Is pseudoscience privileged over pseudohistory?

| 133 Comments

Ford’s Theater National Historic Site has banned removed from sale Bill O’Reilly’s book on the Lincoln assassination from its bookstore because the book is not historically accurate. Can it be any worse than Grand Canyon: A Different View, which is still on sale at the Grand Canyon National Park Bookstore?

According to a group called Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, the book has been moved to an apparently ad hoc Inspirational section of the bookstore, and the National Park Service has delayed issuing instructions on how to deal with creationist questions.

Is pseudoscience based on religion somehow privileged over pseudohistory? Apparently, yes.

Thanks to Walter Plywaski for the link to the Post article.

133 Comments

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.

Unless the modification is by poof (while being as slavishly derivative as non-teleological evolution), of course.

Glen Davidson

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, …

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.

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.

Or, you could say that Ford’s Theatre has banned the official sale of said book in its bookstore.

But then it gets a bit wordy.

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?

I’d almost say it’s the other way around.

I suppose it will cause some trivial controversy if I say this (trivial because it won’t bother me if others disagree, for one thing), but I see history as actually being a discipline that works within the scientific method, broadly defined.

A vast amount of historical writing consists of presentation of data gleaned from original documents in a more palatable format, hypothesizing about what wasn’t recorded or mental states, etc. There’s an inevitable tendency for the historian to take a subjective tone that relates to whatever contemporary cultural values the historian may hold.

Still, at the end of the day, the basis of real history is the interpretation of original written sources, which are critically evaluated for authenticity, author bias, and accuracy.

Historians incorporate results from related fields like archaeology, anthropology, forensic science, social science, etc.

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

Historical writing developed in parallel with proto-scientific and scientific methodology. In the west, there was a period of great (but not objective by modern standards) historical writing during the classical Greek and Roman times, a slow down during the early middle ages, a new peak around the twelfth century, then a much larger peak during “the Renaissance”, and finally the development of modern historical writing from “the enlightenment” through the present. I believe that there is a similar tendency for proto-science/technological advance to be roughly simultaneous with advances in analysis and recording of history in China, India, and other societies.

The common element is the use of skeptical observation of reality, without excessive (by the standards of the times) resort to magical explanations.

“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…

If only this were true, Dave. Most of the errors in the book are trivial (e.g. describing the Oval Office decades before it actually existed, getting the acreage wrong for Samuel Mudd’s farm), but the fantasy about Mary Surratt being forced to wear a hood, being imprisoned on the Montauk, etc., feeds the anti-gummint paranoia that O’Reilly is well-known for.

(A cynical observation: the mistreatment of Surratt is not only fictitious, it’s less cruel than the tortures O’Reilly has been all in favour of using in Guantanamo.)

That’s interesting, Harold (I wrote the comment you responded to, but I hadn’t signed in). I hadn’t really thought of history that way before. (I’m getting my PHD in history now, for what it’s worth.)

I do have a quibble with this:

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

It’s not so much that I disagree–I suppose a work of history does make implicit, or sometimes even explicit claims about what sources found in the future might reveal–but that I don’t think historians see their craft in that way. I can’t put my finger on it, actually. I guess that’s why I’ll never be a scientist :)

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.

The third paragragh reads,

While the National Park Service does not carry “Killing Lincoln” in the theater’s basement museum bookstore, Ford’s Theatre Society, which operates Ford’s Theatre in partnership with the park service, sells the book in its gift shop located in the ground-floor lobby of the theater. “We decided several weeks ago to carry Bill O’Reilly’s book ‘Killing Lincoln’ in the Ford’s Theatre Society gift shop,” said Paul R. Tetreault, director of Ford’s Theatre Society. “While we understand the National Park Service’s concerns about the book, we decided to let our visitors judge the book themselves.”

Instead of selling the book in the basement, it’s sold in the lobby instead.

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.

Trained scientists wholly ignorant of Earth’s history.

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?

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.”

It is as oxymoronic as referring to “automobile repair specialists who are wholly ignorant of what cars are and how combustion engines function.”

Creationists assert (without proof) that all sedimentary rocks were lain down during the Great Flood, and they also assert (without proof) that all geological features were formed through erosion during the Great Flood.

Yet, creationists fail to explain how sedimentary rocks could form and set in 40 days and 40 nights of turbulent flooding, and be hard enough to be eroded into geological sculptures without turning back into big piles of wet mud.

That is, fail to explain without invoking magic ala “GODDIDIT.”

And all this Creationist book about the Grand Canyon is a bunch of underqualified Idiots for Jesus pontifying out of their bellybuttons about how a plateau of layers and layers of sedimentary and igneous rock were magically formed and eroded during the Flood because GODDIDTHIS and GODDIDTHAT using magic.

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.”

Well they could be toilet trained.

Henry said:

Since O’Reilly isn’t a trained historian, you can claim pseudohistory

People are claiming pseudohistory because O’Reilly’s book contains numerous errors and contradictions to history that suggest he did a very poor job of researching President Lincoln’s assassination.

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

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmg[…]X_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

And they can not act as “trained scientists” when they’ve also signed (and boasted about, and have forced others to sign) written statements stating that they must disregard any and all evidence contradicting the idea that God magically poofed the world into existence 10,000 years ago, and destroyed it via a magic flood 4,000 years ago, all as according to a literal reading of the English translation of the Book of Genesis.

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

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.

No one is banning or burning books. You are free to write, sell, purchase, discuss, or promote whatever book you want. But there is no “right” of having your book sold at the museum gift shop. National parks, historical monuments, museums, galleries, etc., are curated for the purposes of preserving a culturally significant heritage and educating the public about such. Thus, such sites are generally entrusted to those with the relevant expertise to competently preserve and accurately educate. One would hope that accurately educating would necessarily entail only providing information for sale in a gift shop that is consistent with the best accepted scholarship on the subject. Alas, from my own experience, I know that this is not always the case in large commercialized gift shops at some sites. Nonetheless, it is a disservice to the public to sell a book advocating geocentrism in a planetarium gift shop, a book denying the Holocaust at the Holocaust Museum, or a YEC book at the Grand Canyon gift shop.

This Byers comment is pretty well organized, so I’ll briefly comment on it.

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.

Yes it is, and you prove it is yourself in the next few lines.

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

Emphasis mine.

Right, that’s why it’s religious. It presumes that a certain sectarian interpretation of the Book of Genesis, one you happen to share, but many others don’t, must be correct, regardless of the evidence.

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

Actually, what it does is deny the logical consensus interpretation of the evidence, providing far fetched and inaccurate scenarios that attempt to square obvious powerful evidence against a 6000 year old earth - the Grand Canyon - with a 6000 year old earth. Purely for religious reasons.

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.

I cannot imagine anyone failing to understand that it belongs in the religion section (with the caveat that I don’t think tax funded national parks should have a religion section). The book was written because of religion. If the authors of the book were not members of a sect that believes, purely for religious reasons, that the earth is ~6000 years old, they would not have written the book. Absolutely no independent interest in the Grand Canyon was involved. The sole objective of the writers is to deny the scientific version of how the Grand Canyon was formed, purely because it conflicts, not with most religions (it does not), but with their particular sect.

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

I completely oppose banning, burning*, or blowing up* the book (*except, in theory by people who pay for it and then do those things legally, within the bounds of local law, with their own private property - but that seems like a rather dumb idea).

The book is obviously not banned. Furthermore, by discussing it here, we are, far from censoring it, drawing attention to it.

I guess books matter and can be agents of change.

Yes. For example, 300 years ago, most educated western people thought that the earth actually was 6000 years old. However, books on geology and related sciences changed their mind.

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.

Me thinks it missed the point. Me thinks it is a weasel.

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-ca[…]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.

Magic is what Disney does.

Breached dams can cut out canyons rapidly, including the Grand Canyon.

http://www.icr.org/article/red-rock[…]ville-flood/

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

http://www.icr.org/article/missouri[…]s-landscape/

Henry said:

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

http://www.icr.org/article/missouri[…]s-landscape/

The ICR, AiG and the DI put up these “amulets” so that followers will buy them and wear them as “protection” out in the “evil world.”

But in reality they are just sheep bells being placed on sheep going to the slaughter. And these bells are “bellwethers” that allow their creators to test ideas in the outside world without getting slaughtered themselves.

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[…]ville-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?

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.

In other words, all of the so-called “scientists” in The Grand Canyon: An Alternative View all invoke to explain how and why the Great Flood eroded the Grand Canyon while simultaneously forming the plateau it is carved into.

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[…]ville-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?

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.

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?

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?

More importantly, where in the Bible does it state all of this?

Can you answer that, henry? After all, you do think that the Bible is also a scientific treatise that magically trumps all of science and reality.

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[…]ville-flood/

Actually, we have known examples of gorges carved by floods from breached dams at the end of the last ice age (15,000 years ago):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missoula_Floods

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drumheller_Channels

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_River

Not surprisingly, the resulting landscape looks a lot like the images posted on the ICR web site of recent, smaller flooding events. Unfortunately for “Flood Geology”, the Columbia River basin, now known to have been carved by sudden floods, doesn’t look anything like the Grand Canyon or its environs.

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.

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.

You would think that they would get the hint by now. If they want their ideas to be accepted by the scientific community, all they need is evidence. And yet, every single one of them refuses to even look for any evidence. They make whole careers out of ignoring evidence. Now why do you suppose that is?

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Matt Young published on November 13, 2011 9:02 PM.

Illuminated Origin of Species was the previous entry in this blog.

Morinda citrifolia is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter