Evolutionism's appeal to junk science

[UTEOTW]

More junk.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/refuting-sg.PDF

Quote "Human lysozyme is closer to chicken lysozyme than to that of any other mammal."

Would be interesting if true.

Actually human is identical to chimpanzee lysozyme. Harder to be closer than identical.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Bob,

"Wonderful! Then please begin by working through the problem that Isaac Asimov has created for evolutionists in the post above."

It seems that "entropy" and "Asimov" have become buzzwords in this argument against evolution - and 99% of creationists have no concept of what they are arguing! (I'm not saying this applies to you...)

Asimov, I believe, said that the energy from the sun provided ability for increasing complexity of life. As such the earth is not a "closed system" and the argument based on (misunderstanding of) the second law of thermodynamics falls apart.

I have never claimed to be an evolutionist - but I believe in learning and inquiring. Deciding that one is against evolution or against an old earth and THEN doing the research does not produce viable arguments.

I think it would be wonderful if ALL the science pointed to a young earth - but it doesn't, no matter how much we want it to!

I also don't believe in feeding these laughable arguments to young believers, telling them to put their faith in them, knowing that any of them with intelligence or real understanding of science will see right through them!!

 

[Brett]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Brett,

R and S refer to the ordering groups attached to the central atom - this is the Cahn Ingold Prelog system. This has nothing to do with rotation of light.

Sure it does. If the S enatniomer of a molecule rotates polarized light x degrees, then the R enantiomer will reflect polarized light -x degrees. Or am I wrong?

 

[Charles Meadows]

Brett,

(+) and (-) are used to describe rotation of light. This has replaced the old D and L prefix system.

R and S refer specifically to the ordering (according to the Cahn Ingold Prelog scheme) of groups about a chiral center; their relation to light rotation is random.

Your last statement however is correct. If the R enantiomer rotates light at 15 degrees then the S enantiomer will rotate light at -15 degrees. The relationship is random however. We have no idea how a particular R enantiomer of a molecule will rotate light until we determine it empirically (or use a table!).

 

[UTEOTW]

And then there is the whole issue of quote mining. Maybe an example is in order.

From http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/phylo/phylo.htm

"Undeniably, the fossil record has provided disappointingly few gradual series. The origins of many groups are still not documented at all." (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 190-191)

Sounds bad, doesn't it. But let's give the full quote.

Contrary to Creationist claims, the transitions among vertebrate species are almost all documented to a greater or lesser extent. Archeopteryx is an exquisite link between reptiles and birds; the therapsids provide an abundance of evidence for the transition from reptiles to mammals. Moreover, there are exquisite fossil links between the crossopterygian fishes and the amphibians (the icthyostegids). Of course, many other ancestor-descendent series also exist in the fossil record. I have mentioned (Chapter 4) the bactritid-ammonoid transition, the derivation of several mammalian orders from condylarthlike mammals, the evolution of horses, and of course the hominids. Undeniably, the fossil record has provided disappointingly few gradual series. The origins of many groups are still not documented at all. But in view of the rapid pace evolution can take, and the extreme incompleteness of fossil deposits, we are fortunate to have as many transitions as we do. The creationist argument that if evolution were true we should have an abundance of intermediate fossils is built by denying the richness of paleontological collections, by denying the transitional series that exist, and by distorting, or misunderstanding, the genetical theory of evolution.

Changes the meaning a bit, doesn't it?

 

[UTEOTW]

How about another?

http://www.evolutionisdead.com/quotes.php?QID=297&cr=58

"Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 95)

Oh no. It sounds like there might not be the plethora of transitionals as we were led to believe. Maybe solace will be found in the full quote.

Superb fossil data have recently been gathered from deposits of early Cenozoic Age in the Bighorn Basin of Wyoming. These deposits represent the first part of the Eocene Epoch, a critical interval when many types of modern mammals came into being. The Bighorn Basin, in the shadow of the Rocky Mountains, received large volumes of sediment from the Rockies when they were being uplifted, early in the Age of Mammals. In its remarkable degree of completeness, the fossil record here for the Early Eocene is unmatched by contemporary deposits exposed elsewhere in the world. The deposits of the Bighorn Basin provide a nearly continuous local depositional record for this interval, which lasted some five million years. It used to be assumed that certain populations of the basin could be linked together in such a way as to illustrate continuous evolution. Careful collecting has now shown otherwise. Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time. David M. Schankler has recently gathered data for about eighty mammal species that are known from more than two stratigraphic levels in the Bighorn Basin. Very few of these species existed for less than half a million years, and their average duration was greater than a million years.

Oh, so the author was talking about a specific geographic location, and not the fossil record in general.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Contrary to Creationist claims, the transitions among vertebrate species are almost all documented to a greater or lesser extent. Archeopteryx is an exquisite link between reptiles and birds;

Changes the meaning a bit, doesn't it? </font>[/QUOTE]Hmmm. EVOLUTIONISTS THEMSELVES claim that "Archeopteryx is a TRUE BIRD".

AND they claim that this TRUE BIRD is a perfect example of their TRANSITION between reptiles and birds!!!

This is "Junk Science exhibit 3"

Thank you for reminding us UTEOTW!

This is one for the files.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:

"Wonderful! Then please begin by working through the problem that Isaac Asimov has created for evolutionists in the post above."

It seems that "entropy" and "Asimov" have become buzzwords in this argument against evolution - and 99% of creationists have no concept of what they are arguing! (I'm not saying this applies to you...)

Asimov, I believe, said that the energy from the sun provided ability for increasing complexity of life. As such the earth is not a "closed system" and the argument based on (misunderstanding of) the second law of thermodynamics falls apart.

I have never claimed to be an evolutionist - but I believe in learning and inquiring.

Excellent! I find that evolutionists "remain as such" by dumping critical thinking and objective thought when it comes to reason and logic. I therefore have great hope that you will see the obvious point in this argument above.

Asimov DOES NOT argue that "we do NOT see increased entropy in human biological systems BECAUSE the sun is shining" in the quote I provided.

Though you have stated the point well in your summary of it -- that this is what evolutionists "NEEDED" to have him print.

INSTEAD of making THAT case - Asimov admitted that in the LOCAL view - we SEE INCREASED entropy at the local INDIVIDUAL human biological system level.

This is the VERY point where he was "supposed" to say "OH NO WE DON't! and the reason we don't is because the sun shines so bright".

Get it?

To prop-up the evolutionist "story" here he was supposed to tow the party line and claim that in fact we DO observe DECREASED entropy at the LOCAL -- individual level.

(This just isn't that hard to get).

Asimov DOES admit to the "story" that evolutionism tells - which is that we might have hoped to SEE decreased entropy (in fact MASSIVE decreased entropy) at the LOCAL level for molecule-to-human-brain evolution to occur. And he tells us that this hope is based on the notion that thermal reactions in the sun would counter-balance and allow for us to SEE DECREASED entropy in local human biological systems.

But when he actually LOOKS at those systems - he says we SEE INCREASED entropy and that "This is what the 2nd law is ALL about"

The case could not BE more devastating to what evolutionism "needed".

Notice that ALL the evolutionist retorts are of the form "WE should expect to see the NEEDED DECREASE in entropy at the local level since we have the thermal reactions in the sun to counter balance them".

Given that insight into the debate - read Asimovs damaging statement again - notice how it applies?

Another way of stating the second law then is, 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!' Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty.

How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself - and that is what the second law is all about."


[Isaac Asimov, "In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can't Even Break Even", Smithsonian Institution Journal (June 1970), p. 6 (emphasis added).]

In Christ,

Bob

 

[The Galatian]

Perhaps we could cut to the chase and have Mr. Ryan tell us what process required for evolution is prohibited by the 2nd Law, and show us the required math.

I suspect that we won't see this happen, but who knows?

The floor is yours, Bob.

 

[BobRyan]

Thanks for that post Galatian -- Sorta reminds me of this one...

From Page 2

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Now -- seeking an evolutionist to give an honest reply that shows an ounce of critical thinking and objective independent thought on this point.

Don't you find it "odd" that all the evolutionist posts addressing the point above are of the form

Please explain to me why Asimov is correct?

I don't understand how he can claim that entropy is ALL ABOUT the local INCREASE in entropy seen in all biological systems!!

How can Asimov be correct?

Please somebody explain it to me - otherwise it is a YEC trick to get me to accept good science just because good science agrees with scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

On the other hand - maybe a contrast between what is "observed" (as we see above) and what is "needed by evolutionism" is in order.

Maybe that is the question Galatian is asking about.

Evolutionist desperate to embrace any-old contradiction with good science in the hopes of salvaging the doctrines of evolutionism will quickly leap to another statement of Asimov in the above document to a more junk-science approach that denies the local entropy examples above – that we actually SEE in nature..

"Life on earth has steadily grown more complex, more versatile, more elaborate, more orderly over the billions of years of the planet's existence

....
How could that vast increase in order (and therefore the vast decrease in entropy) have taken place? The answer is it could not have taken place without a tremendous source of energy constantly bathing the earth, for it is on that energy that life subsists
....
In the billions of years that it took for the human brain to develop, the increase in entropy that took place in the sun was far greater: far, far greater than the decrease that is represented by the evolution required to develop the human brain."
Ibid.

Here Asimov contrasts the massive DECREASE in entropy “needed” by evolutionism’s “stories” -- with that INCREASE in entropy in the LOCAL systems that he just admitted to.

He also gives us some detail on the junk-science proposals needed to prop up evolution in light of the contrast between what we SEE in nature, in local human biological systems and what evolutionism NEEDS us to see.

But here again Asimov holds the line insisting that increasing order in biological systems IS in fact a DECREASE in entropy. How awful for evolutionism’s faithful! This argument was supposed to be for “stupid Christians” – but Asimov will not let it go.

Evolutionist “have been claiming” that only a stupid Christian would say that evolution of biological systems has anything at all to do with entropy.

The “hopeful monster” that evolutionists offer us today is that the fact that the sun shines – is “enough” to account for molecule-to-mankind popping up anywhere in the solar system.

Their argument is in effect – “all that sun hinning should stop all cars from rusting as a result of entropy for the sun shining MORE than compensates for the decrease in entropy needed to preserve the cars.”

In Christd,

Bob

 

[The Galatian]

In other words, Bob can't think of a one? Not even one such process?

If you can't give us even one process required for evolution that is ruled out by the 2nd law, why should we believe that one exists?

If you every figure one out, let us know. In the meantime, we will have to conclude your assertion is false, on lack of evidence.

 

[The Galatian]

BTW, one of the founders of thermodynamics was a man named Boltzmann. He was the first to be able to actually measure entropy as a physical phenomenon.

He was a supporter of Darwin.

Do you think perhaps he knew something about entropy that Bob does not?

For one thing, he could actually calculate entropy. It appears that Bob doesn't even know what it is.

For another thing, he actually knew what processes are involved in evolution. And again, it appears that Bob does not.

 

[Gup20]

Sounds fishy to me. Shannon (the person who established information theory) was an evolutionist.

Shannon makes a very big mistake, however. In that theory of information, it does not matter if the information has any semantic aspect, but rather significance is given to something improbably or new.

To put it simply, in shannon's theory garbage and non-sense can be given greater priority than something meaningful if it's appearance is less likely.

See the following for a proper definition of information: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i2/information.asp

Information can be loosely defined as specified complexity.

Sure you do. Happens all the time. All that's needed is a duplicate copy of a gene, and one mutates. Presto. Increase in information.

Actually, what you have described is not an increase of information. It is an increase in the quantity of THE SAME INFOMATION minus a portion.

If I write a book, make a copy of it, then tear out 2 pages (a gene duplicates itself and then one copy mutates) how much additional information has been gained? None. We simply have more of the same information.

Easiest is radiometric testing. It can very accurately show that the earth is very ancient. One of the people who's done a great deal of work on the age of the Earth. He debunks some creationist myths, here

As I have stated before, I have debated Dr. Meert before, and I wasn't the least bit convinced by his arguments. The fact remains that all radiometric dating processes rely on unprovable assumptions in order to arrive at a conclusion.

I would like to see any evidence for a mile-deep canyon dug out of soft sediment like sand dunes in less than a million years.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i4/canyon.asp

5,280 feet in a mile? This 120ft canyon took 6 days (now that's literal days, remember). That's 20 feet per day... so in 4,000 years (approx time since the flood) there have been 1,460,000 days... so at the rate of the Burlingame Canyon the canyon could be a theoretical maximum of almost 3 million feet deep - which is 5530 miles.

Now instead imagine the force and weight of enough water to cover the entire continent of North America running off the continent as the the sea floors lowered and the continents raised up. Imagine enough water to cover the entire continent running off in about a years time, and what kind of Canyon that much water could cut. Probably more than 20 feet per day. The Grand Canyon suddenly looks extremely possible.

They did entrenched meanders in underwater lab experiements? I'd like to see that one.

I've see a few of those "sudden canyons", and none of them look anything like the features found in the Grand Canyon. That's because they can't form in a brief time.

Tell me about the sudden canyons, and we'll see how they stack up.

Many scientists are starting to realize (even secular scientists) that such events as meanders are possible in catestrophic geologic formations.

You can see from the article from AiG I posted that the Burlingame Canyon has similar layering as does the Grand Canyon.

Also see http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i4/canyon.asp

No, that's wrong. It uses evidence. We know, for example, precise half-lives for varous isotopes, and we can test for diffusion, existing daughter elements and so on, by using various methods. Do you understand why isochrons make assumptions about the original rock unnecessary?

However you must assume how much start product was there to begin with, you must assume that there has been no contamination of the rock (in an evolutionist case that would be over millions of years), and you must assume the rate of decay has always been the same.

In fact, there have been studies to show that billion fild rates of decay above what we normally see is possible. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0321acc_beta_decay.asp

Turns out that there is. Recently a known flow was tested with a method able to guage such short time spans. It worked fine.

Funny how evolutionist dating always seems to give the exact dates the pre-suppositions going into the calculations predict.

I especially enjoyed this telling statement:

"We nailed the date to five percent on our first attempt, so we could probably get the error down to one percent or less," Renne says.

The result is so amazing because every dating technique invokes assumptions or involves uncertainties that limit its ability to pinpoint dates with extreme precision. With carbon-14, for example, the changing ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in the atmosphere over time puts a limitation on how precise a date can be established."

Clearly, it is uncommon to find the 'date you are looking for' on the first try with radiometric dating. But, as any good evoltionist/old earther does, they try try again until the numbers they were looking for are found.

Also telling is the admission that all dating methods are based on assumptions.

Another telling sentence is ""Dating things that are really young has always been the Holy Grail of potassium-argon and argon-argon dating," Renne says". Clearly, there have been no reliable methods for dating young rocks, and as I said... if all rocks are young rocks (as the Bible asserts), there is no reliable way to date them. Surely, once they finally develope a way of reliabel dating young rocks, all rocks (including those already tested and dated to millions of years) would have to be re-tested with a reliable, provable method.


As to the question of Entropy - I do have a question. Most of the time many argue that the earth is an open system (due to the SUN) therefore biological systems are not quite as effected by entropy. However, from the perspective that we are all christians - the Bible says that the first life on earth (plants) formed before the Sun was created. Is there any scenario in evolutionary science where life can perpetuate or decrease in entropy (aka 'evolve') on earth without our Sun?

 

[Gup20]

Nope. We see that new "information" is gained. One way is through the duplication and then mutation of an existing gene into something new. Maybe you missed my examples and references to abstracts on this above. I'll repeat

This is not an increase in information .... this is an increase in the quantity of the same information.

Regarding serine proteases and hemoglobin. These are parts of extremely complex multi-part sytems. The information for the whole system would have needed to arise at once for there to be function. This is a statistical impossibility. Evolution says that vestigial systems use up resources in the stages of having no function. In order for the creatures to have survived, they would have needed to mutate slowly, building mutation upon mutation. By the very definition of natural selection, those with unuseful systems would be more succeptable to demise. Until the 'full multi-part system' arose, that creature would likely be at a disadvantage and be selected out.

The similarity of some genes of this family across great ranges of species is also a good piece of evidence for the common descent of all life on earth.

Or simply that they all had the same designer. If I look at the range of the SAAB automobile line, I see many similarities as well, but that is not evidence that one car can magically morph into another.


Regarding your example of the Hemoglobin C, I would imagine that this is the same as most other high tolerances to disease. Usually, it is the destruction of receptors or mechanisms for contracting illness. For example, in many cases of anti-biotic strains of bacteria this novel ability to resist the anti-biotic stems from the loss of the ability to properly absorb nutrients, thereby causing the organism to be unabel to take in the poison that would kill it. In the same mannor I suppose (without further detailed information in this specific case) a loss of information has lead to this appearant novel ability. Most genetic mutations that cause a seemingly positive effect can be seen to follow this pattern... a loss of information leads to the inability of the host to function normally, thereby protecting them from harm. However, the important thing is that is is a loss of specified complexity, not a gain. This is in essence de-evolution, not evolution.

There is a gene, CKR5, in which a mutant version appears in some people of European ancestry. This mutated gene makes it more difficult or impossible for HIV to infect the persons cells, depending on which type of mutation the individual has.

This is another perfect example of what I was just talking about. People with this mutated gene have essentially lost the receptor cells that HIV attack. While it does have the benefit of protecting them from HIV, it is a loss of information and de-evolution. It's like taking 3 steps back in order to take one step forward.

 

[The Galatian]

Barbarian observes:
Sounds fishy to me. Shannon (the person who established information theory) was an evolutionist.

Shannon makes a very big mistake, however. In that theory of information, it does not matter if the information has any semantic aspect, but rather significance is given to something improbably or new.

To put it simply, in shannon's theory garbage and non-sense can be given greater priority than something meaningful if it's appearance is less likely.

I'd be pleased to see the numbers on your theory of information, and a demonstration of why it's more accuratet than Shannon's.

Show your work.

See the following for a proper definition of information: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i2/information.asp

Information can be loosely defined as specified complexity.

Define "specified complexity" and show us how to measure it. If you use a personal definition of "information" like "specified complexity", you'll have to give us a good demonstration of how you apply it.

Barbarian on the way information increase happens in geneomes:
Sure you do. Happens all the time. All that's needed is a duplicate copy of a gene, and one mutates. Presto. Increase in information.

Actually, what you have described is not an increase of information. It is an increase in the quantity of THE SAME INFOMATION minus a portion.

Wrong. If you have two copies of the same gene, you have only the information for one enzyme. If one mutates, then you have information for two.

Two is, last time I checked, more than one.

If I write a book, make a copy of it, then tear out 2 pages (a gene duplicates itself and then one copy mutates) how much additional information has been gained? None.

That's not what happens in such cases. It would be like a printer that accidentally set up one page twice, and then changed the words on one of the pages. That would be an increase in information. Two identical genes... one enzyme. One normal, and one mutated gene, two enzymes. Increase in information.

Barbarian observes:
Easiest is radiometric testing. It can very accurately show that the earth is very ancient. One of the people who's done a great deal of work on the age of the Earth. He debunks some creationist myths, here
http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/credocs.htm

As I have stated before, I have debated Dr. Meert before, and I wasn't the least bit convinced by his arguments.

Imagine that. However, everyone who wonders what science has to say about the age of the Earth would profit from checking out the link. Dr. Meert has set up a very readable and complete explanation of what geologists have discovered about the Earth and its history.

The fact remains that all radiometric dating processes rely on unprovable assumptions in order to arrive at a conclusion.

No, that's wrong, too. Isochrons elminate the need for such assumptions.

Barbarian observes:
I would like to see any evidence for a mile-deep canyon dug out of soft sediment like sand dunes in less than a million years.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i4/canyon.asp

120 feet is not even close to a mile. Sorry.

5,280 feet in a mile? This 120ft canyon took 6 days (now that's literal days, remember). That's 20 feet per day... so in 4,000 years (approx time since the flood) there have been 1,460,000 days... so at the rate of the Burlingame Canyon the canyon could be a theoretical maximum of almost 3 million feet deep - which is 5530 miles.

So, if I can build a 3 foot house of cards in two hours, I can build a 300 foot one in 200 hours? No, that's wrong. You see, soft sediment can only erode so far with steep walls before it slumps. I've see some of those small canyons at Mt. St. Helens and others, and none of it looks remotely like the Grand Canyon. And they only get a few tens of meters high, before they slump and are destroyed. You've been taken for a ride.

Now instead imagine the force and weight of enough water to cover the entire continent of North America running off the continent as the the sea floors lowered and the continents raised up.

If you're right, there should be Canyons like the Grand Canyon everywhere. But it only happens in places where there is gradual uplift over many millions of years. There is no way for a sudden rush of water to make an entrenched meander. It's physically impossible.

Imagine enough water to cover the entire continent running off in about a years time, and what kind of Canyon that much water could cut. Probably more than 20 feet per day.

A lot more than that, if it was soft flood sediment. But that wouldn't explain how a desert or forests had time to form between the layers that were supposedly laid down by a single flood. Nor does it explain how meanders could have suddenly formed, nor does it explain how such canyons are only found in places that are undergoing uplift, and not in others.

The Grand Canyon suddenly looks extremely possible.

It has a probability of 1.0. But as the evdidence shows, it formed extremely slowly.

Barbarian observes:
They did entrenched meanders in underwater lab experiements? I'd like to see that one.

I've see a few of those "sudden canyons", and none of them look anything like the features found in the Grand Canyon. That's because they can't form in a brief time.

Tell me about the sudden canyons, and we'll see how they stack up.

Many scientists are starting to realize (even secular scientists) that such events as meanders are possible in catestrophic geologic formations.

I'd sure like to see one. Show me one of your sudden canyons with an entrenched meander.

You can see from the article from AiG I posted that the Burlingame Canyon has similar layering as does the Grand Canyon.

No entrenched meanders? No deserts or forests, in the middle of the depostits? Imagine that.

Barbarian on radiometric dating:
No, that's wrong. It uses evidence. We know, for example, precise half-lives for varous isotopes, and we can test for diffusion, existing daughter elements and so on, by using various methods. Do you understand why isochrons make assumptions about the original rock unnecessary?

However you must assume how much start product was there to begin with,

Nope. You've been misled.
http://www.onafarawayday.com/Radiogenic/Ch5/Ch5-1.htm

you must assume that there has been no contamination of the rock (in an evolutionist case that would be over millions of years),

That's testable. We can measure diffusion rates.

and you must assume the rate of decay has always been the same.

Physicists can test that, too. And if the rock get hot enough to almost melt, the rate can sometimes change by a tiny fraction. Not enough to affect the results for many billions of years.

In fact, there have been studies to show that billion fild rates of decay above what we normally see is possible.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0321acc_beta_decay.asp

That would be rather odd. You see, if that happened, billions of years of radioactivity would have been released in a f

[ July 25, 2004, 02:13 AM: Message edited by: The Galatian ]

 

[Paul of Eugene]

So, Gup20, if one discovers that he must retreat three steps and go one step in another direction, has that one learned something new?

( ) yes

( ) no

Its a rhetorical question. The answer is yes of course. The one new step is new information even if it involves giving up other, bad information.

For that matter, learning that a step was bad and you must take it back is information all by itself, isn't it?

If not, you are perversly describing information.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Hell's canyon on the border of Oregon and Idaho is an excellent example of a canyon formed by a rapid runoff in the past. The Grand Canyon is an excellent example of a canyon formed by gradual erosion over eons of time.

They are very different. I have visited them both. Hell's Canyon has straighter runs and wider cuts for their depth. The difference is striking and obvious to the layman viewing the scene.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Here is a link to a Sattelite image of the Grand Canyon from space:

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/earth/grandcan.gif

Note the feathery details at the various tributaries. The erosion of the canyon has a fractal nature; the same patterns are repeated at finer and finer detail, which makes this canyon so fascinatingly beautiful and spectacular.

This is not the pattern created by a sudden one time runoff of water.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Hmmm. EVOLUTIONISTS THEMSELVES claim that "Archeopteryx is a TRUE BIRD".

AND they claim that this TRUE BIRD is a perfect example of their TRANSITION between reptiles and birds!!!

This is "Junk Science exhibit 3""

Oh Bob, thank you for giving me another opportunity to show the "junk" that passes for "creation science."

We have been through this meany times before, so you know what I am talking about. Archy has dozens of features that it shares with the theropod dinosaurs yet which no extant bird has. YECers must dismiss all of these traits that show a clear connection to the theropod dinosaurs to maintain their denial. How about a few of these?

No bill. This "true bird" does not have a bill.

The trunk vertebra are free while they are fused in biirds.

The pubic shaft is like some theropod dinosaurs but like no birds.

In birds the neck attaches to the skull from the bottom while in Archy and reptiles it attaches from the rear.

The center of it cervical vertebra have simple concave articular facets like some theropods while in birds it is saddle shaped.

Archy has a long tail with many of the vertebra free while birds have short, fused tails.

Oh there is no sense going through all this with you. I have done it several times in the past to no avail. The reader should be able to see the duplicity. Besides, I have one more item to make two more points. YECers are fond of making the following quote from Alan Feduccia, a bird evolution expert. "Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that."

They think this shows that Archaeopteryx is a "true bird." What they fail to give you is the context. In this case, the question was not "is Archy an intermediate?" as they would like you to think. This was a counter to an assertion about 30 years ago that it was nothing more than a flightless reptile. See the difference? If not, let me give one more quote from Feduccia. Below the quote is where AIG continues to use the original quote.

"The creature thus memorialized was Archaeopteryx lithographica, and, though indisputably birdlike, it could with equal truth be called reptilian.... The Archaeopteryx fossil is, in fact, the most superb example of a specimen perfectly intermediate between two higher groups of living organisms--what has come to be called a "missing link," a Rosetta stone of evolution..."

Just more quote mining. And "junk."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4254news3-24-2000.asp