A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs

Floods don't sort.

We regularly acknowledge your point of view while pointing out your errors.You don't want acknowledgement. You want unthinking acceptance of your claims. Which requires discarding all scientific knowledge and logic.Ain't happening unless you start connecting with reality.

The problem is at your end. You think you understand the world. You don't. You are abysmally ignorant and lacking experience of aii relevant fields of knowledge. You don't understand anything pertinent. It's difficult to address your errors because you know so little. It's like explaining compound interest to a three-year old.Your pride won't let you consider the possibility you are wrong. You are who you are and you can't change or learn.

It could get better..It never will. You would have to admit ignorance and learn.

We've explained why you are wrong over and over again. You ignore our explanations and repeat your claims.A few days ago I explained why your idea of the majik fludde picking up entire rock formations and depositing them elsewhere is rid.Do you remember your reaction? I do.

What have you learned about a flood picking up entire formations?

The past is not as impenetrable as you want it to be.When many independent lines of evidence and analysis agree, that's a solid result. For example, dating methods.

Your ignorant opinion about what's scientific is noted. As usual we've discussed that at length and you ignored that.But I'll play your game this time. Multiple independent radiometric dating methods give the same results. They are independent because they use different isotopes that decay in different ways (there are three very different types of radioactive decay and lots of different subtypes) and use very different methods of analysis. We understand the physics very well. The phenomena of radioactive decay involve such fundamental properties of the universe that any change in the past would leave easily detectable repercussions today. Lots of people have looked. None of those repercussions exist.The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and life is close to that old. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

You mean the many independent radiometric methods.