Evolutionism's appeal to junk science

[UTEOTW]

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

Bob, if you look above, you can find where I have explained entropy sufficiently to you. There is not an entropy problem.

If you believe there is, then tell us all what step in evolution entropy prevents and show your math. Until you can do that, it is a waste of bandwidth to discuss this any more with you. You do not even see the answer to your "problem" right there in the Asimov quote.

 

[UTEOTW]

"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"

I have already critiqued this for you. Here was my response, again. To have any additional information for us or is this just more waiting for the answer to get stale and then posting the same thing?

I was really hoping that you could give us the Gup20 summary to show us what you think "information" is but I guess this will have to do.

We'll look at your first link. Gitt is trying to make it look as if he is using Shannon information, yet his third theorem distances himself from Shannon.

"Theorem 3: Since Shannon’s definition of information relates exclusively to the statistical relationship of chains of symbols and completely ignores their semantic aspect, this concept of information is wholly unsuitable for the evaluation of chains of symbols conveying a meaning."

So we are no longer talking about Shannon information. This is key since he is trying to build upon Shannon to make his case. Above, he had stated that "On the basis of Shannon’s information theory, which can now be regarded as being mathematically complete." What good is a mathematically complete theory if you are going to later say that it does not apply? He wants to use the acceptance of Shannon to support his theory while later telling us why Shannon's theory does not apply.

Of course he has to get away from Shannon because Shannon allows for random sequences to be information while Gitt's second sufficient condition says "A sequence of symbols does not represent information if it is based on randomness." His next sentence then contridicts himself by saying "According to G. J. Chaitin, an American informatics expert, randomness cannot, in principle, be proven."

SO he his basing his work on Shannon exept when he is not basing his work on Shannon. And random sequences, which are information in Shannon, are not information for Gitt though he admits that there is not any way to determine if something is truely random or not.

So now we are left with nothing but Gitt's theorems and his necessary and sufficient conditions. He offers no mathematical basis for these theoems. If you will go to http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/what/shannonday/shannon1948.pdf in contrast you will see how Shannon DOES support his position with the mathematics. The whole point of Gitt finally boils down to his tenth theorem "Theorem 10: Each item of information needs, if it is traced back to the beginning of the transmission chain, a mental source (transmitter)." Which by this point, since he has abandoned the mathematical underpinnings when he abandoned Shannon, is nothing more than an unsubstantiated assertion. And a circular one at that since his assertion and his conclusion are the same.

We also have empirical evidence that contradicts this assertion. As I have shown, we can get new "information" through duplication and mutation. I have shown much empirical evidence of cases where this has happened to show that it is not just a theoretical construct. I have also given you plenty of examples of mutations that led to new traits.

 

[The Galatian]

In fact, the first fossil of Archaeopteryx was classified as a reptile, since it had no feather impressions, and had more reptile characteristics than birdlike ones.

That fact alone should be a tip-off.

We often forget that many people have not seen the features of Archaeopteryx. Those interested can go here:
http://www.sauti.de/arch/image013.jpg

Scroll down the page to find skeletons and skull detail of a small theropod dinosaur, Archaeopteryx, and a modern bird.

Worth checking out.

 

[UTEOTW]

I first posted...
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.

Gup responds...

"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. "

Nice out. Doesn't work that way.

Let's say I have the following bit of information: N-O-R-T-H

It gets duplicated: N-O-R-T-H N-O-R-T-H

Now one has a change in a single letter : N-O-R-T-H F-O-R-T-H

It looks like I have a new word and new information, doesn't it?

 

[UTEOTW]

I said...
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.

Gup responds...

"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. "

First, you wanted the canyon in a few days to months, not 4000 years. Also, does not this sound like the kind of uniformitarianism you tell us not to use? Well, I have already responded to this without a furtherresponse from you, so since you post the same thing again, so will I.

Impressive. Let's quote from AIG. "The eroded strata consisted of rather soft sand and clay saturated by the recent rains. The dewatering of the saturated sediments into the now-open ditch enhanced the erosion. The rapidly moving water could both dislodge the particles and carry them down stream, leaving underlying sediments vulnerable to erosion. In total, these six days of runaway ditch erosion removed nearly five million cubic feet of silt, sand, and rock." So, wet sands and clays that were already saturated with water were eroded into a small canyon in a few days. Could you please tell me what the relevence is to the Grand Canyon?

First, you are talking a difference in the volume of about ninety million! So, at these great rates of erosion, it would have taken ... about 1.5 millions years to erode the Grand Canyon. Hmmm.

Second, the Grand Canyon is eroded in rock, including shales, limestones, and sandstones, not soft, wet clay.

Third, let me quote AIG again. "In recent years, scientists have disproved that idea, leaning now on a great volume of water rushing through the area at a high velocity not very long ago which carved the canyon." I think this is a deliberate mistatement. I would like to know who these scientists are and read their papers. Can you direct me to the abstracts or the full, published papers? AIG did not bother to cite any references for that claim. I wonder why?

 

[UTEOTW]

"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. "

Prove it. Show me these secular scientists who say the Grand Canyon was made quickly (or similar). Abstracts are fine.

Burlingame Canyon does not have the same mile high or more shear sides of the Grand Canyon. Soft sediment will not stand up for that. It will collapse.

But since you claim that all the sedimentary rock was laid down at the same time and there was this mass of water running off the continents, why do we not see canyons everywhere?

 

[Gup20]

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?

Indeed, the overall process of evolution is effected by entropy. Moreover, we can see that according to the laws of entropy a system does not increase in order and complexity on it's own. Couple that with the impossibility of matter giving rise to information on it's own, and you can see that the entire process of evolving from goo to zoo to you is quite impossible.

 

[UTEOTW]

"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. "

We have been through this before. Why do you need to know the starting concentration of the isotope that is decaying, we are looking for the ratio of it to the daughter products now?

As far as the daughter products go, you only need to assume that there was not any initially for certain methods. Many do not make this assumption. Isochron dating for instance makes no assumptions about the starting amount of daughter products. And these methods that do not require knowing the initial amount of daughter products have been used to very the methods that do. Scientists are well aware of the potential pitfalls of their methods and how to avoid them. Did you not read my mention above of the guys in Hawaii that went looking for ways to deliberately get the wrong answer? They were learning how to properly select samples.

Geologists are also good at looking at rocks to check for contamination or leaching. We are talking about the insides of solid rock here. Besides, even if they miss something, some of the methods themselves check for contamination or leaching. Isochron dating, for instance, will give a nonsense answer instead of an age if this has occurred.

And if you want to show that decay rates are different, it is up to you to prove this. As I have shown you, we have a very good way of checking decay rates in the past. Supernovae. Light has a finite speed, so looking at the light curves of distant supernova show us that the isotopes were decaying in exactly the same manner and rate. You have also been shown other methods by other people. Was it The Galatian that gave you the information on the natural uranium reactors?

"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 "

Did you read this before you linked it? This was for fully ionized atoms! That is they were heated to such an extreme degree that they lost ALL of their electrons. Are you hypothesizing that this helps you? Just where in the history of the rocks do you think they were fully ionized? Much, much less heat than that needed to ionize them would reset the clocks. Strike!

"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. "

Yes, and as I pointed out, if they were young, you would get nonsense answers. Isochrons would not be in straight lines and the rocks themselves would not be sorted according to their ratios of isotopes. And, as shown, there are methods for dating young rocks.

 

[UTEOTW]

"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."

Prove it. Where are your peer reviewed sources? I must have given you at least a dozen abstracts of new "information" in this manner. For the example of hemoglobin, specifically, the variations in hemoglobin relate largely to different forms used at diferent points in an animal lifecycle or in different situations. Once the initial form developed, it would be possible for the specialized versions to come about to serve a niche role more effectively. The origin of the heme compounds is ancient. Ferrodoxins are the earliest electron-transport system known and likely later evolved into the heme groups in animals.

"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."

Nope. Your logic falls apart when you consisder my full statement. First, these families have almost the exact same sequence for widely varying functions. Do you not think an intelligent designer would have optimized things a little better. Second, there was the detail that I provided. In each three letter codon, the first two positions have much greater effects than the third because of the way the amino acids are coded. So the first two positions are more highly conserved. The pattern of genetic sequences shows that the differences in these families is greatest in the third position of each codon, consistent with them developing through evolution. If they were being copied by a common designer, why would he make meaningless changes throughout the sequence?

"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."

Prove it. It is your assertion.

But in the end, who cares? You are laying all these changes as a loss of "information" even when you have no proof of it. (And sometimes when you have been lied to, like the 70% decrease in efficiency in the Italians claimed by AIG when the abstract I showed you said it was an increase in efficiency plus the anti-oxidant benefit.) In the end, the creatures are more fit and it does not matter if it fits your strained and flawed definiton of "information" or not.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Indeed, the overall process of evolution is effected by entropy. Moreover, we can see that according to the laws of entropy a system does not increase in order and complexity on it's own."

Then tell us what entropy prevents. One step, show your math. That is all we ask.

And a system can decrease its entropy all on its own. I have derived these things for you already. The key equation is G=H-TS. THis shows that systems can sponataneously decrease their entropy. It happens. SOrry.

"Couple that with the impossibility of matter giving rise to information on it's own, and you can see that the entire process of evolving from goo to zoo to you is quite impossible. "

I have already shown you one method of increasing information and many examples from the literature of such increases. You have yet to demonstrate why this does not work other than using a faulty definition of "information."

 

[UTEOTW]

http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/k94.htm

"We're often pointed to the blood serum similarities between the chimpanzee and the human... But if we compare milk chemistry instead of blood serum, it's not the chimpanzee that's the closest [to human's]... it's the donkey that has milk chemistry almost exactly like mother's milk... "

Another distortion.

If you look at human and chimpanzee milk lysozymes you will find that they are identical. If you want to look at some other chemicals, I could not find comparisons for whey and casein with chimps but for monkeys the monkey's chemistry is much closer to humans than donkey's.

 

[UTEOTW]

http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/k94.htm

"We see distinct similarity with the garter snake [relative to cholesterol]... "

This is a meaningless comparison. (They are talking about levels since cholesterol is a simple molecule and should not vary.) The levels of cholesterol vary widely between individual members of a species (What's you level, mine about 190). So this cannot be used to compare. Doesn't stop them from trying...

 

[UTEOTW]

http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/k94.htm

"When it comes to blood antigen A... the butterbean [is most similar to humans]... "

I did not know that butterbeans have blood. Hmmm. Anybody see a problem here?

Now butterbeans do make a glycoprotein that is similar enough to blood antigen A that it can produce an antibody reaction. But the various blood antigens of chimps are all either identical or nearly identical to that of humans.

More "junk" trying to support a young earth.

 

[UTEOTW]

While we are talking about chemistry, Dr. "Dino" Hovind himself said "Well, now, hold it. If you want to just pick one item and that's supposed to prove relationship, did you know that human Cytochrom [sic] C is closest to a sunflower? So really the sunflowers are our closest relative folks."

Now since humans and chimps have identical cyctochrome C, how can the sunflower be closer?

Here are the codes, BTW, for each.

Human:
mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne

Chimp:
mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne

Sunflower:
asfaeapagd pttgakifkt kcaqchtvek gaghkqgpnl nglfgrqsgt tagysysaan knmaviween tlydyllnpk kyipgtkmvf pglkkpqera dliaylktst a

More "junk." I think Hovind will say anything.

http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/HovindLie.html

 

[UTEOTW]

While we are doing cytochrome C...

http://www.creationscience.com/

"One computer-based study, using cytochrome c, a protein used in energy production, compared 47 different forms of life. If evolution happened, this study should have found that, for example, the rattlesnake was most closely related to other reptiles. Instead, based on this one protein, the rattlesnake was most similar to man. Since this study, experts have discovered hundreds of similar contradictions."

As we have seen, chimp cyctochrome C is identical to human so the rattlesnake cannot be closer. For copmarison, here is the rattlesnake sequence to compare with that above.

gdvekgkkif smkcgtchtv eeggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqavgysyta anknkgiiwg ddtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm vftglkskke rtdliaylke atak

And human again:

mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne
More "junk" statements and flat out lies for a young earth.

 

[Gup20]

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.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i2/information.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative_10September2001.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/gitt.asp

http://www.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/ramhurl?f=aig/Special/10-13-2000DrGitt.rm

http://trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/order_chaos.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3774.asp

http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-102a.htm

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 of the same is not an increase of information. Moreover, one copy with parts missing is not an increase in information either.

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.

Mutation is not a conversion from "Hello" to "Hello Kitty". It is a conversion from "Hello" to "HelÞß". According to shannon's information theory, this represents new information. However, this actually represents a loss of information. Whereas we had specified complexity in the word Hello, now we have no actual words. Prior to the mutation, the gene was able to express a specific something, after the mutation, there is a loss of function and complexity.

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.

Yes, and it is predicated on fantasy, pre-supposition, and wishful thinking. Not to mention that the overall goal of Dr. Meert is to discredit the Bible and turn people away from that silly christian religion. The fact that he would tout such anti-christian reading as Meert's site is distubing. Meert is emotional and quite looney in his hatred toward christians and the Bible. Yet the Galatian chooses this person's word as evidence to support his position? Yikes.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> 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. </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry to burst your evolutionary magic bubble... but that requires assumptions as well. The only people who claim that it doesn't are the dishonest (or ignorant) ones.

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

Such as the Grand Canyon, you mean? Certainly.
For one thing, there are bends in the strata which do not have breaks in them. This shows that the layers were laid down quickly. Even over millions of years (no matter how slowly) this would have cracked and broken at the bends. However, we do not see this in the layers of Grand Canyon. Therefore, the Canyon had to be laid down quickly and bent before the layers had time to harden.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i1/grandcanyon.asp

Moreover, there is ample evidence in the Canyon itself that it was formed during Noah's Flood.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v15n1_grandcanyon.asp

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

No. You must realize that you are talking about going from a Single Cell organism to a person. If it were required to retreat three steps to gain one step, you would go directionally in the opposite direction that is required for this transition from single cell to highly complex. Instead of building upon and gaining, you loose information. That means that the original creation must have the highest and most information content. We do see changes occur, but they always happen along the lines of a loss of information.

Moreover, this is precisly what we see happening. We see the transition from more complex, more information to less complex, less information, more specificity. This is also the direction change supported by BobRyan's discussion on Entropy. We see that creatures do not decrease in entropy over time, they increase in entropy. As copying mistakes build up, there becomes less information to administrate function in that creature.

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

Except that in biology, there is no way to get back information that is lost unless you mate with a creature that has the functioning gene to mask your non-functioning mutated gene. That is why isolation always leads to speciation ... new species are a decrease in information, and an increase in specificity.

We can even see how humans were effected by this concept. At the tower of babel, when the languages were confused, that provided a mechanism by which isolation of specific groups happened, thereby giving the appearance of separate races. However, we know that all people came from Adam and Eve, and therefore all people are one blood... one race. It's just that we were isolated into groups causeing the expression of specific genes to manifest in certain groups.

I have already critiqued this for you. Here was my response, again. To have any additional information for us or is this just more waiting for the answer to get stale and then posting the same thing?

Your critique shows that you are surprised to find that science builds upon itself when it recognizes a wrong. There is no need to re-invent the wheel... but to simply ajust the spokes in many cases. As is most often the case, there is a portion of evolutionary science that is correct up until the point where the person's worldview enters in and leads them down the wrong path.

I was really hoping that you could give us the Gup20 summary to show us what you think "information" is but I guess this will have to do.

I like to use practical analogies. I have given you some here regarding duplicating books and three steps back etc.

Now one has a change in a single letter : N-O-R-T-H F-O-R-T-H

It looks like I have a new word and new information, doesn't it?

Except that the information does not mutate from N-O-R-T-H into F-O-R-T-H. It mutates from North into ¥-O-R-T-H. According to Shannon's information theory, this is new information. According to YEC, this is a loss of information. While ¥-O-R-T-H may be different (and therefore new information under Shannon's model) it specifies nothing. Information is specified complexity. YEC agree that changing from North to Forth would be an increase of information becuase the new gene (northforth) might specify some real information. However, we don't see that in nature. We see mutations bring genes from north to œorth. Then from œorth to œŸrth. Then from œŸrth to œŸ¤th, etc etc. This is the concept of information loss. This is the concept of entropy as it applies to biological (genetic) systems. This is directionally the wrong change that we need to see for evolution to be possible.

In fact, speciation is the process whereby NORTH-NORTH turns into ¤ORTH-œORTH. When the N is finally lost to the organism - it no longer has the ability to accurately express the N - speciation takes place. Now, ¤ORTH-œORTH is expressed in the creature. The function of N is lost. That N function might have been, for example, a beatle's wings. Suddenly that beetle has no wings, and no genes to express them. Now sometimes these losses are good... for example if that beetle lived on a windy island, wings would only serve to blow the beetle out to sea. So natural selection could select the mutation in that environment, and it would be a benefit to the population. However, it is still a loss of information.

First, you wanted the canyon in a few days to months, not 4000 years. Also, does not this sound like the kind of uniformitarianism you tell us not to use?

Indeed. I was not suggesting that the Grand Canyon formed over a period of 4000 years, but simply showing the possibility under the uniformitarian concept (which is rediculous and I see you agree) of what was possible.

Second, the Grand Canyon is eroded in rock, including shales, limestones, and sandstones, not soft, wet clay.

One wonders how wet and soft they were after having been under the water of the flood.

Can you direct me to the abstracts or the full, published papers? AIG did not bother to cite any references for that claim. I wonder why?

Perhaps you should send them an email requesting that information. I know they have always been happy to ablige me when I ask them questions.

Prove it. Show me these secular scientists who say the Grand Canyon was made quickly (or similar). Abstracts are fine.

Most secular scientists do not think the Grand Canyon was made quickly. I did not say that they did. I said that they agree to the possibility of canyons being formed quickly via catastrophy rather than over millions of years.

In fact, more and more geological formations are being attributed to catastrophism. For example, in 1980 at Mt. St. Helens we (creationists and secular scientists alike) see much evidence for rapid erosion and catastrophism. http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-157.htm

 

[UTEOTW]

"Indeed, the overall process of evolution is effected by entropy. Moreover, we can see that according to the laws of entropy a system does not increase in order and complexity on it's own. "

There is a more fundamental problem with this statement. As has been explained before, the disorder of entropy is a statistical phenomenon at a molecular level. It has nothing to do with what the layman thinks of disorder on a macro scale. Remember, thermodynamics is about heat. It's right there in the name.

 

[UTEOTW]

Someone said...

"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."

Gup responds with a list of websites.

First, why don't you summarize this into your own words for us?

Second, I have delivered a good critique of your fifst listing to which you have yet to respond. Why don't you try and support that original assertion and give me a reason to look at what else you have to post?

"Two of the same is not an increase of information. Moreover, one copy with parts missing is not an increase in information either. "

Not until one of them mutates. Then there is information that was not there before.

"According to shannon's information theory, this represents new information. However, this actually represents a loss of information."

So you admit that according to Shannon, this is new information. Yet then you are willing to dismiss the opinion of the father of the field based on the circular and unsupported work you posted earlier. Good example of "junk" science for us there.

"Not to mention that the overall goal of Dr. Meert is to discredit the Bible and turn people away from that silly christian religion."

Funny since in that debate you referenced us earlier I believe he told you that he considers himself a Christian. (I could have seen him say that elsewhere, but it was recent.) Now why would a Christian try and "discredit the Bible and turn people away from that silly christian religion?"

"Sorry to burst your evolutionary magic bubble... but that requires assumptions as well. The only people who claim that it doesn't are the dishonest (or ignorant) ones."

Then tell us what assumptions isochron dating makes that are wrong. Nobody said that it makes no assumptions. Only that the ones that it does make we have good reason to believe they are acceptable assumptions.

"Your critique shows that you are surprised to find that science builds upon itself when it recognizes a wrong. There is no need to re-invent the wheel... but to simply ajust the spokes in many cases. "

No. My critique shows that he wants to use the acceptance of Shannon to promote his own ideas even as he distances himself from Shannon. It shows that Shannon gave much mathematical support for his work while your reference was happy to just assert things with no basis or proof. It shows that your reference makes a circular conclusion.

"I like to use practical analogies."

And I gave you a good analogy too. One word gets duplicated. Now you have two copies of the same word. Increase in Shannon information but not in your world. Now, we change one of the letters to make a new word. Now everyone agrees we have new information, except you for some reason.

"In fact, speciation is the process whereby NORTH-NORTH turns into ¤ORTH-œORTH."

Uh, no. The original is free to continie doing what it was doing while the copy mutates into a new function. Since you missed that you may have missed what I was driving at.

"Indeed. I was not suggesting that the Grand Canyon formed over a period of 4000 years, but simply showing the possibility under the uniformitarian concept (which is rediculous and I see you agree) of what was possible. "

No, I added up the volumes for you and even at those rates it would have been much more than 4000 years. Over a million, actually. So no, not possible. Iwas just pointing out the duplicity of accepting constant rates when it suits you and ignoring them when it does not without factual justifications of either.

"One wonders how wet and soft they were after having been under the water of the flood."

As I and others have shown you, the physical evidence is not consistent with the canyon being carved in soft sediments.

"Perhaps you should send them an email requesting that information. I know they have always been happy to ablige me when I ask them questions. "

It is not my asertion. Why don't you try and get back to us.

"Most secular scientists do not think the Grand Canyon was made quickly. I did not say that they did. I said that they agree to the possibility of canyons being formed quickly via catastrophy rather than over millions of years. "

Exactly. Scientists know how to recognize catastrophe. Thanks for pointing that out. It should make it easier to see that if that is the way it happened, that there would be papers for you to cite saying such. Or do you believe in a Grand Canyon conspiracy?

"In fact, more and more geological formations are being attributed to catastrophism. For example, in 1980 at Mt. St. Helens we (creationists and secular scientists alike) see much evidence for rapid erosion and catastrophism."

Again, these examples leave different types of evidence. Scientists know how to recognize catastrophe. You should have no trouble any month finding new examples of scientists recognizing catastrophe in the world history.

 

[UTEOTW]

"For one thing, there are bends in the strata which do not have breaks in them. This shows that the layers were laid down quickly. Even over millions of years (no matter how slowly) this would have cracked and broken at the bends. However, we do not see this in the layers of Grand Canyon. Therefore, the Canyon had to be laid down quickly and bent before the layers had time to harden. "

Perhaps you should read the following.

Friedman, M., R. H. H. Hugman III and J. Handin, 1980. Experimental folding of rocks under confining pressure, part VIII -- forced folding of unconsolidated sand and of lubricated layers of limestone and sandstone. Geological Society of America Bulletin 91: 307-312.

Rocks, including the kind found in the Grand Canyon, can be folded successfully.

 

[UTEOTW]

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-224.htm

"The observation that obviously recent lava flows from the north rim of Grand Canyon give ages even older than the deeply buried lava flows, challenges the basic assumptions upon which the isochron dating method is based. The discovery of an "old age" in an obviously "young" series of lava flows has encouraged further research at ICR."

Basically what Austin is claiming is that isochron dating does not work because it yielded a date for a lava flow older than a lava flow that was underneath it. But there are some things that he is not telling the reader.

When selecting samples for isochron dating, they must be cogenetic, that is they must have been isotopically homogeneous. Austin selected samples that did not meet this requirement. Instead they came from four different flows and a phenocryst, a grain that was not melted when the lava flowed but that likely solidified in the magma chamber from which the flows came.

Even better is that geologists will sometimes deliberately choose non-cogenetic samples. Why? Because they can be used to determine the age of the common source material for the different flows. Austin is aware of this possiblity because he cites an article on this very thing. ( http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-178.htm , C. Brooks, D.E. James, and S.R. Hart, "Ancient Lithosphere: Its Role in Young Continental Volcanism," Science, 193 (17 Sept. 1976): 1086-1094.)

So what this means is that he was dating the lithosphere under the older flow. This was already known to be older than the other flow (it is underneath for the obvious one).

Austin incorrectly carried out an isochron dating, knew what his mistakes were, knew what he was actually dating, and still submits this as evidence that isochron dating does not work.

YEC "junk" science in action.