Of course I've given evidence, the main evidence being the very fact of the layers of separate sediments themselves, which is far easier explained in terms of what water does ...
Could I remind you that, because you've never studied geology, you neither know what water does, nor what the layers look like?
People who have studied geology and do know these things think that you're talking nonsense.
... than in terms of millions of years to lay down each separate layer. Which is absurd.
Of course it's absurd. All the crazy stuff you've made up in your head is absurd. It would truly be absurd if geologists asserted that each bed took millions of years to form, but they don't, because they're sane.
You would know this if you'd ever taken an interest in geology, but you haven't, which is why you know nothing about it.
And Faith, for heaven's sake, you must know that you've never bothered to study geology in any way. You must therefore know that you're completely ignorant of the subject. So why are you discussing it in public? Are you hoping that you'll say something true just by luck --- or do you just no longer care whether you're telling the truth or not?
Each bed is labeled with ages in the millions, who cares exactly when evolutionists decided they must have formed so as not to seem quite as idiotic as they are. The age range is ludicrous enough no matter how or when they think the actual sediments were deposited.
As I said, speciation occurs but it is not what they or you think it is.
It's funny, when we were discussing marriage, you were all up in arms at the thought of people redefining a poor helpless word.
But now we have a word whose meaning is so universally agreed on that there's consensus on its meaning between me and AnswersInGenesis, and between Richard Dawkins and Creation Ministries International --- and what do you want to do? You want to redefine it.
Apparently when you recoil in horror from the redefinition of words, you do so very very selectively.
Each bed is labeled with ages in the millions, who cares exactly when evolutionists decided they must have formed so as not to seem quite as ******* as they are. The age range is ludicrous enough no matter how or when they think the actual sediments were deposited.
And again, do you have any evidence to support some other age?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
Of course it obscured my point to say I was objecting to the redefinition of a WORD, when of course I'm objecting to the redefinition of the CONCEPT, the INSTITUTION of marriage itself.
Yes, I have the nerve to think everybody's wrong about speciation, and again it's the real thing I'm talking about, not the word. It describes the situation of a small population's splitting off from a larger population to form a new variety of creature, which is called a new "Species" because it cannot interbreed with its former population. That's an artificial and meaningless criterion.
In actual fact the reason such a new population can't interbreed with the former population is most likely that it is a genetic mismatch due to reduction in genetic variability, caused by the smaller number of individuals from which it developed, which is a condition which works against the possibility of further evolution. But of course the usual establishment idea is that there is always a neverending possibility of getting new species from former species. It can't happen. Even if mutation happened as you all think it does, further evolution can't happen from a condition of genetic depletion.