If there was ever a museum that needed to be blowed up, this is it…
Posted on August 22, 2007
by: dacarldrac
The Creation Museum in Kentucky is one of those things that I just can’t believe Americans would be that stupid. Way to make us look like a bunch of morons, guys! The idiotic museum opened in May. Here, three students attend the opening and make a short documentary. Enjoy.
Comments
21 Responses to “If there was ever a museum that needed to be blowed up, this is it…”
Leave a Reply
Funny that the woman said she would sue if they brought public school students to the museum, because she doesn’t want her tax dollars supporting something she doesn’t agree with! Well, welcome to the real world! Our tax dollars have been paying for the evolution myth to be taught to our kids for decades.
The man was comical who said that we’re raising a generation of people who can’t build video cameras. What, merely because they don’t agree with the evolution myth? Believing in creation does not make one anti-science or ignorant of science. We revere TRUE science as much as the so-called scientists who believe in evolution. The only difference is that we come to a different conclusion when we analyze the facts.
Evolutionists paint this as a war of science vs. religion. It is not. It is a war of differing world views, of differing belief systems.
By the way, are we really going to accept the label of idiotic from someone who calls himself Dracula Man? Give me a break!
By the way, Drac, I’ve got your info down in case there is ever an unexplained explosion at the Creation Museum. Thanks for the warning!
While I know my colleague was joking about blowing a building up, I must first say that I never support the suppression of an idea (even the creationists)… If they want to present their evidence that dinosaurs are only about 8,000 years old, I support them in that..
I’d love to see what they do have to show, btw… I’ve read a few things with regards to both Young Earth (8,000 year old Earth) and Old Earth (4.54 Billion year old Earth) Creationism and can say that I’m not impressed.
All creationists ever seem to do is (attempt) to tear apart science, without bringing anything of their own to the table. When I say they don’t bring anything to the table, I refer to pointing to a book; a revelation of the facts. This just doesn’t work for me. Evolution vs. Creationism is… well not a war, it’s an argument between testable hypotheses of the history of our planet and the life that has existed on it.
It’s one thing to say, “Look, about 94-96% of all species that ever lived on this planet are extinct based on 600 Million years of fossil records we have uncovered… Here’s this one, and this one and this one.” It’s something completely foreign to me to have someone point to, say the tale of Noah, and say, “This really happened. Noah gathered up all the animals two by two in his boat and sailed off while Yahweh flooded the Earth…” You can say what you will about the veracity of the story itself, but the tale goes back much further than any Jewish or Christian documents… Based off the site you link yourself to, I would assume “the Book” is the bible, and you’re saying you believe every word of it? Everything?
But I feel I’ve stumbled a bit here.. Evolution may be many things, but it is not a “myth”. It just isn’t. It’s a theory, quite like the theory of gravity… or the theory of relativity… and until a better theory is presented, which provides something verifiable or testable which works better than evolution does, I’m not simply going to follow what a book tells me..
I am curious why you think evolution is a “myth”. You simply put that out there, and don’t really back it up with anything… If we were “created” (perfectly in His image(I hope no one objects to that…)) I’m curious why we have a coccyx, which in some infants is literally 2 inches of tail sticking out the back side… Hmmm odd… Or wisdom teeth, those are sure useful.. The vermiform appendix might now contribute to our immune system, but it certainly wasn’t originally setup for that… Weird…
Or perhaps I’m questioning things that shouldn’t be questioned. He in all His magnificence has decided that I, a mere human, am not to understand the glory and wonder that is our all mighty creator and his creation… My duty is to prostrate myself before him, groveling and begging his forgiveness because my great^238-grandmother told my great^238-grandfather to eat of the tree of knowledge… Oh, and Jesus saves.. or something..
P.S. You are seriously arguing that the Earth is 8,000 years old? Because that, my friend is outrageous…
P.P.S. Don’t attack the name, oh newcomer to the blog… Dracula is a wonderful novel, and I would think you’d be able to identify with the character, who dies, then rises again… Not to redeem us, I grant, but still… I think Jesus and Dracula, would’ve gotten along pretty well, who else would understand the whole undead thing better than the big JC and Drac? Now, this brings some questions to mind… Say they got into a fight… Uhhhh, Jesus wouldn’t make Dracula more water into blood or whatever… Who would win in a fight between Jesus and Dracula? Would sucking Jesus’s blood kill Dracula? I would assume so… But what if they met before Jesus died on the cross, would a cross still hurt Dracula? It wouldn’t be a symbol of “holy-whatever” yet… Would Jesus’s spit be like holy water to Dracula? Could Jesus bring an undead back to life? Now that’s the question.. I say no, but I’ve heard he’s done some pretty crazy shit…
Activist:
By definition, believing in things that are directly contradicted by science makes you anti-science. When we speak of science, we are not referring to the theory of evolution or gravity or any postulates; we are referring to the concept of proving a point through observable data and experiments. Since it is impossible for you to prove the things you believe in this manner, your belief system is not a science. It’s a religion.
Evolution has been established through this process of verifying truth through experiments and statistics. Therefore, it is a science and not a myth.
Big Jar:
Evolutionary “scientists” completely discount the existence of anything outside of the natural, observable world. That is a pretty narrow-minded and arrogant position to take. Interestingly, some of these same “scientists” believe in the existence of parallel universes, and other planets with intelligent life, even though they can’t observe same. At one time, scientists didn’t believe in the existence of bacteria and viruses either. That didn’t mean they didn’t exist; only that they were unable to observe them.
The conclusions drawn by evolutionists postulate things that no one has ever observed, that are not happening today, and that cannot be replicated in the laboratory. That doesn’t sound like good science to me! Not only that, but the conclusions they draw are, in many cases, much more unbelievable than the belief in the existence of a Supernatural being that created man. You cannot prove evolution, making it a religion as well.
And, by the way, God is not contradicted by science. Just because you can’t use scientific methods to prove the existence of God does not mean He doesn’t exist, or that His existence would be contrary to science. If you are going to use that argument, then you would also have to say that the theory of evolution is also anti-science, since you can’t prove that with science either.
You can’t see the wind, yet you believe it exists because you can observe its effects on things. Same with God. But it goes much deeper than that. God has placed within each of us a knowledge of His existence:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
The New King James Version. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1982, S. Ro 1:18-23
I’d love to know about some of the so-called “research” into creationist ideas. Science is the study of real world evidence, bringing us to conclusions. That is how Evolution was discovered, by observation of the natural world.
Creation on the other hand has its origins in the Bible, and nowhere else. No one ever went out into the natural world, looked at the evidence and said, “wow, all these fossils and geologic evidence really appear to be showing that some super-being created us humans and put us instantly on earth.” It’s an idea that comes from the Bible. If your faith tells you that everything in the bible is correct, that’s fine, but dont pretend that it’s science. It’s not. The bible has no place in science. And that’s a fact.
No scientist of merit would EVER claim that creationist theory is correct. Those who believe it have gone out into the work looking for evidence of it. That is not good science. See Scientific Method.
Dr. P:
Creationists don’t try to tear science apart; we love science! New scientific discoveries in the lab and out in the field offer more evidence for the accuracy of the Bible. (You might be interested to know that there are more atheistic scientists becoming Christians than there are scientists who are Christian becoming atheists–there must be a reason for that!). What we “tear apart” are faulty theories based on the lack of use of the scientific method.
You speak of testable facts. How do you test the “fact” that one form of life evolved into a completely different form with no fossils or other evidence to back that up?
As far as Noah’s flood is concerned, yes many cultures have a flood story. That points to the fact that it was a worldwide flood, and not a localized one, as some claim.
Yes I believe the Bible is 100% true. Do you accept anything in the Bible? If so, how do you know what to accept and what to reject? If you are going to reject any of it, then you are rejecting the whole thing. You can’t accept just the parts you like and discard the rest.
As far as the theory of evolution being the best explanation of how we came to be, I don’t agree. The account in the Bible clearly fits better with the world around us, and has never been found to be in error, fraudulent, or had to be changed to fit new discoveries, as has been the case many, many times with scientific theories.
Virtually all of the organs once thought of as “vestigial” have been determined to have an important function. You’re a little behind the times! Haven’t you been reading your scientific journals?! I don’t have the time to give you a thorough explanation, but here is a link you can go to that will answer your questions:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i2/vestigial.asp
Yes, I believe in a young earth. Look at the Grand Canyon, which secular scientists say was carved by a little water over a lot of time. I don’t care how many millions or billions of years you give it, that little river did not carve out that huge canyon! Anyone who believes that is delusional! Aside from that, at the downstream end the top of the canyon is a mile higher than at the upstream end. Last I knew, water doesn’t flow upstream. That would be contrary to the laws of science!
A smaller version of the Grand Canyon was formed in just hours following the eruption of Mount St. Helens, proving that it does not take millions or billions of years for such a canyon to be formed. The receding waters of a worldwide flood could accomplish that in hours or days.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4305news5-17-2000.asp
I was with you until your last (P.P.S.) paragraph. Up to that point, I felt you were making some intelligent points, and asking some valid questions.
Activist:
I think you have misunderstood my use of the word “observable”. The word’s definition is not merely confined to things one can see with the naked eye. It also applies to numerical trends, fossil records, carbon dating, and other concrete evidence that prove an idea.
So you are actually quite incorrect when you say that no one has “observed” evolution under these terms. Darwin formed the entire basis of his theory on observations of fossils and adaptive traits in living organisms. This is observable data, even if it is not conducted in a laboratory. Science has a set of rules, but operating within an enclosed space while wearing a white coat and a pair of glasses is not one of them.
So the scientists who believe in other universes and life on other planets have derived these conclusions based on mathematic principles. This is also observable data, even if it is esoteric and inaccessible to some of us. However, this does not make such theories equivalent to belief in God, since they have a real world basis.
You have challenged the scientific reliance upon observation. What is the alternative? How else can someone prove something if they do not rely upon a common consensus of logic? If you discount that, you have thrown every sensible mode of discourse to the wind!
You have also suggested that because something is more “unbelievable” than your belief in God, that means it cannot be true. Unfortunately for you, science does not determine what is real based upon your personal qualitative assessments. It is unbelievable to me that people like you exist; but you’re still there, sitting in front of your computer, aren’t you?
I’m glad you brought up bacteria and viruses. Past scientists did not believe in them, but contemporary scientists do because their existence has been proven. Science is a flexible belief system and if concrete evidence came forth that could disprove evolution, every scientist in the world would adopt that new theory. But, since your theory has no evidence, scientists will continue to rely upon the things that they can observe directly.
Could you say the same thing about your belief system? There has been a litany of evidence since Darwin came forward that verifies his claims. Carbon dating, fossil records, and changes that we have observed in living organisms all support his argument. You have categorically rejected these conclusions because of your religious beliefs. As others have said, you have failed to adequately provide us with substantial testimony that proves your case. The Bible is not proof that God exists. The Bible is a book that says God exists. I hope you can identify the difference.
Surprisingly, we agree that the idea of God is not contradicted by science. However, the idea that a God created the world a few thousand years ago is irrefutably contradicted by science. I’m not interested in debating the topic of whether God exists with you, because there’s no way either of us can conclusively prove either argument. However, there is no room for interpretation when it comes to evolution.
You believe everything in the bible, huh? well…
Sometimes i work on Sundays. Are you gonna come kill me as Exodus 35:2 clearly compels you to do?
So it’s okay to sell my daughter into slavery? Exodus 21:7 says it’s okay.
Do you eat fish? Leviticus 11:10 says that’s an abomination.
What’s gonna happen to all the people with tattoos? Are they doomed to hell?
Sometimes I wear clothing made of more than one cloth. Leviticus 19:19 says that’s wrong. Do you believe that to be the case?
Leviticus 25:44 says i can own both male and female slaves? How many slaves do you have? Can i buy one? Can i buy your daughter?
A vestigial organ is still vestigial, even if it has evolved (oh no I didn’t…) to perform another function, such as the appendix has… I still point then to wisdom teeth, which have no function for us now, but most certainly did when our diet required quite a bit more tough chewing…
While I think admin did an admirable job of pointing out some problems with your “the bible is 100% true” statement, I’m still amazed at it… I was raised Catholic, have spoken to many priests and nuns, and have never been in serious discussion with someone who believes in the full and complete truth to the “good” book…
Have you ever asked yourself why you believe in the Christian bible? Ok, it’s the truth to you, but what would have happened if you were raised in the middle east? In india? In tibet? Would not childhood indoctrination into one of those religions have caused quite a different view of the world and the “god” that oversees it?
I’ve read some examples from the koran that seem to be a bit closer to the world we see around us (mainly, I imagine, because it was written by a very smart group of middle eastern men about 1500-2000 years after the talmud)… Does that make it any more true? No, of course not, although we will disagree on the reason…
Scientists converting to or from a certain religion still doesn’t attest to it being true or not, I’m not sure if you’ll agree with that, but it s a fallacious argument… I would be curious to see how many geologists are converting to Young Earth Creationism…
I don’t “believe” in the “truth” of the bible.. Do I “accept” anything in it? Well, there are some wonderful turns of phrase, and *some* memorable teachings, but I do not believe it is a true depiction of the past, no…
My PPS was supposed to be humourous. You implied that because someone named “Dracula, Man” was attacking and calling creationism idiotic, it shouldn’t be taken seriously. Ad hominem attacks aren’t proper, and don’t deserve to be taken seriously, and I’ll be honest, I believe more in Dracula being who he is supposed to be than Jesus… So yeah… Even the question about the cross working on dracula before jebus got nailed to it? I thought that was rather clever myself… Anyways…
Activist:
The Grand Canyon’s higher downstream elevation has a perfectly reasonable explanation. However, I would like to point out first that Mount St. Helens is not a canyon with a river running through it. It’s a volcanic mountain, and water did not carve its crater, so your example doesn’t really make any sense.
Uplift of the Grand Canyon started about 75 million years ago in the Laramide orogeny, a mountain-building event that is largely responsible for creating the Rocky Mountains to the east. Accelerated uplift started 17 million years ago when the Colorado Plateaus (on which the area is located) were being formed. In total these layers were uplifted an estimated 10,000 feet (3000 m) which enabled the ancestral Colorado River to cut its channel into the four plateaus that constitute this area. But the canyon did not start to form until 5.3 million years ago when the Gulf of California opened up and thus lowered the river’s base level (its lowest point) from that of large inland lakes to sea level.
Wetter climates brought upon by ice ages starting 2 million years ago greatly increased excavation of the Grand Canyon, which was nearly as deep as it is now by 1.2 million years ago. Also, about 2 million years ago volcanic activity started to deposit ash and lava over the area. At least 13 large lava flows dammed the Colorado River, forming huge lakes that were up to 2000 feet (600 m) deep and 100 miles (160 km) long.
This is based upon the analysis of rock layers and sediment formation that are there right now. It may seem improbable to you, but you don’t have a frame of reference for what can happen over seventy five million years!
Looks like Activist has nothing to say. Exodus 35:2? was that what did it?
Jar:
This should answer all your questions about wisdom teeth:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i3/wisdomteeth.asp
“Have you ever asked yourself why you believe in the Christian bible? Ok, it’s the truth to you, but what would have happened if you were raised in the middle east?”
If I was raised in the Middle East, I might not believe the Bible, but it would still be true. Where I live does not determine whether or not it is true. If I lived in a primitive culture and viewed a solar eclipse and thought it was a god eating the sun, that does not change the fact that what is really happening is that the moon is moving in front of the sun.
“Scientists converting to or from a certain religion still doesn’t attest to it being true or not, I’m not sure if you’ll agree with that, but it s a fallacious argument.”
You are right, but I thought it would be convincing to someone holding your world view.
“but I do not believe it is a true depiction of the past, no…”
Despite the fact that no archeological discoveries or extra biblical writings of the time have contradicted anything in the Bible, but rather new findings continue to reiforce it?
admin:
Yes, even those verses in the Bible are true, in that those laws did exist at the time they were written. Those are Jewish ceremonial laws that don’t apply to us, just as we no longer have to offer animal sacrifices to God, as they did in the Old Testament.
Fossils?
Even Darwin admitted:
“…intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution]”
David Raup, curator at the Field Museum, said:
“Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded … Ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information.”
“The Bible is not proof that God exists. The Bible is a book that says God exists.”
Ironically, as science advances, it is becoming more difficult for secular scientists to deny the existence of a Designer. The more complexity that scientists find in the human cell, the more it becomes evident that such complexity could not randomly evolve, no matter how many billions of years you want to keep adding on to the age of the earth. You would not walk past a factory and think that it came into existence by itself. The cell is several times more complex than any man-made factory, yet for some reason people like you choose to believe it just happened.
“So the scientists who believe in other universes and life on other planets have derived these conclusions based on mathematic principles.”
I’m glad you cite mathematics, because, mathematically, it is impossible for the universe to have come into existence and for life on earth to have evolved to bring us to where we are today. Ask any unbiased mathematician who also has an understanding of biology.
“scientists will continue to rely upon the things that they can observe directly.”
When was the last time a scientist directly observed evolution occurring?
Dr. P:
“I was raised Catholic, have spoken to many priests and nuns, and have never been in serious discussion with someone who believes in the full and complete truth to the “good” book…”
The Catholic Church probably isn’t the best place to go if you are looking for people who revere the Bible. The Church tends to elevate Church tradition to the same level of authority as the Bible.
Well, I’m not looking for people who revere the bible, I was simply saying that I’ve never spoken to someone who believed the bible to be 100% true.
Directly from your link to answersingenesis about wisdom teeth…
from a book entitled “The Impacted Lower Wisdom Tooth” by A J MacGregor…
Now, what is the better explanation of wisdom teeth, or more accurately, the jaw’s slow reduction in size? God? The bible? I’m curious what the rest of the book said, unfortunately answersingenesis seems to quote small snippets, without providing the rest of their answers, which I would imagine involved scientific theories, with no leaning on holy books.
I’d be just fine with evolution getting tossed out the window to make way for a new theory that supported the evidence and fossil record better than evolution. You, I would imagine, will continue to throw the bible up as the answer. ‘Holy’ words translated, and retranslated from ancient works that attempted to provide answers before the enlightenment, and the advent of scientific procedures…
A being capable of producing the universe and complexity we see around us would be astonishingly intelligent. Many, many levels beyond what we could possibly comprehend with our carbon based brains… Who or what designed the designer then? I’m not trying to throw up a straw-man here, but I would imagine your answer will be: “He always has been.” (If I am wrong, I apologize in advance, but I want to continue my line of thought here…)
How do you know that he has always been here? Who or what told you that? Saying that this is all designed doesn’t answer any questions, it drops us into an infinity regress, and that doesn’t really provide an answer.
And saying it “just happened” or things “randomly evolved” isn’t what the theory of evolution argues, at all. If that is what you think evolution says, then you sir or madam, do not understand the theory. At all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Activist,
Thank you for continuing this dialogue. I am enjoying the discussion. Question though…
You say,
“Yes, even those verses in the Bible are true, in that those laws did exist at the time they were written. Those are Jewish ceremonial laws that don’t apply to us, just as we no longer have to offer animal sacrifices to God, as they did in the Old Testament.”
But,
God spoke those verses. Can’t we then say that other verses “dont apply to us”? How do you know which versus do apply? Who decides?
As a quick follow up, I dislike things being taken out of context Activist, and unfortunately, that is what you did with that Darwin quote… Allow me to provide a larger chunk of it…
What you quoted had the word “chain” changed to the word “change”… Hmmm… Odd that, don’t you think?
Darwin wasn’t saying what you think he was saying, is what I’m saying. The rest of the chapter goes on to explain further… It’s the very beginning of chapter 10 if you were curious where he goes after this, I’m sure you know the book it comes from…
Activist:
Dr. P did some research and debunked your Darwin quote. I did some research and debunked your David Raup quote. Here’s what Steven Schafersman has to say about Raup’s statement, which unsurprisingly appears on many Creationist websites:
“David Raup has not been a curator at the Field Museum for many years. He is a professor at the University of Chicago, which has perhaps the finest group of evolutionary paleontologists in the country. The quoted excerpt is not true when read literally: we actually know many more evolutionary transitions from the fossil record today than we did in Darwin’s time. True, some of the classic cases–such as the evolution of the horse–have had to be revised from the nineteenth century, but this is irrelevant: we revise the details every generation as we learn more from our research in the fossil record. We still believe today that horses evolved, just as we did in the nineteenth century, but the details of the pattern are different today. Dave Raup believes in evolution, as do all scientists. His seemingly wierd statement about evolutionary transitions is due to its being taken out of context by Josh Anderson. Dave is not a strict neo-darwinist: he doesn’t believe that microevolution explains all or even most of macroevolution, and he doesn’t believe that natural selection is necessarily the most important cause of macroevolution. Actually, his (and my) friends Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge share these idiosyncratic beliefs. All three of these paleontologists, however, have been quite explicit in criticizing creationists for mining their writings and extracting quotes out of context to make it seem that they are making statements against evolution, rather than statements against the modern synthetic theory (neo-darwinism, advocating selectionism as the primary cause of adaptation and evolution, a position held, for instance, by the equally prominent evolutionary scientists Richard Dawkins, John Maynard Smith, Francisco Ayala, Douglas Futuyma, and Mark Ridley).”
You have made a number of unfounded claims:
“The more complexity that scientists find in the human cell, the more it becomes evident that such complexity could not randomly evolve.”
“I’m glad you cite mathematics, because, mathematically, it is impossible for the universe to have come into existence and for life on earth to have evolved to bring us to where we are today.”
You can provide us with all the conjecture you want, but you STILL haven’t produced any real hard evidence, despite everyone’s challenge for you to do so. The above is not evidence; it is your opinion, and until you can prove these claims with real arguments and real statistics, no one will take them seriously. PLEASE show us how it is mathematically impossible for evolution to occur. I would really love to see that chain of logic, and I’m afraid that “asking an unbiased mathemetician who understands biology” is not ample support for your argument. I went out and did the research to refute your ludcrious claim about the Grand Canyon (I must assume that you concede defeat on that front, since you haven’t responded directly to that post). The burden of proof is on you, my friend.
People on this blog have reiterated the same thing OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN: All you are doing is attempting to dismantle scientific studies and obfuscate quotes by prominent people. You have not yet produced a single shred of evidence that proves your point, beyond a few illogical arguments. All you can do is continue to say things like “Well, OBVIOUSLY the universe has a divine creator” or “NO REAL SCIENTIST would suggest evolution really occurs”. I think you’ve wisely shied away from people’s challenges to use real statistics to prove your point because your very argument relies upon ignoring evidence and denying logic.
Again, you have misunderstood the word “observe”. Obviously no one is watching one species magically transform into another. But, scientists who visit island ecosystems find animals who have developed adaptive traits that distinguish them as a different species from their mainland brethren. They see evolutionary trends in fossil records. They find new species all the time that have become naturally selected by their changing environments. This is what it means to observe evolution. No scientist directly watches the earth revolve around the sun, but it’s true nonetheless, and scientists can determine that it’s true based on astronomical and physical observations. When you deny evolution, it is no different than denying a heliocentric solar system or the theory of gravity. Imagine how incredibly silly you would sound if you said something like, “The more we learn about the solar system, the more it becomes apparent that the earth is at the center of it.”
I am sorry that I missed this conversation last week, but I thought I’d comment on a couple of things.
The Activist:
I am not sure why the word “scientists” is in scare quotes above. Scientific materialism and the scientific method explicitly limit themselves to the natural, observable world. Anyone seeking to look beyond into the metaphysical, the spiritual, or the philosophical is necessarily not doing science.
Also, Big Jar is completely correct in refining what we mean by “observable”. No one has ever seen a proton, a neutron, or an electron, for instance, but there is an extraordinary mountain of evidence that they exist. We should also be careful with what we compare here. An electron is on a very different footing from a parallel universe. As of yet, there is no physical evidence for parallel universes. At least, there is no experiment which can distinguish between an explanation which uses a parallel universes model and some other kind of interpretation (of which there are many– this is actually an active field of research in fundamental physics). Currently, parallel universes are just a useful calculational tool.
The Activist:
Speaking of being behind the times and not reading the scientific literature… if you did you would know that the Grand Canyon resides on top of one of the largest active volcanoes in the world. There are parts of Yellowstone national park which have actually changed in elevation by tens of feet over the course of the last 20 years. The last time Yellowstone erupted was approximately 20,000 years ago. Nature really is quite amazing! (looks like Big Jar provided even more information about this, so apologies for the repetition).
The Activist:
This is not true and it displays an unfortunate misunderstanding of probability. In order to describe an event in terms of probabilities, one has to have access to many identical copies of the same system (called an ensemble). Then you have to watch them all evolve and count up the number of times a certain thing occurred. Since we only have one earth the probability that life occurs on it is 100%, since it did occur in the only instance that we have access to. Presumably you mean that if we rolled back time to the creation of our planet and let the system evolve, and we did this many many times, in how many of these hypothetical earths would life occur? You will indeed find that intelligent life is very rare in these other earths. Sadly, likelihood is not proof of anything in this case. Saying that something is rare is not the same as saying that it does not exist.
The Activist:
Some forms of evolution actually occur on very short time scales. Viruses, for instance, have evolved such that they are resistant to many kinds of antibiotics.