Belated Correction Evolution Timetable

 A while back, I don't know how many posts ago, I can't read well enough to find the post I'm thinking of, I believe I made a big mistake when I was arguing that the eroded material at the base of exposed blocks of strata should be an indicator of the time factor that would disprove the claims of evolution of millions of years.  That is,k the amount of eroded debris at the base of the walls of the Grand Canyon don't   doesn't seem to be enough to hae taken millions of years.

I think I ereferred to the entire age of the geological column as my reference point, hundreds of millions of years, but of course that is very wrong as the walls would not have been exposed until it awas all dlaid down and the canyon was cut.  The latest age I heard for the cutting of the canyon is seventeen million years.  That's still an enormous long time by comparison with the forty five hundred years since the Flood, which is what I think is the righrt time frame for the erosion of the walls.  Seventeen million years should ahve accumulated a lot more than iis there it seems to me, and I think someone is keeping track of the rate so maybe that figure is out there somewhere.  I'd like to know it.  

But my guess is that forty five hundred years is probably about right.  For the walls of the Grand Canyon and the monuments in Monument Fvalley as well.    Just a guess but any millions of years is way too much for the erosion to be so little.  

Evolution, One of the Many Ways this World is Bulit on a Lie

 Yeah, I know, the chance that anyone is going to take anything I say about ebolution seriouesly is pretty slim, but I have to say it's not for good reason.  I'm listening to this newer version of Jerry Coyne's talk, basically the same talk I blogged on earlier but with small differences here and there, and again what he calls evidence does not qualify as evidence as I said before, and I don't get how they can be so huffily certain about that.    

He treats the "fossil record" as evidence, but the fossil record itself has never been proved to be a reality.  Really.  It's never been more than this idea that they like a lot that they've impossed on fossilized cretures in a stack of strata of sedimentary rocks.  They look at it and go, Gosh that sure looks like how animals evolved from simple to complex to me" and that's the whole of what they are calling evidence.  It LOOKS LIKE it and that's it.  Their imaginations tell them it is so, kand that's it, that's all there is to it.  

To be so convincec by their own imagination they have to swallow a lot of stuff that makes no sense at all, such as the fact that their time periods are each marked by a thick slab of sedimentary rock that in most cases covers thousand of square mils of land, all straight and horizontal and flat and each fitted into t astack of the same kind of layers of sedimentary rocks, very very closely pressed up against each other, with knife edge contact lines.  These are supposed to have formed during periods of tends of millions of years each, each time period with its own peculiar rock slab, one perculiar sediment nin most cases, and the next siwith its own peculiar and different rock slab.  All flat and horizontal and stretching for thousands of square miles.  And this is where those fossils are found that they assign to the Fossil Record.  This makes NO sense on any planet but they just go on blithely treating it as if it does.  

And of course he laughs at the idea that the worldwide Flood is a better explanation, calls it risible and refuses to try to explain it for that reason.  Well I'm glad he didn't explain it because he'd just mock it, but as a matter of fact it's a much better explanation than time periods containing fossils that prove evolution from one time period to the next.  All you have is dead things inside this lslab of sedimetnary rock.  They call it the fossil record, I\creationists think it fits the Flood far better.    Water is known to deposite layers of sedimenents for one thing, you find such layers in deltas and at the shoreline. Water separates out the sediments and deposites them in layers.  Sure fits the geological column better than any conjuring they could do to explain them as normal deposites in a normal world.  but he ignores all this, they all do, and I'm not going to get anything but a shrug and a mocking laugh for my trouble I'm sure.

He starts his discussion with five facts he says sconstitute evolution, the first one being that there is observable change in populations over time.  Well, this is true.  But the observable change is only variation within the genome of the species, it's not evolution at all.  To get evolution new genetic material would have to be added at some point and it can't be, all there is is the genetic material dfined by the species genome.  Whatever its genes code for is what you're going to get, variations on them but the same traits and nothing but those traits.  You aren't going to find a gene for bear's claws in a chimp genome and so on.  The chimp has genes for making a chimp and that's it.    if you think you can get from the chimp genome to something else you are going to have to imagine some drastic new change mechanism which doesn't exist.  All change occurs within the genome of the species.  This is bovious but they'll deny it.

 So there is no variation outseide the species genome and there is no fossil record because there is no way those slabs of rock were laid down each in a particular time period over tend of millions of years all flat and horizontal and covering thousands of square miles.   

B they'll deny that too.  

and laugh at me for pointing it out.

eah I know I keep repeating myself.  Oh well.  

Well, it looks to ME like those strata had to have been laid down by water, aassive amount of water that covered the whole earth, becuaduase I know that's what water tends to do, it lays down sedimentary  deposits