUTION A FACT? Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact -- even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?

[medved]

2. DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor -- thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

A magazine cover article a few years back was titled something like "The Big-Bang of Evolution (the Cambrian Explosion)" as if that somehow or other wasn't an oxymoron. Kind of like "the big sex orgy of chastity" or some such.

[Lev]

False. Odds are not products of probabilities.

Please explain...

What are the chances that a randomly chosen voter voted for Bush? About 1/2. What are the chances a voter is fiscally conservative? About 1/2. What are the chances a voter voted for Bush AND is fiscally conservative? The answer is not 1/4.

[medved]

Aside from the basic impossibility of a 20-mile-wide river wearing its edges straight downward 1500', there is also the problem of the mesas. Since the mesas would have been worn glassy smooth had they ever been under water, a person claiming the river created the canyon also has to believe that God or Chuck Darwin or somebody created the mesas AFTER the river had worn the canyon down to its present river bed. Pretty far fetched.

[Heartlander]

odds [odz ] plural noun

1. chances of something happening: the likelihood or probability that something will occur, sometimes expressed as a ratio such as 10 to 1 The odds are that you'll never make it.

Note: the statement 'the odds are that you'll never make it' was an actual part of the definition. What are the odds?!

[f.Christian]

One need not postulate any other mechanism than water erosion and time.

You never saw--heard of a drying--shrinking crack? Ever see one in mud??

One need not postulate any other mechanism than water erosion and time---

...you believe that?

Is that how you learn--think--teach..."one need not"?

No wonder you believe this evolution infantile nonsense---garbage!

[Lev]

Do you agree that product of probabilities is not always the answer?

[Doctor Stochastic]

This is not the place for a discussion of elementary probability theory. You should take a good college course in introductory probability theory. There are also sites on the Web that have good explanations.

Short explanation: odds for are the ratio of "favorable" cases to "unfavorable" caes (odds against is the reciprocal). Probability is the ration of "favorable" cases to total cases. For example in flipping a fair coin, the probability of getting heads is 1/2 but the odds of getting heads is 1/1. On an ordinary die, the probability of throwing an ace is 1/6 but the odds against are 5/1.

[Doctor Stochastic]

The lack of fulgurites would seem to be evidence against an electrical event.

[Junior]

Dunno about that.

From Grand Canyon Explorer:

 

Prior to about 35 million years ago the ancestral Colorado River flowed across a vast plain, along a course very similar to that of today.

 

---

When the Kaibab Plateau began to uplift approximately 35 million years ago the river was diverted to the southeast because it could not cross newly created barrier. The new course for the river now flowed out to the Gulf of Mexico instead of to the Pacific Ocean. The old course on west side of the Kaibab Plateau, the Hualapai Drainage System, continued to be a major drainage for the plateau itself and the regions west of it.

 

---

At some point around 12 million years ago, the river's course to the Gulf of Mexico became blocked and an enormous lake, know referred to as Lake Bidahochi, was formed as a result.

 

---

Meanwhile, on the western side of the Kaibab Plateau, a process known as "headwater erosion" began eating its way through the southern portion of the plateau. After millions of years this erosional process allowed the Hualapai system to break through the barrier created by the uplifted plateau and rejoin the ancestral Colorado.

 

---

Once the break-through was complete the ancestral Colorado River began to follow the new course becuase of its steeper and more desirable descent. The waters of Lake Bidahochi began to drain through the new course as well and the result is the gorge through which the Little Colorado River now flows. The combined flow of the Colorado River and the Little Colorado River west of their confluence continued to widen and deepen the course and created the Grand Canyon.

 

---

After Lake Bidahochi was drained the space that it once occupied was replaced by the Little Colorado River drainage system.

This seems to imply that water erosion and 35 million years is more than sufficient to work the magic we call the Grand Canyon.

[VadeRetro]

I asked you about the Gorge of the Brahmaputra. It bisects the Himalayas before dumping into the Bay of Bengal.

What's faster, water erosion or the tectonic raising of the landscape? Answer: water erosion, always.

Say a pre-existing river cuts right across where a tectonic compression is raising a mountain ridge. The rising of the land dams the water a bit. You get a bit of a lake, with a natural spillway in the old riverbed where the water flows over the rising hump.

The downstream side of the hump wears away faster than the river bottom upstream or downstream. What happens? The "spillway" erodes back to the "lake" and it all gives out with a big rush.

You can see this sort of thing everywhere. In the Sweetwater Valley, which I visited to reseach a book, there's a spectacular cut through a ridge of bare rock.

Note that, if the ridge is there before the river forms, the river channel simply forms in such a way to go around the ridge and that's that.

The Grand Canyon is not a problem for mainstream science. It's a problem for all the psychoceramics who would like to explain it any other way.

[Heartlander]

Gentlemen,

Empirical data is used in genetics to compute probabilities all the time. It is interesting that you sight gambling to dispute the probabilities posed above. Evolution is just a big gamble after all and it continues to try it’s luck on different machines all the time – but the house wins.

The article that these posts are supposed to be based upon even site a probabilities link. It doesn’t work though – what are the chances?…

[VadeRetro]

When the Kaibab Plateau began to uplift approximately 35 million years ago the river was diverted to the southeast because it could not cross newly created barrier.

Live and learn. I didn't think tectonic forces ever won the race against water erosion.

But, as someone will no doubt quickly point out, I'm just a dilettante here.

(But that someone has a question or two of his own to answer.)

[Junior]

Just to doublecheck the numbers, you've put the average depth of the Grand Canyon at 2000 feet (I've heard some section are as much as a mile deep, but 2000 feet sounds like a good average). Over 35,000,000 years the river would only have to wear an average of 0.017 mm of rock per year -- thinner than a sheet of paper. It seems to me that natural water erosion should be more than sufficient to account for the canyon we see today. Your theory is interesting and all, but it lacks any evidence of a static electrical discharge (fused sand, etc.) necessary to corroborate it; and without that evidence the other hypothesis (water erosion), which does have evidence supporting it, appears to be the best explanation for the canyon we have.