You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Evolution Busted’ category.
Welcome to the final instalment of Will Bowman’s obtuse anti-evolution FAIL rant. Today, he’s going to try and get slightly closer to the topic by addressing things that actually evolve, as opposed to things which have nothing to do with the subject at all…
Oldest tree: The Bristle cone pines of California are a beautiful sight to see, but what can they tell us about the age of the earth? vast amounts. The oldest tree is approximately 4400 years old, if the earth was millions of years old, why arent there older tree’s? Answer. There was a flood about 4400 years ago that wiped out all things on a global scale, proving the Biblical account of the flood and a young earth.
You know, I’m glad you brought that up, Will. Bristlecone pines are indeed fabulously old, and they carry in their rings a fairly accurate record of their life experiences. To the trained dendrochronologist (that’s a person who specialises in tree-rings, fact fans!) this can be interpreted to provide environmental data dating back throughout the tree’s lifetime. With most species, that’s maybe a couple of hundred years at most, however the bristlecone pine’s records naturally go back much further. Because they go back so far, we’re able to overlap and match the ring series from living and dead pines to establish accurate chronological information back to about 6000BC.
Guess what? No flood evidence whatsoever from the bristlecone pine. The dead trees dating back to 6000BC (yes, YEC loons, before the Earth was even created, there were trees. Confusing, isn’t it?) would be expected to show noticeable changes in ring structure if the entire world was in fact covered in water at some point, but no – they demonstrate no such markings, and in fact can be matched with the rings of living trees to prove that they survived, unmolested, for at least a thousand years on either side of the accepted (although not by anyone with an ounce of sense) dates for the Flood.
Will, that gun is pointed dangerously close to your foot. You might want to… oh, too late.
Oh, and need I point out that, again, this is entirely irrelevant to evolution?
Fixity of the species: This very fact of nature shows us that God created every creature to produce after it’s own kind… if macro evolution were true, there would not be one fixed species on earth, we would find bilions of inbetween fossils found every day, there would be quarter and half developed human fossils found, as well as every other species. Humans have humans, dogs have dogs, giraffs have giraffs, one species cannot produce anything other than itself.
Hooray! Finally Will has bitten the bullet and presented an argument against the actual theory of evolution! Yes, we know it’s an awful one, but still, props to the man for getting his shit together at long last. And then heaping it in a big steaming pile and calling it an argument.
Go on then, let’s pull this apart. Let’s start with this, “billions of fossils found every day” idea. How does that work, exactly? Is Will proposing that we should all be wading thigh-deep in ammonites? Newsflash, Will, fossils are pretty rare. To become fossilised, a beasty has to die under quite specific conditions, in the right place at the right time – we should no more expect to find them under every rock than we should expect to strike oil by digging in the back garden. The very fact that we have found so many indicates a great proliferation of life on Earth in the past, most of which is not around today, and much of which represents “transitional” stages in evolution. The evidence speaks for itself.
As for the “doggies only have baby doggies” argument, can a person honestly be that naïve? This is indicative of Will’s utter miscomprehension of evolution – he seems to think Darwin assumed that one day a lizard laid an egg which hatched into an osprey, or that a chimpanzee once gave birth to a human being. This makes him an idiot of the first order, since it’s clear from pretty much any scientific treatment of the subject that this is in no way how the process works. Here, Will, is a super-simplified explanation of evolution by natural selection, for your edification (apologies to the educated people who know this stuff already):
1. Some animals in a species have features which make them better adapted for their surroundings – an unusually long neck, for example, or slightly more streamlined fins.
2. These animals have a slight advantage over others of their kind. They are therefore likely to live longer, and therefore more likely to breed.
3. Because of this, the unusual traits which confer an advantage tend to be passed on to the next generation. Over time, this results in animals which are visibly and genetically distinct from their ancestors – hence, a new species.
It really is that straightforward! (Well, okay, it’s not – the mechanisms of the theory are far more complex than this, but that’s the outline) Note that at no point is a haddock required to give birth to a badger. We can observe this process in action – witness Prof. Lemski’s experiments with E. Coli, the nylon-eating Flavobacteria in Japan, or the Chernobyl fungus.
Finally, Will comes to what I feel is the best summary of his position:
Much appeciation to Dr. Kent Hovind for all his reaserch
Says it all, really.
I hope you’ve enjoyed this little jaunt through the arguments of a creationist, I certainly have. A busted theory? Not really, Mr Bowman – it seems to be doing quite nicely, thanks. But if you think of any more compelling arguments against Darwin’s theory, please feel free to send them my way; I can always use a good laugh.
Welcome back to another instalment of Will “Evangelationstation” Bowman’s half-arsed attempt to disprove evolution by, er… never actually addressing the topic of evolution. This time he’s managed to get back to Earth, so hopefully today’s arguments will be a bit more… well, relevant. He can’t have missed the point that completely – can he?
The oldest desert: The Sahara, truly a natural wonder of nature. but why is it the oldest desert only 4,440 years old? Deserts are made by draining the life of the surrounding greenery and water, and by the rate that it drains and becomes desert, surely we would have a bigger desert. Here’s why, 4,440 years ago, there was a global flood, its pretty hard for a desert to exist under a flood don’t you think :) and it wiped out everything, including the deserts of the world.
So the very age of the oldest desert proves the Biblical account of the flood, thus proving a young earth.
Let’s start with the formation of the desert itself. The Sahara (as new research from the Potsdam Institute demonstrates) formed very rapidly, probably within about 300 years. This sudden desiccation was the result of a massive change in climate about 3500 – 4000 years ago, which may have been a result of the Thera Eruption. The spread of the desert was eventually checked by the Atlantic Ocean to the west, the Atlas Mountains to the North, the Red Sea to the east and the River Niger to the South. Its expansion today is thus vastly slower than it was originally.
None of this proves the Flood. In fact, excavations in the Sahara show exactly the same sedimentary depositing as everywhere else, demonstrating a complete absence of Flood evidence. Will, Will, Will – please read something other than AiG before you post this shit! Even “Dick And Jane” books would give you a better idea of science than you have now.
Annual ice rings? Scientists drill and study deep core ice samples, sometimes thousands of feet thick, scientists found rings in the ice, and they thought it was caused annually just like tree rings, its a very good guess….. but still wrong. they found one with 135,000 rings, they thought they proved the Earth was 135,000 years old. but take a look at the lost squadron, a plane went down over the east coast of Greenland in 1942.
A salvage mission was executed in 1980, and they thought it would just be stuck not even a few inches in, because evolution teaches that ice formations over that area take millions of years to accumulate, how wrong they were. when they found it, it was buried under 250 feet of ice, and there were thousands of ice rings as well? various temperature changes in one day can cause hundreds of ice rings. Millions of years of ice in 40 years.
Ah, yes, the “Lost Squadron” argument – been looking at Answers In Genesis again, Will? This doesn’t hold water, for a simple geographical reason.
The location of the grounded aeroplanes is quite substantially removed from the polar ice sheets from which core samples are taken. Check the map – Greenland’s a big place! Around the eastern coast of the country, where the planes crashed, snowfall is heavy and ice accumulates very rapidly – around 2m per year. Central Greenland, where ice cores are dug, has a far lower annual snowfall. There’s also the issue of meltwater – on the comparatively warm and balmy East coast, the ice regularly melts and re-freezes, creating additional ice layers. The areas from which the core samples are taken is permafrosted, and so this effect is not present.
Basically, Will’s argument assumes that the climate conditions across an island larger than Western Europe must be entirely homogenous. As anyone who has holidayed in both Edinburgh and Marseilles will attest, that’s an awfully skewed assumption. And, as it’s always worth pointing out, evolution most emphatically does not teach that ice takes millions of years to accumulate, because it teaches nothing about ice cores at all.
So:
Failure to understand the fundamentals of the theory? Check.
Total irrelevance to the Theory of Evolution? Check.
Tomorrow, Will finally approaches evolution using living things as examples. It should be fun – see you there.
In my continuing examination of Evangelationstation’s phenomenal cock-up of an an apologetic, I’ll be taking a look at how Will Bowman disproves the theory of evolution through the use of the Moon. That’s right, the Moon, an extraterrestrial body some 380,000 km from Earth, is in fact a message left by God to show Charles Darwin why he was wrong. Who knew?
Get your stupid-goggles out – it’s going to be blinding.
The Moon’s distance: It has been proven, that the moon travels farther away from Earth by a few inches a year. Now, you can logically say, that if the Moon gets farther away, it was at one time….. closer :) now, scientists say the the earth and Moon are 4.5 billion years old. Here’s where it gets interesting, if you just look back 2 billion years ago, according to the Inverse square Law, if you half the distance, you triple the attraction.
The Moon would have been so close, and the tides so high, that it would drown everything on earth twice a day! studies have also shown that erosion on enormous scales thousands of years, not billions. And with that given, entire continents would be gone in a matter of a million years.
Well, leaving aside the slight discrepancy between Will’s figure (a few inches a year) and the actual figure (slightly under one inch per year), this is a moderately solid argument, at least compared to his nonsense about the Big Bang. If the Moon has indeed been receding at this rate for two billion years then it does cause some problems regarding the age of the Earth.
It is apparent from studies of geology, specifically the study of tidal rhythmites, that the Moon has not always travelled this fast, though. About 650 million years ago, the evidence shows that the Moons rate of recession was only 1.95cm/year, and 2.5 billion years ago it was as low as 0.68cm/year. This progressive acceleration, tiny though the numbers are, puts the Moon a great deal further from the Earth two million years ago – about 33,000km further away, which is about 43% further than Will’s calculations would allow.
There’s a pretty comprehensive article here which goes into rather more detail.
The thickness of Moon dust: In the mid 50′s and early 60′s, the leading evolutionary scientists said that, by the given age of the Moon, there would be a layer of dust on the Moon several miles thick, as Isaac Asimov said “When the landing module touches down, I will see it gently sink into the moon, until its completely gone” Which would be a logical conclusion, IF the universe was billions of years old. As we all (hopefully) know, Human beings landed on the Moon in 1969 without a hitch, And tests have shown no more than a half inch thick layer of Moon dust.
Really? The “leading evolutionary scientists”? Which ones? R. A Lyttleton? I think you’ll find he was an astronomer and geophysicist, not a biologist. His theory was not widely accepted at the time, and many of his contemporaries postulated that the dust layer would be thin, as it in fact turned out to be.
In any case, Will misses the glaringly obvious point – this is a perfect example of science in action, the same science that demonstrates the validity of evolution. A hypothesis was made, it was tested, it was falsified, and now we have a new way of looking at lunar geology. That’s what scientists do – they test their theories, as opposed to pulling them out of a disparate collection of Bronze Age scrolls written by goat-herding nomads.
Failure to understand the fundamentals of the theory? Check.
Total irrelevance to the Theory of Evolution? Check.
Next time, we’ll be scaling it back a few notches, since Will will be using evidence from the Earth to continue his indisputable proof that evolution is “busted”.
I recently came across this post from a few months back on Evangelationstation, and since it was probably the most piss-poor example of apologetics that I’ve seen to date, I decided to give it a proper fisking. Will Bowman, the creotard owner of the blog, decided he’d have a go at disproving the theory of evolution – and then proceeded to cut-and-paste formulate entirely on his own a series of arguments that have nothing to do with evolution. Not only were they off-topic, but each one displayed a truly staggering ignorance of basic science – so, for a bit of fun, I’m going to use a series of posts to highlight his awe-inspiring wrongness. Let’s begin – appropriately enough – at the beginning…
Evolution is one of the most effective weapons formed against the Word of God. Fortunately, God did not leave us without the facts that shows how busted the theory really is.
Evolution = a weapon “formed against the Word of God”. I’m certain Charles Darwin woke up that fateful morning on the Beagle and thought to himself, “Today I’m going to disprove the Bible. Then, I think I’ll have porridge for breakfast. This afternoon, a spot of skiing.” Perhaps. Or perhaps this paranoid Christoloon is misconstruing “the formulation of a scientific theory” as “the evil atheist conspiracy’s last ditch attempt to repudiate our Bronze Age myths and thus kill the precious sky-daddy with evil nasty logic and stuff.” Go on then, Will – bring on the busted-ness…
huge cracks in the big bang theory: The big bang is said to have happened about 20 billion years ago, all of the matter in the entire universe was condensed into a spherical dot, no larger that the head of a pin. The dot was immensely heavy, hot, and spinning clockwise at a rate of speed that is beyond all measurement’s. Now, one day that dot decides to explode :) all of the galaxies, consciousness, human purpose, your brother and sister all formed from an explosion 20 billion years ago.
Er… no. Here is a fairly straightforward explanation of what the Big Bang theory posits. You’ll find a singularity is quite substantially smaller than “the head of a pin”, by several orders of magnitude, and the anthropomorphic idea of “the dot” deciding to explode is just child-like idiocy. As for “all of the galaxies, human purpose etc.etc.”, well, again – no. The Big Bang expansion (not an explosion, you poor confused simpleton) contained none of these things, just a hot, plasmoid soup of subatomic particles, which later congealed to form hydrogen atoms. After that, most of the “creating” was done by gravity – and our original poster doesn’t seem to have much problem with that scientific theory…
But I find something horribly wrong with that theory. According to the Conservation of angular momentum, when that dot exploded, all of the matter it spewed out would be spinning clockwise, there would be no exceptions. The funny thing is, that Venus and Uranus have a counter clockwise spin, not possible in the big bang theory, and at least 6 moons in our solar system have a counter clockwise spin. it goes against the laws of science, that it is even possible for that to happen.
As above – this idea of all the stars and planets coming into being simultaneously at the moment of the Big Band reveals that Will’s understanding of the theory is so shallow you couldn’t dip a biscuit in it. I’m not even sure where to start dumping on his “Conservation of angular momentum” schtick. For starters, rotating bodies within the universe were created long after the universe itself, and therefore their rotation bears no relation to any overall cosmic spin. Stars and galaxies arose from random aggregation of matter due to gravitational fluctuations, so we would expect them to have random orientations and spin directions.
Furthermore, the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum does not require that everything spins the same way. It states that a change in spin of one body must be compensated for by an equal and opposite change in direction of another body. In this respect, it is much like Newton’s Third Law, and in fact can be seen as a modified version of this law. Thus, as long as the overall rotation remains the same, individual bits of the cosmos can spin whichever way they bloody well please.
Failure to understand the fundamentals of the theory? Check.
Total irrelevance to the Theory of Evolution? Check.
Tune in tomorrow, when Will explains why the Moon completely falsifies evolutionary theory – because obviously loads of things evolved on the Moon…
Recent Comments