Is pseudoscience privileged over pseudohistory?

But of course. Not only must ID/creationism be privileged with respect to science (is considered without any evidence-based reason to do so--and demands that it be more so), it must be privileged with respect to all other pseudosciences, and at least most pseudohistories.

Even the use of evidence must bow to this particular pseudoscience's biases. For while the obvious evidence of relatedness counts in an indeterminate--but greatly insisted upon--"microevolution," the same type of evidence no longer matters where "macroevolution" is concerned--wherever that may be.

Of course they don't know where to draw the line, because the evidence is all of a hereditary nature--it has the appearance of descent with modification, the one explanation that they cannot possibly (theologically) abide.

Glen Davidson

Of course they don’t know where to draw the line, because the evidence is all of a hereditary nature–it has the appearance of descent with modification, the one explanation that they cannot possibly (theologically) abide.

Ford's Theatre has not banned the book and does not have the power to do so. It has removed the book from sale, which it has the power to do, and has the moral imperative to do if the book is as historically gibbered as described (I have not read the book and offer no opinion on its veracity).

I may seem to be splitting hairs, but the distinction is important. Banning a book means trying to stop people from being able to acquire it altogether. Removing from sale means trying to stop people from acquiring the book from you because you don't want your reputation sullied.

Apparently yes, and for this reason: O'Reilly's errors concern only history. Oh, I grant you that there may be some political issue, but it would be fairly distant - after all, however erroneous, the book is about an event that happened in 1865.

But a book attempting to ascribe the Grand Canyon to Noah's Flood, or some such nonsense, isn't about geology. It's about religion. It's religion that is privileged, not the pseudoscience of flood geology.

The solution is to stop priviledging religion in this way. Some would say, in any way. But at least when religions deny physical reality, their denials should not be sold as if they were respectable, or alongside actual science.

I would guess it has more to do with religious sensitivity than science being treated differently from history. Just look at the issues over (how to treat) ancient amerind skeletons. There's a case where pseudohistory has been socially and legally tolerated...because of religious sensitivities.

The reason they can remove O'Reilly's book has nothing to do with history being stricter than science. Its because there's no significant religious dispute about Lincoln's death.

As long as religions - the purveyors of pseudoscience more than pseudohistory - continue to be privileged by no taxation on their moneymaking efforts and no restrictions on their lobbying efforts, yes, pseudoscience based on religion is and will remain privileged over pseudohistory. We need to work to change that - http://www.secular.org/ might be one answer - go to Amazon and look for Attack of the Theocrats.

Ford’s Theatre has not banned the book and does not have the power to do so. It has removed the book from sale, ...

Matt Young said:

Ford’s Theatre has not banned the book and does not have the power to do so. It has removed the book from sale, ...

Yes, thanks, I had noticed that too but lazily adopted the Post's terminology. The book has not been banned - you could carry a copy into the bookstore if you wanted to - but merely removed from sale. There is a substantial difference.

At the end of the day, there are two good reasons why creationist books shouldn't be available for sale at the Grand Canyon, good enough that even a "civil rights absolutist" like me agrees with them.

1) Constitutional - the government provides the space; even if it's paid for by publishers, there is a selection process with regard to who gets to pay. It's favoritism to allow only certain sects to use that space. It creates the impression that the post-modern right wing creationist mythology of Grand Canyon formation is favored over other religious explanations.

2) Pragmatic - there are an infinite possible number of scientifically incorrect religious or magical explanations of the Grand Canyon; fairly presenting all such is an impossibility. It is more rational to present only the consensus scientific opinion; all others are freely available in nearby private spaces. This is the basis for the Ford Theater decision, of course, and it's a good basis.

Two comments:

1. Isn't pseudoscience actually pseudohistory, at least when it comes to things like whether evolution happened or whether the Grand Canyon was formed by the process that scientists agree on?

2. I don't think we can say from the example provided in the post that "pseudoscience" is favored over "pseudohistory." The Grand Canyon bookstore and the Ford's Theater bookstore might very well both be run by the NPS or some federal agency, but I doubt if the Ford's decision on what book to offer represents a consistent, nationwide policy on what kind of books to offer for sale and what kinds not to.

1. Isn’t pseudoscience actually pseudohistory, at least when it comes to things like whether evolution happened or whether the Grand Canyon was formed by the process that scientists agree on?

"1. Isn’t pseudoscience actually pseudohistory, at least when it comes to things like whether evolution happened or whether the Grand Canyon was formed by the process that scientists agree on?"

No, there is a distinct difference. Theories about many natural processes include testable predictions about what observations can be made after the process is completed even if it in the distant past. For example, the big bang theory makes predictions about properties of the universe that we could observe today and we are well on our way in confirming them. And we don't accept tbb theory just because scientists agree with it, but rather it has accumulated a superior record for accurate prediction when compared against what we can observe today.

And the basic processes of evolution predict that all life be classifiable in a tree of nested hierarchies and so on. There are about 25 or so testable prediction that can be evaluated on living organisms that demonstrate what evolution requires you find in the relationship of those organisms.

Using these predictions to test theories against events that happened in the past is not much different than for events that can be observed in realtime. The theory that has the most predictive range and accuracy when compared to what can be observed wins.

The process might be somewhat the same in history, but history mostly relies on testimony found in documents.

Dave Luckett said: O'Reilly's errors concern only history. Oh, I grant you that there may be some political issue, but it would be fairly distant...

Historians can't do direct experiments, but they can make predictions about what sources found in the future might reveal.

The idea that history can be used as a predictive tool is one with an ancient provenance, but history has the same difficulty with prediction as evolution has. Evolution and history are both emergent effects from, ultimately, environmental causes. But even fairly simple factors working on those environmental causes produce a cascade of emergent effects of a complexity that defeats prediction.

It's possible to make some predictions from evolutionary factors. Island dwarfism, for example, or baroque sexual selection, or arms races. But, as with weather prediction, complexity supervenes.

History presents the same difficulty. Some proximate predictions can be made, perhaps, but never definitely. For instance, I regard the recent enormous increase of the relative wealth of the elites of the western world (and especially of the United States) with deep uneasiness. Over the last forty years the real income of the top ten percent of the US population has multiplied by a factor of twenty, the higher the more, while that of the median has remained almost steady (but the proportion of those at or near the mean has fallen), and that of the bottom ten percent has gone backwards. I point to the same effect - which becomes a factor - operating in second and first century BCE Rome, and I wonder about the health of the Republic.

Is that a prediction? Am I saying that there's a Gracci revolt and an Imperator waiting in the wings? No. Nothing so definite. But I say it's a factor in the witches' brew that is history, and I say that it's a factor I don't like to see.

My favourite historical parallel: Once there was a democracy with a powerful navy, the leader of a loose conglomeration of independent states, opposed by a nominally communist power, a totalitarian state with a mighty army and satellites tightly bound to it by force. A generation before, they had been allies against an outside threat; but when that threat was defeated by their united efforts, they fell to quarreling with each other over spheres of influence and mutual distrust.

Am I describing the Cold War? No. I am describing the conditions that led to the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta. The democracy lost that one. But the Cold War is over, and the democracy survives.

Well, so did Athens, even as a democracy. For a while.

But this is getting way off-topic.

Plato could write The Republic because his culture rode on the backs of slaves, leaving the “learned” free to contemplate. Democracy was for the learned but not for the slaves.

The earlier Ionian culture in which those who actually connected with the natural world were the foundation of society – i.e., the craftsman and the artist – had given way to the kind of thinking that placed “ideas” such as deities and “souls” at the pinnacle of topics of contemplation and value. Being a woman or working with one’s hands and getting dirty placed one at the lowest levels of society where one had no voice. That would be where an experimental scientist would be place had there been such individuals.

One wonders where our current crop of plutocrats wishes to take us.

Matt Young said:

Ford’s Theatre has not banned the book and does not have the power to do so. It has removed the book from sale, ...

Yes, thanks, I had noticed that too but lazily adopted the Post's terminology. The book has not been banned - you could carry a copy into the bookstore if you wanted to - but merely removed from sale. There is a substantial difference.

I should have corrected paragraph.

Since O'Reilly isn't a trained historian, you can claim pseudohistory, but the Grand Canyon book is compilation of essays written mostly by trained scientists, Whitcomb was the only exception.

Henry said: Since O'Reilly isn't a trained historian, you can claim pseudohistory, but the Grand Canyon book is compilation of essays written mostly by trained scientists, Whitcomb was the only exception.

Henry said: Since O'Reilly isn't a trained historian, you can claim pseudohistory, but the Grand Canyon book is compilation of essays written mostly by trained scientists, Whitcomb was the only exception.

bigdakine said:

Henry said: Since O'Reilly isn't a trained historian, you can claim pseudohistory, but the Grand Canyon book is compilation of essays written mostly by trained scientists, Whitcomb was the only exception.

Trained scientists wholly ignorant of Earth's history.

Henry,

(1) Whether something is pseudohistory or pseudoscience is not defined by the formal qualifications of the author but by the content of the text.

(2) The key contributors to the Grand Canyon book are: Steve Austin, John Baumgardner, Ken Cumming, Duane Gish, Werner Gitt, Ken Ham, Bill Hoesch, Russ Humphreys, Alex Lalomov, John MacArthur, Henry Morris, "and about twelve others!" Now while it is true that some of these contributors have scientific qualifications, it is also true that the authors I know well (Austin, Ham, Gish, Morris) are pathologically incapable of telling the truth, which to me is a much more important indicator of credibility than a university degree.

Would you allow Scott Reuben to plan your operative analgesia. He has a medical degree so who cares about his fraudulent research, right?

apokryltaros said:

bigdakine said:

Henry said: Since O'Reilly isn't a trained historian, you can claim pseudohistory, but the Grand Canyon book is compilation of essays written mostly by trained scientists, Whitcomb was the only exception.

Trained scientists wholly ignorant of Earth's history.

If these "trained scientists" are wholly ignorant of Earth's history, then that would automatically disqualify them from being "trained."

Henry said: Since O'Reilly isn't a trained historian, you can claim pseudohistory

Henry said: Since O'Reilly isn't a trained historian, you can claim pseudohistory, but the Grand Canyon book is compilation of essays written mostly by trained scientists, Whitcomb was the only exception.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

Henry said: Since O'Reilly isn't a trained historian, you can claim pseudohistory, but the Grand Canyon book is compilation of essays written mostly by trained scientists, Whitcomb was the only exception.

Trained apologists who are committed to an a priori set of beliefs. Whether or not they are "scientists" at all can be debated, but that they are not acting as scientists when they only allow for an earth that is a few thousand years old and arbitrarily limited evolution is not in question. Glen Davidson

Robert Byers said: Why is so important or persuasive to a would be reader what the gov'ts judgement is on these books accuracy? The grand canyon book is not religion. Its a explanation of actual origins of the GC. It just includes Biblical presumptions. yet it takes on the evidence for and against rapid creation. Its unfair to put it in a religious section. Thats just a dismissal of its merits as a work of investigation on origins. its a statement. Concentration here on books sure seems to be on the same trail as the historic book banners, burnings, or blower upers. I guess books matter and can be agents of change.

Why is so important or persuasive to a would be reader what the gov’ts judgement is on these books accuracy? The grand canyon book is not religion.

Its a explanation of actual origins of the GC. It just includes Biblical presumptions.

yet it takes on the evidence for and against rapid creation.

Its unfair to put it in a religious section. Thats just a dismissal of its merits as a work of investigation on origins. its a statement.

Concentration here on books sure seems to be on the same trail as the historic book banners, burnings, or blower upers.

I guess books matter and can be agents of change.

Robert Byers said: Why is so important or persuasive to a would be reader what the gov'ts judgement is on these books accuracy? The grand canyon book is not religion. Its a explanation of actual origins of the GC. It just includes Biblical presumptions. yet it takes on the evidence for and against rapid creation. Its unfair to put it in a religious section. Thats just a dismissal of its merits as a work of investigation on origins. its a statement. Concentration here on books sure seems to be on the same trail as the historic book banners, burnings, or blower upers. I guess books matter and can be agents of change.

The Grand Canyon creation is a non-repeatable event beyond the scope of science, it is a question that properly belongs to history.

Evolutionists have no eyewitnesses to testify the Grand Canyon was created by random chance, but the Bible bears witness it was created by the God of the Universe whose judgment we will all face someday. There is no question which one is more credible.

Ian Brandon Andersen said: The Grand Canyon creation is a non-repeatable event beyond the scope of science, it is a question that properly belongs to history. Evolutionists have no eyewitnesses to testify the Grand Canyon was created by random chance, but the Bible bears witness it was created by the God of the Universe whose judgment we will all face someday. There is no question which one is more credible.

Ian Brandon Andersen said: The Grand Canyon creation is a non-repeatable event beyond the scope of science, it is a question that properly belongs to history. Evolutionists have no eyewitnesses to testify the Grand Canyon was created by random chance, but the Bible bears witness it was created by the God of the Universe whose judgment we will all face someday. There is no question which one is more credible.

Ian Brandon Andersen said: The Grand Canyon creation is a non-repeatable event beyond the scope of science, it is a question that properly belongs to history. Evolutionists have no eyewitnesses to testify the Grand Canyon was created by random chance, but the Bible bears witness it was created by the God of the Universe whose judgment we will all face someday. There is no question which one is more credible.

DS said:

Ian Brandon Andersen said: The Grand Canyon creation is a non-repeatable event beyond the scope of science, it is a question that properly belongs to history. Evolutionists have no eyewitnesses to testify the Grand Canyon was created by random chance, but the Bible bears witness it was created by the God of the Universe whose judgment we will all face someday. There is no question which one is more credible.

Were you there?

Wolfhound said:

Ian Brandon Andersen said: The Grand Canyon creation is a non-repeatable event beyond the scope of science, it is a question that properly belongs to history. Evolutionists have no eyewitnesses to testify the Grand Canyon was created by random chance, but the Bible bears witness it was created by the God of the Universe whose judgment we will all face someday. There is no question which one is more credible.

LOL at obvious Poe.

Ian Brandon Andersen said:

Wolfhound said:

Ian Brandon Andersen said: The Grand Canyon creation is a non-repeatable event beyond the scope of science, it is a question that properly belongs to history. Evolutionists have no eyewitnesses to testify the Grand Canyon was created by random chance, but the Bible bears witness it was created by the God of the Universe whose judgment we will all face someday. There is no question which one is more credible.

LOL at obvious Poe.

Poe was a Satanic evolutionist, and to give the devil his due, a much more profound one than Darwin or PZ Myers. What have I to do with him?

Ian Brandon Andersen said:

DS said:

Ian Brandon Andersen said: The Grand Canyon creation is a non-repeatable event beyond the scope of science, it is a question that properly belongs to history. Evolutionists have no eyewitnesses to testify the Grand Canyon was created by random chance, but the Bible bears witness it was created by the God of the Universe whose judgment we will all face someday. There is no question which one is more credible.

Were you there?

No, but Jesus was and I accept his testimony he dictated to Moses on faith. You have faith in the opinions of men who weren't there either.

apokryltaros said:

Ian Brandon Andersen said:

Wolfhound said:

Ian Brandon Andersen said: The Grand Canyon creation is a non-repeatable event beyond the scope of science, it is a question that properly belongs to history. Evolutionists have no eyewitnesses to testify the Grand Canyon was created by random chance, but the Bible bears witness it was created by the God of the Universe whose judgment we will all face someday. There is no question which one is more credible.

LOL at obvious Poe.

Poe was a Satanic evolutionist, and to give the devil his due, a much more profound one than Darwin or PZ Myers. What have I to do with him?

Edgar Allen Poe was not a "Satanic evolutionist": you are a slandering idiot to falsely accuse him of such.

"Poe" refers to (Nathan) "Poe's Law," where author Nathan Poe stated it is very difficult to distinguish sincere extremists from exaggerated parody. After all, you trot out the tired creationist tropes of "no witnesses = no science," as well as your typical creationist bigotry of warning us how we'll all be sent to Hell to burn forever because not mindlessly agreeing with your opinions makes God oh so very angry. So, either you're a typical science-hating creationist bigot, or you are an annoying, yet thorough Internet troll pretending to be a science-hating creationist bigot.

Can someone consign this torture-fetish troll to the Bathroom Wall?

Is that too much to ask for?

"No, but Jesus was and I accept his testimony he dictated to Moses on faith. You have faith in the opinions of men who weren't there either."

I wasn't aware Moses and Jesus were ever in the same room together. Am I wrong or is this a case of pseudoscience and pseudohistory colliding?

Roger said: "No, but Jesus was and I accept his testimony he dictated to Moses on faith. You have faith in the opinions of men who weren't there either." I wasn't aware Moses and Jesus were ever in the same room together. Am I wrong or is this a case of pseudoscience and pseudohistory colliding?

Roger said: "No, but Jesus was and I accept his testimony he dictated to Moses on faith. You have faith in the opinions of men who weren't there either." I wasn't aware Moses and Jesus were ever in the same room together. Am I wrong or is this a case of pseudoscience and pseudohistory colliding?

Ian Brandon Andersen lied:

Roger said: "No, but Jesus was and I accept his testimony he dictated to Moses on faith. You have faith in the opinions of men who weren't there either." I wasn't aware Moses and Jesus were ever in the same room together. Am I wrong or is this a case of pseudoscience and pseudohistory colliding?

Jesus met both Moses and Elijah during the transfiguration when the whole world went dark for three hours. That is where he dictated the Pentateuch to Moses.

Not to bother to answer the ridiculous Andersen, who is, I think, Higaboo, but mplavcan, you give too much credit to the "literalists".

You allow that they are internally consistent, if circular. They aren't even that. The Bible never says anywhere that it is literally true in factual matters, and it doesn't say anywhere that it was written by God. The closest it ever comes is to state that all scripture was "breathed out by God and is useful for teaching, and for rebuking, for correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16).

This was written originally in the koine Greek; it's quite clearly an idiomatic usage, almost certainly meaning the same as we mean when we say "inspired", which literally means "breathed in". The Greek is using the same idiom in the opposite sense.

Let us also put to one side the question of authorship of the passage, which is dubious. If we are to be literal, let us be literal, and consider only the meaning of the words. They mean what they say. They do not mean what they do not say. They do not say that scripture is factual or literal. They do not rule out non-literal interpretations of it. They do not say that God wrote it. In 2 Peter 1:20-21 we read that prophecy did not come from the prophet's own interpretation, but that men were "carried along" by the Holy Spirit, but there is still no statement that the whole of the scriptures are literally true or factually inerrant.

Further, the Bible does not say anywhere that the scriptures are to be used as statements about the natural world or the laws of nature. On the contrary, their use is carefully qualified - they are to be used in teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. They are to be used as moral precepts and guidance, not as textbooks about nature.

(Let us also put aside that among the moral precepts in righteousness taught by the scriptures we find approval of genocide, mass murder, infanticide and slavery. That's a different argument.)

So when the "literalists" talk about biblical inerrancy in matters of fact, they are taking up a profoundly unscriptural position with no support from the Bible itself. "Literalism" is also a position at odds with the historical positions of the Christian faith as a whole, which is not surprising, because it is quite young - no older than the middle of the nineteenth century, and an obvious reaction to the emergence of rigorous scientific knowledge of the Universe.

If, by the time "literalism" arose, the mainstream Christian church had been effectively able to anathematise it as a formal heresy, it would most likely have done so. However, it was by that time uneasily aware that schism had effectively removed its power to obtain consensus on this or any doctrinal matter. However, all the mainstream churches, Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant, abjure literalism - for the plainest of good reason.

Your remarks about their arguments being circular are well-taken, and completely accurate. But even in their circularity, "literalists" depend on a starting point that isn't defensible. Scripture was not written by God, and it never says it was. It isn't inerrant in matters of fact, and it never says it is.

(I think I should explain the scare quotes around "literalists". They're not literalists, of course. They take some passages literally because it's a tribal signature to do so, a sort of rite de passage, and they ignore or redact or deny or metaphorise or transcendentalise others because it's convenient.)

apokryltaros said: Can someone consign this torture-fetish troll to the Bathroom Wall? Is that too much to ask for?

apokryltaros said:

Roger said: "No, but Jesus was and I accept his testimony he dictated to Moses on faith. You have faith in the opinions of men who weren't there either." I wasn't aware Moses and Jesus were ever in the same room together. Am I wrong or is this a case of pseudoscience and pseudohistory colliding?

More of the latter, what we're actually seeing is an internet troll pretending to be a Lying Hypocrite for Jesus.

Sorry for false start on the previous comment

Ian Brandon Andersen said: Jesus met both Moses and Elijah during the transfiguration when the whole world went dark for three hours. That is where he dictated the Pentateuch to Moses.

I’m not convinced he is faking it

Also, sense of humor AND appreciation of Edgar Allen Poe? Does that sound like a typical creationist to you?

Paul Burnett said:

Ian Brandon Andersen said: Jesus met both Moses and Elijah during the transfiguration when the whole world went dark for three hours. That is where he dictated the Pentateuch to Moses.

So Moses transcribed the first five books of the Bible in three hours from verbal input? That's even better than Joseph Smith's hat trick!

harold said:

I’m not convinced he is faking it

He probably is. Here's why - current creationism is often about legalistic courtroom type arguments.

There are a few isolated figures who admit their own eccentric religious motivation, but those figures are rejected and banned at major creationist sites. What's this thread about? The age of the Grand Canyon? No, it's about the essentially legal/political question of whether, regardless of how old the Grand Canyon is, narrow sectarian science denial, motivated purely by religion, should be sold at the Grand Canyon National Park bookstore.

The comment I responded to above, although by a commenter who sometimes has trouble with grammar and organization, actually gave the "approved" creationist response - it was an effort to claim that the religious book isn't religious, but is "neutral science" (Byers probably sincerely believes this at the conscious level). That may sound complicated, but Byers gets it - when you're talking about public schools and national parks, you argue that fundamentalist religion isn't religion, in order to facilitate preaching fundamentalist religion to a captive and naive audience, at taxpayer expense. Andersen's openly "religious" comments don't conform to that legalistic strategy, and openly admit a purely "Biblical" perspective, with no efforts at fake "scientific neutrality". In this context, they're probably satire.

Ian Brandon Andersen said: You must free your mind from the Darwinian, linear world of time-bound awareness. They had all the time they needed. A day is a thousand years and a thousand years is a day.

you must either embrace death and hell or the light and love of Jesus.

Ian Brandon Andersen said:

DS said:

Ian Brandon Andersen said: The Grand Canyon creation is a non-repeatable event beyond the scope of science, it is a question that properly belongs to history. Evolutionists have no eyewitnesses to testify the Grand Canyon was created by random chance, but the Bible bears witness it was created by the God of the Universe whose judgment we will all face someday. There is no question which one is more credible.

Were you there?

No, but Jesus was and I accept his testimony he dictated to Moses on faith. You have faith in the opinions of men who weren't there either.

eric said:

you must either embrace death and hell or the light and love of Jesus.

God demands we love him or go to hell? Truly, God is love.

Dave Luckett said: Not to bother to answer the ridiculous Andersen, who is, I think, Higaboo, but mplavcan, you give too much credit to the "literalists". You allow that they are internally consistent, if circular.

When accused of being a POE, Ian goes on and on about the evils of Edgar Allan in a vain attempt to disprove the very thing that his tirade confirms. Now if it hadn't been explained to him already, perhaps someone might be fooled. But either this guy is more cukoo than coco puffs, or he is the worst POE ever. Of course the obsession with all things anal is reminiscent of another whacko who shall remain nameless, but then again all born again bigots might have the same obsession. EIther way, the bathroom wall awaits. Now what are the odds that he will misconstrue that meaning as well?

Can someone consign this torture-fetish troll to the Bathroom Wall? Is that too much to ask for?

Once upon a midnight clear, while I pondered, filled with cheer,
over many a quaint and curious volume of nature’s lore—
While I studied, never scowling, suddenly there came a howling,
as of someone disemboweling, cats outside my chamber door.
“Tis some fiend,” I muttered, “disemboweling cats outside my chamber door.”
What on earth could cause such roar?

Ah, distinctly I remember it was in the cool November,
And each separate dying ember, cast is glow upon the floor.
Oh I wished for day to come; -- eagerly I sought again to plumb
From my books the light of wisdom – wisdom, reason, and so much more –
For those rare and radiant virtues whom the sages have sought before –
Valued here for evermore.

Presently my heart grew stronger, hesitating then no longer,
“Sir,” said I, “or Madam, truly your forgiveness I implore;
But the fact is I was reading, and so rudely you came beating,
And so cruelly there mistreating, mistreating cats outside my chamber door.
That I scarce can stand for such a thing” – here I opened wide the door; --
A creationist there and nothing more.

“Prophet!” said I, “thing of evil! – prophet still, if man or devil! –
Whether Tempter sent, or whether tempest tossed thee here ashore,
Tell me now, in my apprehension, whether thou without dissension,
Will ever give attention, attention to putting reason in the fore?
Wilt thou ever think forthrightly, putting reason in the fore?
Quoth the creationist “Nevermore.”

The most surprising thing here is that Bill O'Reilly wrote a book. This is the man who thinks no-one can explain the tides (and thus managed to launch a meme--Google Bill and "you can't explain that"). He has a grade school level (or less) knowledge on many subjects, seems incapable of learning (or unlearning), seems unable to distinguish between expert and non-expert opinion, and has demonstrated a stun-worthy inability to apply critical thinking to anything he says, writes or does.

Actually, perhaps the most surprising thing isn't that he wrote a book (even Glenn Beck managed to mash his fists on the keyboard enough to produce a book), but that he apparently managed to get at least a few things right in it.

I think pass on the book and get my history from real historians, not from someone who would probably fail a Grade 6 comprehensive test even on their own country's history (well, maybe he would pass because children in other countries know U.S. history better than U.S. children (and adults) so perhaps Bill might remember enough to pass the dumbed-down U.S. version of the test).

https://me.yahoo.com/a/n2WhMtEQrvsReG10Z0oryyrwcalqfxDNMct2#93ec7 said: The most surprising thing here is that Bill O'Reilly wrote a book.

Ian Brandon Andersen said: However, when the facade of Darwinism is removed, you will come face to face with Nietzche's abyss, you will see the dark void of the Satanic religion of evolutionism unobstructed. Then, there will be no more pretending, you must either embrace death and hell or the light and love of Jesus. I'm anxious to see which one you will choose.

harold said:

Henry said: Since O'Reilly isn't a trained historian, you can claim pseudohistory, but the Grand Canyon book is compilation of essays written mostly by trained scientists, Whitcomb was the only exception.

1) Do you think that being written by a trained scientist is sufficient to make something accurate? 2) The Grand Canyon book overtly makes its claims on the grounds that Genesis is literally true, and that the deity often referred to as Jehovah directly created the earth in roughly its present form about 6000 years ago. Do you agree? Do you agree that ID/creationism is a religious stance, based solely on efforts to defend a particular sectarian interpretation of the Book of Genesis in the light of scientific findings to the contrary? Or do you disagree with the contents of the book?

Paul Burnett said:

Ian Brandon Andersen said: However, when the facade of Darwinism is removed, you will come face to face with Nietzche's abyss, you will see the dark void of the Satanic religion of evolutionism unobstructed. Then, there will be no more pretending, you must either embrace death and hell or the light and love of Jesus. I'm anxious to see which one you will choose.

Henry said: Genesis is a historical narrative so I take it as the starting point.

Henry said:

harold said:

Henry said: Since O'Reilly isn't a trained historian, you can claim pseudohistory, but the Grand Canyon book is compilation of essays written mostly by trained scientists, Whitcomb was the only exception.

1) Do you think that being written by a trained scientist is sufficient to make something accurate? 2) The Grand Canyon book overtly makes its claims on the grounds that Genesis is literally true, and that the deity often referred to as Jehovah directly created the earth in roughly its present form about 6000 years ago. Do you agree? Do you agree that ID/creationism is a religious stance, based solely on efforts to defend a particular sectarian interpretation of the Book of Genesis in the light of scientific findings to the contrary? Or do you disagree with the contents of the book?

I haven't read the book so I can't say that I definitively agree with the contents of the book, but since some of the writers mentioned are or were associated with ICR, then I probably would agree with most of its contents. Genesis is a historical narrative so I take it as the starting point. Noah, his wife, their three sons, and three daughters-in-law were the only ones to see the pre-flood and the post-flood world. Noah's life also overlapped with 6 or 7 generations of his ancestors and 9 generations of his descendants so he was probably the key figure in transmitting earth's early history up until Abraham's birth.

There are two things that creationists do that I object to - 1) They try to teach sectarian dogma as “science” in taxpayer funded public schools. 2) They mislead the public about science, by marketing ID/creationist works as scientific, rather than religious.

Ian Brandon Andersen said: ... you must either embrace death and hell or the light and love of Jesus. I'm anxious to see which one you will choose.

Baptist

John_S said:

Ian Brandon Andersen said: ... you must either embrace death and hell or the light and love of Jesus. I'm anxious to see which one you will choose.

What does evolution have to do with embracing the love of Jesus as opposed to embracing your own narrow, minority religious beliefs? Are you suggesting that in order to avoid going to hell, everyone has to be a Baptist, Adventist, Jehovah's Witness or one of the other minority Christian sects that has a problem with evolution? Let's hear exactly what your beliefs are with regard to Roman Catholics, evangelical Lutherans and the majority of the rest of the Christian world that have no problem with evolution.

eric said:

Ian Brandon Andersen said: You must free your mind from the Darwinian, linear world of time-bound awareness. They had all the time they needed. A day is a thousand years and a thousand years is a day.

Poe or not, that's some pretty awesome bafflegab. IBA, if you're going to throw out historical consistency altogether, why do you have a problem with contemporary evidence for evolution? If Moses-with-Jesus could miracle up the Pentateuch in three hours, surely Jesus could miracle up some billion year old fossils.

you must either embrace death and hell or the light and love of Jesus.

God demands we love him or go to hell? Truly, God is love.

This latest troll doesn’t understand any science either.

Why is that always the case?

Can anybody get one of these trolls to admit why they never learn any science even as they presume to criticize it with their uncomprehending stupidity?

Clean up on aisle three.

IBA is clearly a Poe, having fun with the humor-impaired.

harold said:

Baptist

I was raised in a rural, traditional, and austere, but positive and non-traumatizing Baptist church. I'm not religious, but in my case, not because of exposure to negative or bigoted religion. Education was respected. Creationism never came up. Literal belief in things like Noah's Ark would have been considered compatible with being a good person, but a sign of severe educational deprivation. We were vaguely aware that local Pentecostals, JW's, and so on were creationist, and Baptists were more sympathetic toward them than the "snobbier" churches - membership in those sects was almost 100% associated with poverty and social pathology where I grew up, and we were taught to respect people regardless of financial or social status. Former president James Carter is a Baptist and a strong science supporter. Not a big deal, but "Baptist" is a very diverse denomination. There are also plenty of science-denying right wing Baptists. However, I will note that George W. Bush and Rick Perry are both Methodists (a church that doesn't even officially ascribe to "Biblical literalism").

Mike Elzinga said: This latest troll doesn’t understand any science either. Why is that always the case? Can anybody get one of these trolls to admit why they never learn any science even as they presume to criticize it with their uncomprehending stupidity?

Ian Brandon Andersen said: The Grand Canyon creation is a non-repeatable event beyond the scope of science..

Byers, it is testimony to the incoherence of what passes for your thought that you can simultaneously believe that "the book is not religious" and "(its) presumptions are biblical", or that you equate "banned" with "one outlet declines to stock it".

stevaroni said:

Ian Brandon Andersen said: The Grand Canyon creation is a non-repeatable event beyond the scope of science..

Huh? There are large erosion canyons all over the world. King's canyon in California is the same size, and Palo Duro canyon in northwest Texas is quite similar in topography and structure,. Utah is covered with similar sandstone deposits and, unsurprisingly, sports large erosion features of it's own (Think arches Natural Park) which are, also unsurprisingly, well-correlated with those in the Grand canyon. Like Sargent Friday used to say, "Nuthin' to see here, folks".

Ian Brandon Andersen said: So, who has seen a canyon actually being created?

Was a canyon not there one day and there the next. If not, you have no evidence how they were created. Why couldn't they all have been created in the Genesis Flood? There is testimony it actually happened.

stevaroni said:

Ian Brandon Andersen said: The Grand Canyon creation is a non-repeatable event beyond the scope of science..

Huh? There are large erosion canyons all over the world.

xubist said:

Ian Brandon Andersen said: So, who has seen a canyon actually being created?

Me. I saw the Grand Canyon being created. And since you just friggin' love eyewitness testimony, IBA, you can't dispute me, now can you? I mean, what are you going to do -- call me a liar on the grounds of mundane evidence, the likes of which you flatly refuse to give credence to in other contexts?

Was a canyon not there one day and there the next. If not, you have no evidence how they were created. Why couldn't they all have been created in the Genesis Flood? There is testimony it actually happened.

Sorry, but if you're talking about the Bible, there's no testimony about the formation of the Grand Canyon -- the Grand Canyon isn't even mentioned in the Bible! But like I said, I was there, and I saw it happen, and since it's eyewitness testimony, you can surely trust it. Right, IBA?

Paul Burnett said:

stevaroni said:

Ian Brandon Andersen said: The Grand Canyon creation is a non-repeatable event beyond the scope of science..

Huh? There are large erosion canyons all over the world.

Here's a question which should always be asked of creationists when the young Grand Canyon comes up: Were the large erosion canyons "Valles Marineris" and "Baltis Vallis" created by Noah's Flood? How about it, Ian? Were they? If not, how did they come about?

Ian Brandon Andersen said:

Paul Burnett said: Here's a question which should always be asked of creationists when the young Grand Canyon comes up: Were the large erosion canyons "Valles Marineris" and "Baltis Vallis" created by Noah's Flood? How about it, Ian? Were they? If not, how did they come about?

Why not?

eric said:

Ian Brandon Andersen said:

Paul Burnett said: Here's a question which should always be asked of creationists when the young Grand Canyon comes up: Were the large erosion canyons "Valles Marineris" and "Baltis Vallis" created by Noah's Flood? How about it, Ian? Were they? If not, how did they come about?

Why not?

They are on Mars, Ian. So, Ian, there are erosion canyons on Mars. Were they formed in the flood? If not, how did they come about? (Probably a better question is - why do we bother? Eventually Ian's just going to invoke omphalos theology.)

Ian Brandon Andersen said: If you're not a full-blooded Havasupai, you could not be in any position to make such testimony, and if you are, you need to expalin why your people testified the Canyon was formed in an event suspiciously similar to the Genesis Flood.

Ian Brandon Andersen said: What would have stopped the flood from extending to Mars as well?

Even if water can not be liquid at Martian temperature or pressure there could be other liquids Yahweh could have used--maybe Bromine.

Case in point. I’m having difficultly discussing what we are discussing. If a book is banned from a government place then its banned despite being allowed on the corner.

The book is not religious anymore then any opposing book is that addresses religious points on these matters.

The book is meant to address natural processes and oppose interpretations. Yes presumptions are biblical but its answers and conclusions are not from religious insight.

They are interested in the GC in intellectual ways despite all motivations.

eric -

There is no doubt in my mind that you are engaging with a parody poster.

I actually find his schtick funny, but the bottom line is, it will extend indefinitely. He will deliver some imaginative and humorous, yet outrageous, "rebuttal" to whatever you say.

For example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj8RIEQH7zA

Paul Burnett said:

stevaroni said:

Ian Brandon Andersen said: The Grand Canyon creation is a non-repeatable event beyond the scope of science..

Huh? There are large erosion canyons all over the world.

Here's a question which should always be asked of creationists when the young Grand Canyon comes up: Were the large erosion canyons "Valles Marineris" and "Baltis Vallis" created by Noah's Flood? How about it, Ian? Were they? If not, how did they come about?

xubist said:

Ian Brandon Andersen said: So, who has seen a canyon actually being created?

Me. I saw the Grand Canyon being created. And since you just friggin' love eyewitness testimony, IBA, you can't dispute me, now can you? I mean, what are you going to do -- call me a liar on the grounds of mundane evidence, the likes of which you flatly refuse to give credence to in other contexts?

Was a canyon not there one day and there the next. If not, you have no evidence how they were created. Why couldn't they all have been created in the Genesis Flood? There is testimony it actually happened.

Sorry, but if you're talking about the Bible, there's no testimony about the formation of the Grand Canyon -- the Grand Canyon isn't even mentioned in the Bible! But like I said, I was there, and I saw it happen, and since it's eyewitness testimony, you can surely trust it. Right, IBA?

harold said: eric - There is no doubt in my mind that you are engaging with a parody poster.

Your arguments are to science what R. Byers’ are to law.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Well, why was there a "Noachian era" on Mars?

The Grand Canyon was created when Paul Bunyan and Babe the Blue Ox dragged an axe behind them.

No Noachian flood could possibly account for such a specified complex structure with so much color.

Ian Brandon Andersen said:

xubist said:

Ian Brandon Andersen said: So, who has seen a canyon actually being created?

Me. I saw the Grand Canyon being created. And since you just friggin' love eyewitness testimony, IBA, you can't dispute me, now can you? I mean, what are you going to do -- call me a liar on the grounds of mundane evidence, the likes of which you flatly refuse to give credence to in other contexts?

I can say you're probably a liar based on other testimony concerning the canyon.

eric said: When God saw the wickedness of man on earth, he decided the tharks and red men of mars had to be wiped out as part of the punishment, too. Hey, it makes as much sense as anything else.

Ian Brandon Andersen said:

eric said:

Ian Brandon Andersen said:

Paul Burnett said: Here's a question which should always be asked of creationists when the young Grand Canyon comes up: Were the large erosion canyons "Valles Marineris" and "Baltis Vallis" created by Noah's Flood? How about it, Ian? Were they? If not, how did they come about?

Why not?

They are on Mars, Ian. So, Ian, there are erosion canyons on Mars. Were they formed in the flood? If not, how did they come about? (Probably a better question is - why do we bother? Eventually Ian's just going to invoke omphalos theology.)

What would have stopped the flood from extending to Mars as well? Even if water can not be liquid at Martian temperature or pressure there could be other liquids Yahweh could have used--maybe Bromine.

Going through the effusions of the ridiculous Andersen, I see he spells the name of Nietzsche correctly, but that of Pontius Pilate incorrectly. I should have seen that before, but I wasn't reading his nonsense.

You're right. A Poeseur.

No, Byers, it's not based on any evidence. All the assertions it makes about physical facts supporting a recent six-day creation are either irrelevant or untrue. Every single one of them. There is not one shred of actual evidence that supports such a presupposition in the whole book.

It is not true that this kind of layering is the result of hydrogolic sorting. It is not true that erosion is not observed at the strata boundaries, called "horizons". It is not true that catastrophic flooding produces sinuous, winding valleys like that of the Colorado. It is not true that there was ever any requirement at any time for the Colorado to flow uphill. It is not true that soft sediments all laid down at once and then agitated by mighty water flows could carve intricate patterns in a single deep valley like this. It is not true that the Colorado River does not have a delta commensurate with the sediments the river is carrying, and has been carrying for millions of years. It is not true that the "geological column" is a wholly theoretical construct, not found anywhere in complete form, but it would be totally irrelevant even if that were true. It is not true that there is such a thing as "the Evolutionary-Geological Column".

To assert any or all of those untruths is false testimony, and at least some of the authors know it to be false. That means that they are telling lies.

Doesn't your vaunted religion have a prohibition against telling lies? Didn't the man you call God tell you where lies come from, and who is their father?

Robert Byers said: On one point. My point is that the creationist gC book is based on the evidence and they make their case to everyone based on the evidence. There is a original presumption of biblical revelation . Yet if this was all it was about they would quote a few verses and end it there. These books are based on investigation based on natural processes. Just a original kick to get processes going in a big way. This is the truth.

eric said: Fundies could learn from their example. Instead of treating the bible as evidence, treat it as a hypothesis-generator, and use regular science to decide whether the hypothesis is supported by evidence or not.

bigdakine said:

Ian Brandon Andersen said:

eric said:

Ian Brandon Andersen said:

Paul Burnett said: Here's a question which should always be asked of creationists when the young Grand Canyon comes up: Were the large erosion canyons "Valles Marineris" and "Baltis Vallis" created by Noah's Flood? How about it, Ian? Were they? If not, how did they come about?

Why not?

They are on Mars, Ian. So, Ian, there are erosion canyons on Mars. Were they formed in the flood? If not, how did they come about? (Probably a better question is - why do we bother? Eventually Ian's just going to invoke omphalos theology.)

What would have stopped the flood from extending to Mars as well? Even if water can not be liquid at Martian temperature or pressure there could be other liquids Yahweh could have used--maybe Bromine.

Well that gives it away. No creationist would actually conjure up Bromine.

Ian Brandon Andersen said:

bigdakine said:

Ian Brandon Andersen said:

eric said:

Ian Brandon Andersen said:

Paul Burnett said: Here's a question which should always be asked of creationists when the young Grand Canyon comes up: Were the large erosion canyons "Valles Marineris" and "Baltis Vallis" created by Noah's Flood? How about it, Ian? Were they? If not, how did they come about?

Why not?

They are on Mars, Ian. So, Ian, there are erosion canyons on Mars. Were they formed in the flood? If not, how did they come about? (Probably a better question is - why do we bother? Eventually Ian's just going to invoke omphalos theology.)

What would have stopped the flood from extending to Mars as well? Even if water can not be liquid at Martian temperature or pressure there could be other liquids Yahweh could have used--maybe Bromine.

Well that gives it away. No creationist would actually conjure up Bromine.

All right,the Bromine thing was a lame idea. Nevertheless, there could have been a Noahcian era on Mars. Liquid water could be stable if it is salty enough. Yes, there is good reason to suspect that the canyons on Mars were created during the Noahcian flood.

Mike Elzinga said: The Grand Canyon was created when Paul Bunyan and Babe the Blue Ox dragged an axe behind them. No Noachian flood could possibly account for such a specified complex structure with so much color.

Ian Brandon Andersen said:

bigdakine said:

Ian Brandon Andersen said:

eric said:

Ian Brandon Andersen said:

Paul Burnett said: Here's a question which should always be asked of creationists when the young Grand Canyon comes up: Were the large erosion canyons "Valles Marineris" and "Baltis Vallis" created by Noah's Flood? How about it, Ian? Were they? If not, how did they come about?

Why not?

They are on Mars, Ian. So, Ian, there are erosion canyons on Mars. Were they formed in the flood? If not, how did they come about? (Probably a better question is - why do we bother? Eventually Ian's just going to invoke omphalos theology.)

What would have stopped the flood from extending to Mars as well? Even if water can not be liquid at Martian temperature or pressure there could be other liquids Yahweh could have used--maybe Bromine.

Well that gives it away. No creationist would actually conjure up Bromine.

All right,the Bromine thing was a lame idea. Nevertheless, there could have been a Noahcian era on Mars. Liquid water could be stable if it is salty enough. Yes, there is good reason to suspect that the canyons on Mars were created during the Noahcian flood.

Yesterday, on Glenn Beck's radio show, O'Reilly said he invited Rae Emerson to his show, but she declined the invitation. She missed a golden opportunity to demonstrate to his audience where he was inaccurate, but for some reason she didn't take it. Something smells fishy here.

No, Byers. Scientific hypothesis comes from observing facts of nature. Creationism, young earth style, comes from nothing but the Bible. There are no facts, not a one, not a trace, nothing, underneath it at all, save only one - "This is what it says in the Bible".

That's it. That's all. No facts, no evidence, no nature, no observations, nothing except that. And you are effective, persuasive and successful to the precise extent that you can get away with denying or ignoring the facts, or lying about them. Like this GC book does, over and over again.

I really hate to do this, but I actually agree with Robert here. The bible is a perfectly legitimate source of scientific hypotheses. If you believe that the bible is literally true and that the world is less than ten thousand years old and that there was a world wide flood about six thousand years ago, then you could form the hypothesis that the Grand Canyon, (and probably every other major geological feature on the earth), was produced by this flood in a period of only a few years. Sure, why not? It's no more improbable than having an apple fall on your head and forming an hypothesis about gravity.

In fact, most myths are trying to explain something about the real world, some aspect that is not easily understood. In essence, they can be thought of as hypotheses. But of course, in the case of religion, that's where it ends. Just come up with some story that seems to make some sense and decide that everyone has to believe it. Mystery solved.

Unfortunately for Robert, that's only the first step in the scientific method. You see, no matter where your ideas come from, no matter what the inspiration for your hypothesis, you must then test it. For that you need evidence. In the case of the Grand Canyon, many different types of tests have been run, many different types of evidence have been examined. From geology to hydrology to radiometric dating to the investigation of lava flows from volcanic eruptions to the correlation of strata in different parts of the world to examination of fossils, etc. etc. etc. The evidence conclusively falsifies the hypothesis that the Grand Canyon was formed by some kind of flood, any kind of flood. The geology of the area is unique. The combination of uplift and erosion have produced one of the most spectacular features on the face of the planet. We understand in great detail exactly how this happened and the time frame over which it occurred. We don't yet have all of the answers, that's why research continues. But anyone at all familiar with the evidence has justifiably concluded that the biblical "hypothesis" is conclusively falsified.

Now Robert can stammer and crow all he wants to about biblical inspiration or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It's all completely irrelevant. What matters is the evidence. EIther the bible was wrong, or maybe, just maybe, there is some deeper truth in the creation myth from which we can all learn something important about the human condition. Demanding that the myth be taken literally, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, not only makes the bible look foolish, but it also robs the myth of any truth, beauty or meaning that the authors originally intended. Now that is a kind of blasphemy. That is hubris on a scale that rivals that of the Grand Canyon itself.

Henry said: Yesterday, on Glenn Beck's radio show, O'Reilly said he invited Rae Emerson to his show, but she declined the invitation. She missed a golden opportunity to demonstrate to his audience where he was inaccurate, but for some reason she didn't take it. Something smells fishy here.

Dave, the Bible being a "perfectly legitimate source of scientific hypotheses" is totally depended on the presupposition that the Bible was originally intended to be a scientific treatise, which it was not.

DS said: I really hate to do this, but I actually agree with Robert here. The bible is a perfectly legitimate source of scientific hypotheses. If you believe that the bible is literally true and that the world is less than ten thousand years old and that there was a world wide flood about six thousand years ago, then you could form the hypothesis that the Grand Canyon, (and probably every other major geological feature on the earth), was produced by this flood in a period of only a few years. Sure, why not? It's no more improbable than having an apple fall on your head and forming an hypothesis about gravity. In fact, most myths are trying to explain something about the real world, some aspect that is not easily understood. In essence, they can be thought of as hypotheses. But of course, in the case of religion, that's where it ends. Just come up with some story that seems to make some sense and decide that everyone has to believe it. Mystery solved. Unfortunately for Robert, that's only the first step in the scientific method. You see, no matter where your ideas come from, no matter what the inspiration for your hypothesis, you must then test it. For that you need evidence. In the case of the Grand Canyon, many different types of tests have been run, many different types of evidence have been examined. From geology to hydrology to radiometric dating to the investigation of lava flows from volcanic eruptions to the correlation of strata in different parts of the world to examination of fossils, etc. etc. etc. The evidence conclusively falsifies the hypothesis that the Grand Canyon was formed by some kind of flood, any kind of flood. The geology of the area is unique. The combination of uplift and erosion have produced one of the most spectacular features on the face of the planet. We understand in great detail exactly how this happened and the time frame over which it occurred. We don't yet have all of the answers, that's why research continues. But anyone at all familiar with the evidence has justifiably concluded that the biblical "hypothesis" is conclusively falsified. Now Robert can stammer and crow all he wants to about biblical inspiration or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It's all completely irrelevant. What matters is the evidence. EIther the bible was wrong, or maybe, just maybe, there is some deeper truth in the creation myth from which we can all learn something important about the human condition. Demanding that the myth be taken literally, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, not only makes the bible look foolish, but it also robs the myth of any truth, beauty or meaning that the authors originally intended. Now that is a kind of blasphemy. That is hubris on a scale that rivals that of the Grand Canyon itself.

Correction: The 1/40th size was in reference to Mt St Helens' 1982 event.

Henry said: Here is an example of how the Grand Canyon could have been carved out rapidly. It is only 1/40th the size of the Grand Canyon, but it shows what could happen in only a few days. http://www.icr.org/article/texas-canyons-geologic-catastrophe/

Robert Byers said: YEC organized creationism is all about making a case on natural processes or criticizing opponents on same. Its not about religious verses or merely presumptions. Its all about persuading on observation, analysis, etc of the raw data.

Robert Byers said: YEC organized creationism is all about making a case on natural processes or criticizing opponents on same. Its not about religious verses or merely presumptions. Its all about persuading on observation, analysis, etc of the raw data.

Robert Byers said: Thanks. I would correct that the bible is a legitimate source for hypothesis on the workings of the natural world. Next step being investigation and demonstration that the natural world processes do fit within this biblical presumption. The GC book does this or trys. It also takes on the other hypothesis of slow creation. YEC organized creationism is all about making a case on natural processes or criticizing opponents on same. Its not about religious verses or merely presumptions. Its all about persuading on observation, analysis, etc of the raw data.

DS said:

Henry said: Here is an example of how the Grand Canyon could have been carved out rapidly. It is only 1/40th the size of the Grand Canyon, but it shows what could happen in only a few days. http://www.icr.org/article/texas-canyons-geologic-catastrophe/

Really? It was cut out by the magic flood? Then how was it formed? Remember you must explain all of the layers, including the volcanic eruptions between them, as well as the correlation between the layers and the same layers and fossil assemblages elsewhere, sometimes thousands of miles away. Good luck.

Here's another example of a recent flood changing a landscape.

http://www.icr.org/article/missouri-flood-carves-badlands-landscape/

Henry said: Here's another example of a recent flood changing a landscape. http://www.icr.org/article/missouri-flood-carves-badlands-landscape/

Henry said: Magic is what Disney does. Breached dams can cut out canyons rapidly, including the Grand Canyon. http://www.icr.org/article/red-rock-pass-spillway-bonneville-flood/

The Grand Canyon is sinuous, twisting, very deep and very steep. It is caused by erosion through successive beds of hard sedimentary rock by one single stream and its tributaries. It never formed, could never have been formed, by a single rush of water. Breakouts erode, sure they do, but they don't erode like that. They produce straighter channels, washout fans and breakaways, without tributary streams. These features are present at the various breakouts the IC tries to present as being formed like the Grand Canyon. They show that the Grand Canyon wasn't formed like that.

The successive sedimentary beds of the Colorado Plateau could never have been formed by hydrogolic sorting, because they form absolutely distinct strata with clear-cut horizons, with denser strata superimposed on less dense. That can't happen in a single event. Can't. Single sedimentation with hydrogolic sorting produces a graduation from heaviest and coarsest elements at the bottom to lightest and finest at the top, in a continuity. Stratification as seen in the Grand Canyon can only be caused by many inundations over immense amounts of time, each sedimentation already formed when the next begins.

The uplift of the Colorado Plateau to its current heights, a movement that continues, and can be and has been measured, can and does explain the course of the Colorado River, but only if that movement is carried back in time about twenty million years, a figure which is corroborated by investigation of the alluvial fans at successive mouths of the river.

Which means that the strata of the Colorado Plateau were in place twenty million years ago, and the river began flowing when the uplift produced both the slope and the relief rainfall to allow it. The rocks themselves are immensely older.

The book "The Grand Canyon: An Alternative View" is not an alternative view unless it were one formed by ignoring facts and substituting successive layers of fantasy, easily falsified by observing the real river and the real rocks. It is nothing but sectarian religion tricked up in sciency-sounding language and glorious photography, but it's as false as a doxy's smile. The actual geologists associated with it are beyond shame, but shame on them anyway.

Dave Luckett said: The book "The Grand Canyon: An Alternative View" is not an alternative view unless it were one formed by ignoring facts and substituting successive layers of fantasy, easily falsified by observing the real river and the real rocks. It is nothing but sectarian religion tricked up in sciency-sounding language and glorious photography, but it's as false as a doxy's smile. The actual geologists associated with it are beyond shame, but shame on them anyway.

apokryltaros said:

Henry said: Magic is what Disney does. Breached dams can cut out canyons rapidly, including the Grand Canyon. http://www.icr.org/article/red-rock-pass-spillway-bonneville-flood/

Except that you are, in fact, invoking magic to explain the formation of the Grand Canyon. Geological features formed by a dam breach look very different than the Grand Canyon, which was eroded over the course of several million years. Dam breach style erosions have smooth features, with no pinnacles, like those seen in the Washington Scablands from Lake Misoula. That, and why should we assume that the Grand Canyon was not formed through direct magical intervention by God if you're also claiming that all of the strata seen in the Grand Canyon was also lain down in the Great Flood, at the same time it was being eroded away?

Henry said: I haven't claimed the strata in the Grand Canyon and the erosion of it were the same event. They were two events, Noah's flood and the breach of a dam, probably at the end of Ice Age.

co said:

Henry said: I haven't claimed the strata in the Grand Canyon and the erosion of it were the same event. They were two events, Noah's flood and the breach of a dam, probably at the end of Ice Age.

Erm... a) When was Noah's flood, Henry? b) When was the [last] ice age? c) Where was this dam, and in which direction did the water flow? d) Why, if those successive layers were put down in some sort of global flood, do we not see those layers everywhere? e) (to help with (d)) At what elevation was the Colorado Plateau during the "flood" and during the dam break?

So, henry, where in the Bible did it even mention an Ice Age, let alone state that the plateau the Grand Canyon is carved into was lain down "during the Ice Age"?

Where in the Bible did it state to assume that the Grand Canyon was the result of a dam breach, even though the Grand Canyon looks nothing like a typical dam breach-eroded canyon?

Henry said: Magic is what Disney does. Breached dams can cut out canyons rapidly, including the Grand Canyon. http://www.icr.org/article/red-rock-pass-spillway-bonneville-flood/

Scott F said: And notice that scientists proposed the Missoula Flood hypothesis. Their ideas weren't rejected by the "established" scientific consensus, they weren't censored. Because, the new ideas came with evidence, and the new ideas explained the existing evidence better than the previous theory. Though it did take Bretz a long time and a lot of data to convince people, he didn't invoke the Bible or Noah's flood to account for his evidence. Just hard, persistent field work, evidence, and reason. No biblical magic was required.