Y.E.C. Model: Was there rapid evolution and speciation post flood?

Funny you could not post some relevant point from the link you spammed here eh? Instead, we see a pretense that somewhere else you really said things clever and relevant. Sorry, that is pretty lame.As for looking at tree rings that are beyond 5000 layers deep...let's do it. Show us some close ups and explain why the rings we will see there had to be present nature grown!? All talk, no action.Edited by starman, : No reason given.

Except whining does not challenge anything I say at all. If anyone claims they have knowledge and evidence or proof that the bible is wrong they have to post it or zip it. You have not begun to do so. One cannot nag the truth away.

All we have to do to challenge what you say is point out that there is no evidence for what you say. If you claim that processes have changed, you have to show evidence that they have changed and you have to show the mechanism for the change. You have not done that. You have not even tried to do that. You haven't even shown that you understand that you need to do that. You're just repeating the same old same old empty claims. If YOU want to convince anybody that there is any substance to your claims. YOU are the one who has to put up.

What I say is that you have no evidence for a same state past that is your basis for models. That is evidenced in your repeated abject fail. I win.I see the nasty notes from Ned are starting to comeHe accuses me of being the one not wanting to debate.No use posting anymore as the threats of suspension against honest debaters are always carried out here, experience shows.To anyone having some actual point of discussion or debate....I will check my blog.I am suspending EVC from my posts for a few weeks or maybe forever, we'll see.end transmission

THANK YOU!!!

But we do. If you understood the thread, you'd know that. Thanks. We appreciate it.

Allow me to help you with that.

Actually I did this about 10 times, and when you finally clicked on it, you only read the first paragraph, thought you had a wicked comeback that you then posted, but it only exposed your failure to read beyond the first paragraph.So you are not truly interested in the actual post, not interested in the information, not really debating in good faith, not reading for comprehension, but just to post silly troll comments designed to aggravate the honest posters.You failed in this too -- you just made yourself a laughing stock and whipping boy. Funny that it took you so long to actually LOOK at the information instead of just troll-plaining about it. Indeed you are all talk and no action. Read the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread and then ask your questions. Of course it is about much more than tree rings, and the major issue that you have ignored is the consilience of the different systems: why does science keep getting the same results from all the different systems?Your responses have devolved into such a level of silly denial and issue avoidance that there is no way to distinguish your purported "before" time from the present time, and thus either everything is illusion or the science is real and there is no "before" time. This is a major failure on your part, but it is the inevitable result of an argument doomed to failure from the start.Fail #41. And that is the inevitable result of a poster with a failed argument that is unwilling to learn or change his mind.Don't hurry back -- you won't be missed.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : /