Summations Only

quote:

---

I'm not trying to prove anything to you about evolution and wasn't claiming to do so, simply stating what I believe to be the case.

---

Nevertheless your opinions are still theoretical speculations at odds with the evidence.

quote:

---

It is based on the fact that we actually see evolution occurring all the time, and if macroevolution were true, which it isn't, while it would probably take longer than what we observe of microevolution there's no reason to think it would take millions of years. Thousands would already be overkill.

---

Really? Then why do we find recognisable animalsin Egyptian tomb paintings, for instance. There is a reason why fixity of species was the dominant view before we got to grips with the fossil record. Most species in the wild don’t change that much, even over a time scale of thousands of years. Just because rapid change is possible doesn’t mean that it happens all the time. It doesn’t. That’s why it is remarkable when we notice it.

quote:

---

Unfortunately for YOU the evidence DOES support the Flood, starting with the simple fact of the strata and the fossils which you all love to deny is evidence for the Flood but is glaring in-your-face evidence for it.

---

Shouldn’t you be mortifying your sins rather than indulging them ?But thanks for proving my point about your lack of honesty.

quote:

---

That happenes to be true and I've mujstered a lot of evidence for it and intend to muster more but probably not for the biased readers of EvC.

---

No, you haven’t mustered any evidence for it. Inventing desperate excuses to explain away the evidence against it doesn’t count.And I can understand why you wouldn’t want to present your evidence here - we’ll see through your lies as usual.

quote:

---

It is you who are inventing lies by making up such disturbances from ambiguous examples like the UK cross section

---

They aren’t at all ambiguous. You just refuse to see them.

quote:

---

misinterpreting the very very few examples where it might be true,

---

You mean disagreeing with your assertions just because we do have strong evidence to the contrary. And since examples are common enough that we have more than one in both the regions you chose to focus on it hardly seems thst they are rare.

quote:

---

ignoring all the places where it is clear that there has been no such disturbance.

---

Which places would those be ?

quote:

---

What? Most species DON'T change much, so what?

---

You should try thinking things through. If rapid change is a rare and unusual event it will still take a long time - on average - for evolution to produce major changes. The time needed by any sensible reckoning must take that into account rather than simply ignoring it.

This thread started as an attempt to smear geologists and palaeontologists.Faith asserted (likely correctly) that many popular articles on prehistoric times did not explain the evidence that lead to those conclusions. She asserted that this was done to hide the fact that the evidence was weak, without bothering with any analysis or attempts to gather more direct evidence, and blamed the scientists rather than the authors of the articles, who would be mostly journalists.The argument is obviously weak, relying on a very questionable inference. Faith did not even present any analysis of the articles showing that a proper discussion of the evidence was in line with the intent of the article. Nor was there any attempt to justify blaming scientists or to support the idea that the evidence was weak.Indeed, Faith refused to discuss the evidence and seemed intent on minimising it. A number of lines of evidence were suggested but Faith wanted to mention one of these - large evaporate deposits - and that only as salt in the rocks a dismissive and inaccurate summary - without even the explanation that would surely be required. (Perhaps Faith was only trying to support her assertion that only a small amount of additional text was needed rather than insisting that the evidence should be misleadingly presented to make it easy to dismiss, but either way it was still less than honest).The thread then metamorphosed into a Flood argument thread. Faith’s behaviour did not improve.