Summations Only

You don't get new breeds or variations without losing genetic material. Period.And your constant refrain that I haven't provided a model has been successfully refuted many times.

You remember how direct observation proves you wrong?

And both of those are of course simply wrong.Even if a new breed has less genetic material (a point you once again have never supported with evidence but rather just assertion) that would not reduce the overall genetic variation and in fact must increase the overall variation. Second, mutations continue to happen and so Virginia, Yes, new genetic sequences happen all the time.Details Faith, details.You have no model that explains the details seen in fossils.You have no model that explains the details seen in the aeolian sand dunes.You have no model that explains the White Cliffs of Dover.There is no science in Creationism or Flood Geology which is why both have been abandoned by all scientists for several hundred years.And in addition, you still have presented no evidence of The Science in Creationism and have admitted several times that what you do is not science and that you will refuse to actually do research unless it is research that agrees with your interpretation of the Bible.Sorry but that is not and cannot ever be Science.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

Your "model" does not in fact explain the things jar mentioned. Your "model" just goes (pretty much) "The Flood explains all the things I want to explain, but I can't explain how it explains them."

What feature makes it obvious to you? Actually, the overlying strata was eroded away where those photos were shot. Those "lumps" are just the last remnants of a widespread layer that were a bit harder than the rest. Less than 1/4 mile away the Navajo still lays under the overlying strata. So, some how, windblown sand dunes managed to form between layers that were deposited by water, supposedly during a single flood? And by the way, The Navajo Sandstone is also considered strata. Strata just means sedimentary layers.Making stuff up when you don't know what you're talking about doesn't change the fact that the photos refute what you said:

quote:

---

There were no terrestrial deposits. That's a misreading of the evidence. All the strata are absolutely identical as to their basic form.

---

Direct observation proves me right because you can't get a purebred Great Dane without losing all the genetic material for every other kind of dog. It's so inevitable and obvious your objections are weird.

Water saturated because of the way they hold their shape.Between water-laid layers of course because all those transgressions and regressions of OE theory require that anyway.Yes that's what I said, I know it is a layer in the strata elsewhere.

An aeolian layer between water deposited layers because that is what we can see. And yes, there are multiple examples transgressions and regressions in the region. Those are some of the evidence that led to the conclusions that these layers were deposited over many millions of years. None of these layers are evidence for a single global flood.

I hope you had your right hand over your heart when you recited that piece of the evo Creed.By the way, "strata" means "layers," not "sedimentary rocks."Funny it's claimed upper strata eroded away from that lumpy surface of sandstone, when I'm so used to hearing at EvC how erosion creates perfectly flat surfaces.How do you turn a sand dune into rock without water?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That paragraph remains incomprehensible and not just because of the language. Nothing there or in anything else you've said, including this post where you even copy the whole paragraph, gives the slightest hint of what any of it has to do with anything I've said.Nor does the Wikipedia discussion of Housekeeping Genes offer any clarity as to any possible relevance to my argument; in fact it makes them sound as unreliable for any possible purpose related to our discussion as the Riemann Hypothesis: Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Hi Faith,
I know next to nothing about geology.It seems to me that even if you could demonstrate a global flood happened, it wouldn't demonstrate creation or a creator. So as I've been doing all thread, I'm going to concede that which is not important. Fine, let's say the fossils tell us nothing about the progression of life through time, they were buried and jumbled up and we can't say anything about life's progression as a result.OK. So far we have
a) A creator
b) A flood, caused by the creatorWe're granting b) because a) is the mechanism of your theory and if you have that, then b) almost comes along for the ride.OK, so the creator created life, then erased most of it. And then it superevolved by splitting into breeds and species, decreasing the initial stock of created gene variants. And this explains Great Danes.OK. It's a start. I'll give you that.The thing is you like to come at evolution with your 'alleles are lost' 'almost no mutation is beneficial' and so on and so forth but evolutionists have given you their mechanisms which allows you to do this. That's how science is. You give your mechanisms. How does your theory work?Your problem is that you don't know. Your only source evidence vaguely talks of the Creator using voice.That's fine, but it isn't science, and pretending that having some scientific position is only fooling yourself. And why would you? God isn't a science. Science is human knowledge. Godly knowledge has to be asked for, not ruthlessly falsified. Why anyone would want to do this other than to try and convince schools to teach it is beyond me.You can believe what you like, Faith. I really don't mind. You don't have science and you don't need science.The flood doesn't give you a creator. It doesn't provide evidence that all claims in the Bible are true. A flood may conveniently sweep some of evolution's evidence away, but it doesn't provision you with anything in return. So that's why I'm happy to concede it, and why you don't tend to see me in flood/geology debates.Evolution is not just a story about the past. It's not just 'natural history'. It turned out that that's where the evidence led. But let's skip all that.Here's what we need to explain
a) There are lots of fossils, some weird ass organisms are there. They seem to follow patterns according to where they were found, with some odd overlaps.
b) There are lots of living species. Some strange ones too. They too tend to live in certain regionsAs a brief summary, that was the interesting question in front of Darwin.Nobody from a theological perspective has ever given a breakdown of the mechanism by which God creates, a mechanism for which evidence exists, that has stood up to any scrutiny that I've ever heard of.Taking things in nature and tying them to your religious beliefs is not science when you do it or when the Muslims do it (and boy do they often love to do this, it's practically part of the religion for some).Either observe God, and provide your methods and findings OR Provide your theory as to how gods design was realized in the natural world.The first one has a well documented response, but prayer and asking in supplication have not performed consistently well in tests. Since that ground has been covered to death, could we skip that roundabout and just say I'm looking for something a little more like a telescope or applying a certain dye. I know it doesn't exist, but that's not unfair because knowing there's no science here is kind of my point.You probably disagree with most of that. You can get back to whatever it is Flood debates actually talk about. Depositions in subduction zones of intrepid sediments or whatever

Then why does direct observation prove you wrong? And why can't you find any observations that prove you right? On that basis one would also have to say that you can't get a Kim Kardashian without losing all the genetic material for every other human. This does not lead me to believe that the process of reproduction (of Kardashians or of people generally), supports your bizarre fantasies about genetics. If it was obvious, you wouldn't be the only person who noticed it. Geneticists would know it too.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Nope, because unlike you I have learned a whole bunch of cool things about geology here at EvC. I am especially fascinated with the geological formations that are exposed by erosion in the Southwest during the present regression. (When I say "exposed by erosion" I mean carved by erosion.)__________________________________________________ I have to say thank you though, because the discussions here at EvC about your flood and geology spurred me into making more trips to the SW to examine the evidence more closely.__________________________________________________ Yes as I said back in Message 560

quote:

---

And by the way, The Navajo Sandstone is also considered strata. Strata just means sedimentary layers.

---

__________________________________________________ Actually, I don't think that is how geological science describes how those formations were formed. The upper strata and the Navaho Sandstone strata were eroded, causing those final shapes to be left. Those remaining lumps are slowly eroding away and will eventually be gone. ABE: Which will expose the upper surface of the Kayenta formation, see below:__________________________________________________ Really? Are you saying that the geology side of discussions here at EvC have claimed that erosion creates only flat surfaces, let alone, perfectly flat surfaces? Now that would be silly considering all the photos of canyons and mountains that have been posted here.__________________________________________________Interestingly, erosion is creating some pretty flat terrain at the edge of the Navaho Sandstone exposure where these shots were taken. __________________________________________________The dinosaur trackway is a couple miles away from the sandstone lumps. edge explained that in Message 14

quote:

---

Lithification of Jurassic sandstone on the Colorado Plateau is pretty basic. It consists simply of weak cementation, mostly by calcium carbonate. In dry climates they can be preserved as positive topographic features. Even slight differences in the degree of cementation and/or fracturing can result in some of the spires and buttes that are common on the CP.

---

Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.

That would be odd, since knowledge of such a Flood comes from the Bible. Not getting it. The Creator is the "mechanism?" While the Bible is foundational for me, my theories don't come from the Bible. I'm looking at geological information for my arguments for the Flood, and at population genetics for my argument for the natural limit to evolution. Well, I would of course never say "superevolved." What I'm talking about is normal evolution, which can be very rapid when you isolate a small number from a larger population. And since the creatures would all have been dispersing throughout the world after the Flood they would have been going off in separate groups which would have fit this description very well, leading to many new subspecies in a relatively short period of time.But your phrase, "decreasing the initial stock of created gene variants" implies a depletion throughout an entire species, but that's not my argument. The depletion occurs only in the LINE THAT IS EVOLVING. Each separated group has its own gene frequencies, less of some, more of others. What isn't in one population will be in other populations. Any general genetic depletion in a whole species or Kind would take a long time to show up.I do think the Flood itself had to have "decreased created gene variants" to an enormous extent, of course. But that's not the result of evolution, which is what I'm talking about. What? Anybody doing any kind of thinking about these things should have access to all the relevant knowledge on the subject. It isn't "evolutionists" who have "given me" this knowledge, it's scientists who collect the knowledge, and the scientists are mostly evolutionists of course, but they don't own the knowledge. What? I'm making use of geological and biological knowledge that I judge to be relevant to the argument I'm trying to make. I rarely refer to the Creation or God or even the Bible in all of this. What? Any true understanding of geological things or biological things is science, how could it be anything else? The impetus for arriving at the understanding is irrelevant. If it's true understanding about the world then it's science. But it led to false conclusions because it's all conjecture that truly cannot be proved the way true science can be proved. The actual evidence is open to other interpretations, WAY WAY open. Probably a good idea. You mean, I suppose, what part of the world they were found in? Because they are all found buried in stratified rock and their burial place is most likely not their original habitat, but they were transported there. Maybe not a great distance but far enough in some cases not to be anywhere near their original habitat. Why do we need such a "mechanism?" The variety of living things in disparate locations is the natural result of (micro)evolution which occurs when small populations get isolated from the overall population of a Species. Darwin was indeed addressing that situation. He wanted to explain the different subspecies of finches and tortoises and all the rest of the range of variations in Species. If it hadn't been for the stu*pid nonbiblical "creationist" ideas that had God creating species long after He finished the Creation Week, and designing fossils to imitate living things just for the sport of it, maybe he wouldn't have been driven to his grandfather's unbiblical idea that all life descended from one primordial original. Huh? Anything is science that gives a true understanding of the phenomena in question. But "tying them" to my beliefs is a silly misrepresentation of anything I'm doing. I have no idea what they are doing so I don't know if it's science or not. This is sheer gobbledegook, Mod, I have NO idea what you think you are saying, or what you think I am doing, but I certainly don't recognize it as representing anything I AM doing or want to do or should do. Huh? What does this have to do with ANYTHING? You don't know what you are talking about, and I don't know what you are talking about either. Probably I'd disagree with it if I could understand it. Whatever indeed.Sigh.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Wut? You really didn't grasp why I brought up the Riemann hypothesis, do you? What I said was that it is very difficult to explain to a layperson the meaning and extent of the Riemann hypothesis, without resorting to apparently mystifying mathematical terms. That the Riemann hypothesis has not been proven has absolutely nothing to do with my point, and I fear for your deeper, more nuanced verbal comprehension skills.I could have just easily brought up the Brumer—Stark conjecture or the Poincar conjecture. The point here is that contrary to your assertion that 'pretty much anything can be explained in simple English,' there are a multitude of scientific, engineering, and mathematical concepts that cannot be reduced to simple English explanations. One first needs a background in these fields; you lack the requisite background in genetics in order to properly assess the validity of your idea. Honestly, I thought you had a high school understanding of genetics, but you do not seem to understand the Hardy—Weinberg principle, which is high school level stuff.