A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs

Outside the genome means that you'll never get a human being from an ape because the genetic stuff is simply not there in the ape genome. And yeah I know you think mutations will put it there but you are way underestimating how different human beings are from apes. Yeah I know you'll go on claiming it.

The meanders developed on the flat surface that remained after the scouring of the retreating Flood waters, as did the Colorado River.All sorts of stuff from the oceans was carried up onto the land during the Flood, and obviously anything fossilized occurred as a result of being buried by the Flood.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't think anyone here has ever been convinced of ANY creationist's views about anything. So I wouldn't take that fact as meaning much. And I do give evidence but it gets sucked up into the EvC twisting system. I'm happy with a lot of what I've said here. It's discouraging to be subjected to all the false accusations but I'm used to discouragement by now. Most of the time anyway.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, no, I have a pretty elaborate scenario in mind for that whole area from the Grand Staircase through the Grand Canyon area, how the retreating water carved the staircase and gouged out the GC, and scoured off the Kaibab and Coconino plateaus --and isn't it the Kaibab plateau where the meanders are located? The river remained after the Flood waters were gone and the canyon was its natural exit. Look at a relief map of the area: there are many different geological phenomena from plateaus to canyons to cliffs etc etc etc.By the way this is a typical way my posts get dealt with, not a shred of willingness to see how it makes sense. Evidence you want? Forget it. The scenario makes good sense on its own and what would be the point of producing evidence when that much isn't even recognized?.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I didn't contradict myself, you just don't know how to read.

I'm not terrified about anything. I focus on what I think I can understand best and when other subjects come up that I don't understand as well, unless they directly impinge on what I normally focus on, requiring me to spend some time attempting to digest them, I simply can't deal with them. It's not fear, it's mostly just a practical matter. I don't expect to be able to grasp the totality of all the fields that relate to these questions.However, I've discovered from being at EvC that most creationists who come here have a completely different point of view, something unique to themselves that I often can't even follow. I don't understand this but it means there's no way for any of us to build on each other's thoughts.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No fear at all. I'm completely convinced I'm on the right track, which doesn't mean I'm completely convinced of all my hypotheses along the way, just sure of the general direction> And yes in some cases the specifics too. No fear dwise. I know some creationists give up on it, but that's because they never had a good grip on it in the first place.

How can I be expected to take seriously the constant refrain about how I don't understand this, that or the other when nobody ever even gives an example of what that means? You don't, JonF doesn't, but it's said all the time. If an example IS ever given then I can answer it, because it never really amounts to much and doesn't threaten anything I've been arguing though that's of course what the accusation implies. Mostly it amounts to saying my argument is wrong because it contradicts the establishment argument, really no more than that. So I just shrug off these endless empty accusations.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

"At the same time???" Good grief. The strata got built during the Flood; tthe canyons and cliffs and buttes got cut as the Flood water was draining away. Besides cutting those formations, the draining action scoured off plateaus such as at the Permian (Kaibab) level in the Grand Canyon area, across which the last streams of water ran and formed meanders and became rivers some of which still exist. The Flood occurred in stages over about a year, it had a beginning a middle and an ending, it didn't occur "at the same time." Anyway that's the scenario I envisage. Sorry, no idea what you are trying to say here.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm not getting your problem here. The waters that laid down the strata were relatively quiet, especially at their height which lasted a couple of months or so. Sediments precipitate out of water into layers when standing quiet. (Layers can also form in rushing water which could have occurred during the earliest phase)( By the way, if there are problems explaining how the Flood could have laid down the strata, there are surely a lot more problems trying to explain how they got laid down over hundreds of millions of years, often a single discreet sediment to represent a time period of millions of years in which a very particular group of living thins supposedly lived and roamed, after which they were replaced with a new group of living things and a completely different sedimentary substrate, very nicely straight, flat and horizontal as we see them. I find that REALLY incomprehnsible myself.)So the strata are laid down. And then the Flood waters begin to drain. At this point I have volcanism beginning, and earthquakes, and if you look at a cross section of the Grand Canyon area you'll see that it cuts into a rise in the ground, a little to the south of the uppermost height of the rise. Geology and I of course disagree about the timing of this. TGhey think the strata were built on top of the mound which at the bottom is formed over a tilted block of strata. I think tectonic upheaval tilted the block of strata which pushed up the whole stack of strata above it, which cracked the uppermost layers, permitting the Flood water to enter the cracks and carve out the canyon down which the rest of the water rushed, cutting the canyon deeper and wider as it went. Geology objects but I think it makes sense.Anyway your answer is strata formed in quieter phase, canyon formed by catastrophic flow.It was the land animals that all died in the Flood, except the ones preserved on the ark. Many sea creatures lived through the Flood though most no doubt died, so some corals could have lived too. Is that your problem with this or am I still not getting it?

Sediments don't lay themselves down so nicely flat and straight over millions of years. The inability to appreciate how reality works is on your side.Reality suggests a lumpy burial ground of motley sediments, and a gradual increase in your evolved creatures rather than a preponderance, even an exclusion, in each amazingly flat and straight burial ground.THE WIDE PART OF THE CANYON WAS CUT BY catastrophic flow, while the plateau surrounding it was washed flat and after that the remaining water formed meanders in the flat surface and then emptied into the canyon.But we've left the thread topic WAY behind. We need to get back to macroevolution.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The strata are really really really flat and straight.

All it really tells me is that different creationists choose different problems according to what they think they can work with best. Same as I do.

The existence of foreign objects and other things in the strata doesn't change the fact that the strata themselves are very very flat and straight.Which, again, along with the peculiar collections of particular fossils, besides often being of just one identifiable sediment, seems to me to be very hard to explain in terms of time periods of millions of years.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Right, well they weren't all jumbled up in the Flood, somehow they got sorted by the Flood. Ocean water is layered by the way, and layers are easily formed by water. And if they were going to be jumbled up it should have been in the jumbled up mixtures of dirt that normally occur on the earth instead of in those supposed burial grounds of oh-so neat horizontal sediments of the time periods over those supposed millions of years. If animals just lye down and die, it isn't in such perfect graveyards. And so many of them, one for each "time period" that came along to bury them. Besides which, fossilization is a rare occurrence but the Flood would have suppled ideal conditions for the fossilization of bazillions of animals. WHICH, by the way, are evidence of the purpose of all that death in the Flood as described in the Bible.A massive amount of rushing water cascading down through widening cracks and over the sides would certainly do a fine job of carving the canyon. And again what's ridiculous there is the idea that an ordinary river carved out that enormous space.Lots of fragile things were preserved in the sediments which precipitated down over them. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.