In geomorphology/geology, and in biology I discovered that forms of something are cl;aimed to have had different origins. In geomorphology, just three examples, are how great canyons were agreed to have been caused by a megaflood in one day, like the mIssoula flood and others, that completely mimic what other canyons look like but are said to have been created over great timelines even millions of years. Another case is how salt stagimites(sp) , created instantly in a day or so, look exactly like other stagimites , made of other elements, that are claimed to have taken large timelines, thousands of years, in caves to grow. then in meteorites they have found tiny tiny diamonds(I think in meteorites) that they conclude were created instantly, a moment, from great heat/pressure WHILE still saying regular bigger diamonds were created from long timelines, millions of years.In biology there is the famous convergent cases of marsupials looking spot on like non marsupials in forms like dogs, cats, mice.
I say that in all these cases its not just that having proven a origin for one form that allows us to say its the origin for any like form BUT that on a probability curve its very unlikely that the origin hypothesis for the forms, not proven/witnessed , are right. not just unneeded but very prompting they were wrong. they were speculations about long timelines that were used until modern investigation proved, for like firms ,were rapidly created.That in these cases real time math/probability really can correct errors that are in opposition to creationism.
Eh?
You are right. Convergence is merely the designer being lazy and re-using an existing design.
Where are the creatures with wheels I often wonder…
“In geomorphology, just three examples, are how great canyons were agreed to have been caused by a megaflood in one day, like the mIssoula flood and others, that completely mimic what other canyons look like but are said to have been created over great timelines even millions of years.”
That’s completely wrong. If we look at the Channeled Scablands in the NW part of the US, there are massive differences between the features in the scablands created by catastrophic flooding and the features found in the Grand Canyon.
1. The scablands have U shaped canyons while the Grand Canyon has V shaped canyons.
2. The scablands have multiple braided channels with wide channels. The Grand Canyon has a single channel with side canyons perpendicular to the main canyon, and a meandering path for the canyon on a flat plain.
Those are the two major differences, with many more that can be listed. The two are easy to tell apart.
I didn’t know you had one more Ph.D …
Congrats!
Robert,
Your customer…;-)
Okay. i didn’t compare the GC, though i almost did, to the scablands..
I am aware of the differences. however they are trivial. In a spectrum of forms its only a degrees of difference of how water cuts down. Everywhere there are v shaped channels. The u channels simply show a different energy push.
actually i was thinking of how the great lakes have like features with the scablands but are said to have been created by slow glaciers. Yet I say they were just as quickly created as the scablands. just one day.
A further point about the scasblands IS that they do stress its a special case. like on a excellent youtube show about the missoula flood. they start by saying MOSTLY canyons are made by slow work BUT in this special case etc etc etc.
yet its not special and there is no reason to invoke, on a probability curvem another mechanism.
The GC or other canyons looks was presumed by me as trivial differences.
Yet EVEN THEE the concept of how great moving water can create a canyon in a day also demands that the GC was most likely created in a day. Despite tiny differences.
The important thing is hiw iTS ADMITTED great canyons are created instantly. Another YOUTUBE show list several like the British one between England and France..
the GC v shape/meandering in no way shows that it must of been slow.
Instead cutting a canyon could only be done in a quick massive movement of water.
The differences between the GC and scablands is no more then modern differences between bedrock rivers.
However my point was that THEY still are saying that convergence of forms has different mechanisms. In a probability curve this is unlikely.
“On how convergence of form , where one form’s origin is proven, makes any other option for the origin of other forms, very low on a probability curve.
MEAT-EATING PLANT THAT MUNCHES ON BABY SALAMANDERS DISCOVERED IN CANADA’S LITTLE BOG OF HORRORS
https://www.newsweek.com/meat-eating-plant-baby-salamanders-discovered-canada-1443076
Another example of the boring, evolutionary convergence = sudden appearance with spectacular examples of irreducible complexity…
All one needs is faith…;-)
The moment you try to make inconvenient evidence go away by calling it “trivial” is the moment you lose all credibility.
I say that gravity doesn’t exist, but for some strange reason I don’t start floating in mid air. Do you really think your pronouncements somehow change reality?
Not sure you’re getting this. It’s when HE says it that it matters.
It is trivial results within a canyon. Yet its the canyon that is the important result.
Once having demonstrated canyons, glorious ones, being instanltly created then , on a probability curve there is no reason to invoke other mechanisms very different.
I never brought up about variety within canyons. I understand your point. I get it.
I thought about it for years now.
yet the general traits of a canyon is what is being copied. the minor points about the bedrock are minor. in fact i could add the missoula flood made canyons with great falls and poyholes and many details that a other kind of canyon , like GC, do not have. however to me this is just about strengh of the waterflow.
Yet my idea is irrelevant.
its the great result of a great canyon that having been proven to be created by water flow in a single day makes all canyons powerfully likely created the same way.
The smaller details are not refuting this equation. In fact we have modern rivers wit v shapes and glacial rivers with u shapes. yet all simply water flows happening quickly.
Its the great cut in the bedrock that is convergence. Not the braids.
What the fuck is this shit?
BWE,
Who are you? why the malice? get lost please. this is a serious conversation and pretty good. no foul language unless its interesting!!
People. This was a very good thread on concepts in scientific investigation. It uses probability curves to show how better investigation should be done. Some niffy facts added in. A problem in origin science is the quality of investigation. Especially as done in the last two centuries or so.
Its why there has been error in seeing geology/biology conclusions that are plain wrong in origins. Not just the conclusions but the methodology about invisible things.
Every time we go through this exercise, someone mentions incised meanders, impossible for any flood (and if possible posts pictures of Gooseneck State Park in Utah).
But as ever, we are answering different questions. For most of us, the question being asked is “how could this geological feature have formed?” For Byers, it’s “how are existing features best misrepresented or ignored to force a preposterous but foregone conclusion.”
Clearly, the first question is plain wrong. The secret lies in asking the right questions, as any scientist will tell you.
Incised meanders are best explained as a instant creation however thats besides the points. Your comment about me is wat beyond meandering.