Before I got back to the post on stratigraphy I cam across a video of a creationism-evolutionism debate, which I think helps me flesh out some of my points. The main thing for me is that the creatinonist position isn't convincing to me. I get the argument, I thinki in the end it is true, but it doesn't work for the debate. The presenter, A Dr. Wile, I hope that is how he spells his name, unless it's Weil, which is possible, argues that the incredible complexity and efficientcy of living systems is evidence for a deisigner and that random evolutionsry processes could not accomplish it. I'm sure this is true but as I said I don't think it works for the debate. Evolutionists doen't have any evidence for their case but all they have to do is say Oh Natural Selecion brings about wonderful adaptations that look like Design and that's the end of it.
dr. Wil also argued that so called vestigial organs are ctually functionint organs and not remnants of former evoltuionary stages. Same with Junk DNA, he claims functions have been found for it so that it also is not the discarded genes from former evoltuionary stages. I've argued here lready against the latter two positions, but then he goes on to mutations and there I agree with him that they do nothing but destroy function and add nothing to it.
he then points out the experiments which show that sedimentary layers can be deposited simultaneously such as the bgBerthault study in the nineties. I think all that is very good and I was impressed with it at the time. Nevertheless I prefer my much simply approach to all this stuff as far as making a case in the debate goes.
This is one of those posts I have to keep coming back to so I hae to post what I hae already fincished as I go. Sorry bout that.
TO BE CONTINUED.