can't Stop Sketching Out that List of Evidences, Just Keep Going with it. Oh Well.

I need a new blog.  Or help with this one.  Or no, really what I need is a new set of eyes.  I've asked the Lord for that, and the nineteenth century South african pator Andrew Murray says the redeemed should expect to receive healings as part of our salvation but we have to have the faith for it and I don't.  I suppose that is the reason anyway, but maybe I could build up more faith if I prayed about it.  But then again I never expected to live to this age and I don't kow why I'm still here.  I don't seem to have anything I'm called to do expect write my blog.  

I could probably just dither myself to death about such things.  

I thinkthe arguments I've collectd against evolution are enough to kill the monster dead but if I can'yt make the arguments clear to people I'm just flailing around unselessly.    Yes I could dither myself to death this way.

they really  do think that the changes we see in every species from generation to dgeneration are evidence of evolution.  I don't know how they can ohold onto that idea knowing what we know about how the genetic processes work but apapretly the simple fact that the phenotype or creature itself is seen to vary is enough for evidence for them.    Dawkins didn't build in any form of restraint to his little figure that rolls from change to change and supposedly proves evolution.  Coyne said the difference between the wolf and the chihuahua is proof of evolution.  This astonishes me.

Ken Ham of course talks about the Kindsx as the basic forms of living things, each creted separately and unrelated to all the other kinds renetically.  This is the creationist reference point.  As Ham says we don't have to think about the many thousands of species evolutionists identify in the world today as having been on the Ark, since all we need o have on the ark is eighter two or seven of each creature Kind.  All the species we see now would descend from those afger the Flood.  

I think we need to make more of the fact that each Kind has its own genome.   There is a human genome, and a cat genome and a dog genome and I think also a bird genome.  thw  genome defines the Kind and all the species of that Kind come from genetic variations built into the genome, the two alleles per gene and many genes per trait in most cases and so on.  That is enough to make for all the different kinds of cats and dogs and birds and human hbeings.  RThese different species emege in isolation from other populations, wthether through natural selection or just random selection and geographic isolation, whatever brtings about the inbreeding of a particular set of gene frequencies within an isolated population.  That's all it takes.  It's variation not evolution.

ther eis n way to get from any of these evolved species to anything other than another species of the same Kind if there is enough genetic variability left for that after a breed has been well established.  All you can eve get is variations on the traits established by the genome to belong to that AKind and that's all you an ever get.  

Or if they think you can get to another Kind or SPeicies that way they haven't yet demonstrated how they think this is possible.  I've speent a lot of time tring to think that through and enver been able to come up iwth a way it could be possible.  Outside the genome as it were    or maybe that is the wrong way to put it.  You have to change the trait itself not just the variation of tht trait.   

Back at EvC forum I was always being asked how do I define the Kind.  Ham says it seems to be the equivalent of the Family on the Linnaean system.  I don't think that is true for every Kind but for many.  But I'ds want to define it as a shared genome.  You can look at a genome and know whether it belongs to a human being or a dog or a cat, right?  That's one way to define the Kind.   Another way is the body plan.  that hit me a few years ago as I relaized that even the very different looking birds have skeletons that are prettymuch identical, same proportions, same location of appendages etc.  

And body plan doesn't vary, or varies only slightly, through all the manyu vaiaiont so fhte spearate traits that develope the many different breeds of dogs, cats, cattle etc etc.  they all have the same body plan even if they are very different from each other in their general appearnace.  

My main argument at EvC for years was that you get reduced genetic vqaariability when you are getting changes in the appaearance of a population.  It is a trend, so it won't always show up in some obvious way, but it has to happen as getting new forms of a trait means losing the other forms of it.  As you get a particular kind of fur for your bred you are losing all the other kinds.  Eventually as the breed becomes refinesd you can lose ALL the alleles for all the other forms of a trait so that your breed is homozygous for all its salient traits.  That is a very reduced genetic variability.  You need heteroszygosity for variability.  

Body plan and behavior too.  Dogs all act like dogs, all of them they all bark and wag their tails and slobber all over you if they like you and mark their territory in the same way and sniff each other's behinds and all that.  that is the dogness of dogs.  Cats also have their own set of behavior s that identify them as cats.  

So there you have some eaysways of identifying what a Kind is, that creature that was idndepently and uniquely formed at the Creation.

I can't remember if I'm leaving out some other parts of the biological picture that make for evidence against evolution.  

But then there is the geological evidence which is against an Old Earth rather than evolution as such.     If you ponder the physical facts of the layers of sedimentary rock in which the fossils are found it's not hard to realize pretty soon that they couldn't possibly represeent time periods of tens of millions of years which is what we are told .   And I still enjoy Bill Nyr'd trbrlsyion  Bill Nye's revelation that not only is there no fossil from higher levels found in lower levels but the same is true of the fossils in the lower levels.  they don't "swim" up to the higner levels as he put it because he thinks of it as a problem for the Flood.  Rally is t is a problem for evolution as even theyh don't think that when a creature evolved all the creatures that it evolved from just disappear, but that is the way it looks according to Bill Nye.  Oops.  

I'd like to sketch out the whole thing here and hope I'll get back to it but I'm ready for a break at the moment.

Later:  So where as I?

The Kind is defined by its genome which contains the intstructions for that Kind in all its variations and no other Kind.

Whenever a breed or race is being developed, when phenotypes are changing the character of a population, that is always accompanied by a reduction in genetic diversity as the variations that do not fit the new breed or race are eliminated from the population over generations, and means that there is a natural limite to the changes that are possible down any line of so called evolution which is really just ariation.  AThat means that evolutoin is brought to a halt exactlyh where it is asupposed to be particularly about to take off according oto the evolutionist argument.

Then we find that in the so called fossil record fossils lower in the stack of layers do not appear in layers above but if the layers did actually repreesent the time periods of tend of millions of years assigned to them by the theory of evolution all the creatures should persist through all the layers to present time that are now living in our own time on this earth, but according to Bill Nye this is not the case.  We get a fish or sea animal in onwe layer and in the next layer we cget an amphibian and we say the second evolved from the firsrt but we get no more of the sea creature, it stops and onlyh the amphibian continues and only for that layer because in thelnext layer up whatever supposedly evolved form the amphibian is alone there without the ambphibian itself and so on, no reptiles with the mammals, no apes witht e humans and so on.    This is not a picture of how evolution is said to occur so therefore the fossil record is bogus.

then I'd mention the erosion piles at the base of various formations such as the buttes in Monument valley where if they are supposedly millions of years old ovr even many thousands the erosion is way too little for that length of time.  That's an argument for a young yearth instead of the millions or billions of years.\

Then the is the fact that the layers of sediments in which the fossils are found are clearly undisturbed in themselves while the entire stack of layers shows a lot of disturbance.  That couldn't be if they each represent time periods of tens of millions of years.  it is onlyh after they are all in place that we see the usual disturbances this planet is said to experience such as volcanoes and earthquakes and hurricanes and other things that would disturb the surface of the earth or even the sea bottom for that matter.

then there is the fact that if you just look at the layers and think about them you hae to conclude that they couldn't ever have been part of a time period of millions of years or any time period at all.  they are made up of separate sediments which already makes no sense out of the idea that each occupied a particular time period.  They are tabletop flat in their original laying down and that doesn't happen anywhere under normal circumstances of deposition, on the sea floor or on the surface of the earth or even perhaps some depth eneath the surface.  

That do in the idea of time periods of millions of years and leae it open for a young earth.

supernatural versus natural evidence

 I called it an apparition, the ghost as it were of a human being I'd seen earlier that day on the street who had threatened me.  It was threatening me now in its demonic form, the man I'd seen apparently having been demon possessed and the demon appearing in my room that night.  

this happened almost forty years ago and I was telling it to give an example of some experiences I've had theat lead me to believe in the Bible as a supernatural wsork, supernatural experiences being some evidence of that to my mind.  

did I kn hat such things can be neurologically created he wanted to know.  Well sure, that sort of explanation accompanies every discussion of the supernatural with unbelievers.  We always get the physical version of it in response.  So sure I know that but this was an apparition.

How do I know that.  Well I don't know I can't prove it I simply know it the way I know a dream from reality or something like that.  yeah I guess I could be wrong but no this was a real apparition it was not a neurological event.  

I should be open minded he said.  

after forty years of knowing this is an papparition I should be open minded and recondsider that I decided forty years ago is not a neurologial event?  Obviously being open minded in rthis case simply means giving up the idea that it was an apprition and believe it was a neyurological event.  that's the only answer that will be accepted.  

So there is no point in sdiscusing such thigns once you know that the conclusion is determined already.  T

There is no more evidence for the one than the other.

Dawkins Against Religion continued

 Just to touch on the ususual  he again says that faith is believing something without evidence when in the case of Christianity, no, it is believing on the basis of witness testimony which is evidence.  I believe what the witnesses have told me they wthen he goes on to how faith leads people to commit evil acts

itnessed and in believing that it beomce shemy own knowledge.  and the example he gives is als always from Islam, the suicide bombing and the flying of planes into the twin towers, but he never distinctguishes that from the fact that Christianity does not teach us to do such things, that is something only Islam teaches.  And that is because not all religions are the same although he always acts as if h thingsks they are.  Christians are taught to love others and do good to others, and to put up with persecutions and injustices, turn the other cheek, go the extra mile when compelled to go one and so on.  this is not what Islam teaches at all.  There could not be two more different religions but Dawkins seems not to notice or not to care.

What I was saing in the first paragraph about faith got cut off.  Yes, the things I know by faith are acquired through the testimony of witneesses.  IEither you trust the witnesses or you ton'.  I judge the many witnesses of the Bible to the many dsupernatural and other events to be reliable.  If you don't you dn't.  

Besides that I don't use faith in any context where I can use empirical knowledge or direct observation.  Why shuld I?  Faith is all we hve for the kinds of events given in the bible, but it isn't appropriate in our everyday lives in the same way.  Still of course there are many things we all know only because we've been taught them by others, but that isn't the same thing as believing in the resurrection of Christ for my salvation although in a sense it may be said to be knowing something by fiath nevertheless.  Again it is  a matter of whether you belive the witnesses or not.  Unfortunately there are many people who refuse to beleive the witnesses not because of anyything  they know about their trustworthiness as people but only because they have rejected their testimony in advance.  Say they claim to have witnesses a miracle.  Their testimony will be rejected bwcause it is a miracle they switnessesd, not because they themseles are at fault in any way.  Or the fault is imputed to them as a consequence of the distrust in the miracle.    So nobody woulwcould eevery find out if a miracle really occurred or not who can't consider the validity of the witneesses' testimony at all for prejudice against the thing witneessed. 

Oh well.

Dawkins and the Cry of the Atheist Aginst the true God

 Dawkins on religion: Is religion good or evil? | Head to Head (youtube.com)

The l above is supposed to be the URL to an interview of Richard dawkins on the subject of his hatred for religions, in particular Christianity or the Old testament at least.  Is religion evil he is asked and he says yes.   The main example of this is as usual Islam whicfh certainly does do evil acts since its central aim is to take over the world for Allah and it teaches utter disdain and hatred for all those who do not believe in Allah.

However, Dawkins finds just as much to hate in the Old testament, and even in parts of the New Testament.    

It occurred to me that the most direct, or at least shortest way of answering Dawkins might be to say that what he is criticizing is the Moral Law.  the Moral Law is an inexorable judge of all violations of its tenets.  You can't separate God from His Moral Law in some sense because He must operate according to it and it operates inexorably, therefore so does He when it comes to judging sin.  but there is also a sense in which the Moral Law operates impersonally and automatically, as the Law would, although it is also very subtle which is why god hcan be said to repent or relent fom time to time or change His mind, but all this really means is that the Law is very refined and subtle and language is being used to make it easier for us to understand it by keeping us in touch with the personal God who in some sense embodies it.

I supposesomeone could come along who has studied all this for years and might denounce me as saying something heretical, in which case I'd have to withdraw it and rethink it but this is how it hits me at the moment.  

What the Old Testament does is take us behind the scenes of world events which normally just happen to us without our understanding why.  Why wars happen, why disasters happen, why horrific things happen nd so on.   Violations hae bewen accumulating for generations in a particular people group for instance and hve finally come to the "fullness of time" when punishemnt is going to destroy them.  Then a particular methjod of punishemnet will be seen to be decreed by god, such as perhaps the armies of the Israelites will be employed to punishe a particular tribe of people.  Or later the armies of the Assyrians will be employed by God to punish Israel when they have accumjulated years of 8iviolations themselves.  

the Old testament is to introduce us to the character of god both as judge and in all His other dispositions, but it seems to be His charctger a judge that most captures the attention of the unbelievers like Dawkins who put in so much energy denouncing Him for what they see as His mean and nasty character.  Of course they minimize sin if they take it into account at all.  You wouldn't kill your dog for digging up your flower bed would you?  that level of thought about sin.  

The fear of God is the beiginning of wisdom he are told here and there in scripture, mostly in the book of Proverbs.  This fear is to teach us to recognize that sin brings punishment so that we can learn not to commit sin and therefore preserve our lives and remain in God's good graces.  

We sin anyway even if we have at least some measure of that fear of God, and now we see His merciful and loving sinde as He sends us a redeemer to save us from the consequences of our sins.  First he teaches us that sin brings punishemtns, that the wages of dsin is death, and then He offers us salvation from it.  He cannot lifet the operations of the Moral Law, they are inexorable, but He can save us from their consequences by sending His own sinson to die in our place.    "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" He says through the Prophet Hosea, and what He means is that they haven't learned to fear God and obey His law, they commit all the sins He forbade in the Ten Commandments for instance, they lie and steal and covet and murder and commit adultery and terefore they keep being subjected to punishemtns, and God laments this fact, blaming the leaders of isareal for not teaching the Ppeople prophery.  

he gives the Law to Moses and accounces that through this Law He is setting before the people life and death and says they are oto choose life by obeying these laws.  Well over the years through many good and bad kings and true and false prophets the people accumulate eough sins to be sent to babylon for seventy years and for their land to be laid waste by the armies of the Assyrians.  but just as the Prophet Daniel is discovering that the time in babylon is about to expire so that the people may go home, he is also told of the time left before the Savior Messiah is to appear to save the world from sin.  

Perhaps none of this would be of any interest to an unbeliever but I think it's about the best I can do at the moment.

I might also try to deal with the incident of god's calling Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac winc that tis the usjbect of much outgrage by the atheists.  But I think I'll have to leave that for some other time.

 Seems I've been underestimating how seriously the evolutionists take the facts of variation within a species to be evolution itself.  I guess I knew it but it's been so clearly shown to be false in my own mind I forget that's what others think.  

So I guess the case has to be made more emphatically and clearly that the genome defines the rules for variation within a species and only that species it belongs to.  

tHE lIST OF eVIDENCES aGAINST eVOLUTION cONTINUED

i FORGOT TO INCLUDE ON THAT LIST THE RATE OF EROTSION OF ROCKS SUCH AS THE BUTTES OF THE mONUMENT vALLEY ND THE WALLS OF THE gRAND cANYON AND OTHER INTERESTING FORMATIONS OF THE sOUTHWEST.  iF THEY ARE DATESD TO TENDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS OR A MILLION OR MORE THAE AMOUNT OF EROSION SEEN COLLECTED AT THE BOTTOM OF ANY OF THESE FORMATIONS IS WAY TOO LITTLE.  tHIS IS JUST A GUESS AND IT SENEED S TO BE TESTED.  iT PROBABLY HAS BEEN BUT i DON'T KNOW HOW TO FIND THE INTERMTIATION.  THAT IS, THE RATE OF EROSION IS PROBABLY KNOWN FOR SOME OF THEM AND THEY'VE BEEN ASSIGNED A STARTING DATE S WELL.  

tHE ARGUMENT THAT WHAT WE SEE ARE SPECIFIC kINDS AS hAM PRESENTS THEM, i THINK NEEDS TO BE PRESENTED AS A PROBLEM OF HOW VARIATION OR EVOLUTION COULD OCCUR OUTSIDE THE GENOME OF A GIVEN kIND OR sPECIES.  aLL THE VARIATION WE SEE, THAT EVOLUTION HAS COOPTED QUITE RONGLY, OCCURS ACCORDING TO THE DESIGN OF THE GENOME, EACH GENE BEING REPRESENTED BY TWO DIFFERENT ALLELES WHICH PRODUCE DIFFERENT RESULTS IN THE CREATURE.  THIS IS BSICALLY THE GENETIC BASIS FOR mENDELIAN VARIATION, ONE ALLELE PRODUCING ONE COLOR OF FLOWER AND THE OTHER A DIFFERENT COLOR FOR INSTANCE.  yOU CAN HAVE HOMOZYGOUS RECESSIVE OR HOMOSZYGOUS DOMINANT OR HETEROZYGOUS VERSIONS OF ANY GIVEN GENE AND IN COMBINATION WITH ALL THE OTHER GENETIC VARIATIONS A GREAT DEAL OF VARIETY IS PRODUCED JUST WITHIN A GIVEN sPECIES OR kIND.  

THIS IS NOT EVOLUTION.  aND WHAT THE EVOLUTIONISTS NEED TO BE CHALLENEGED TO DO IS TO PROVE THAT THEY CAN SHOW HOW ANY KIND OF VARIATION CAN OCCUR WITHOUT BEING LIMITED BY THE DESIGN OF THE GENOME, OR HOW THE GENOME ITSELF CAN BE CHANGED.  THIS THEY'VE NEVER DONE AND i DON'T THINK IT CAN BE DONE.  i THINK ALL VARIATION IS DTERMIEND BYT HE DEISGN OF THE GENOME.

EYOND THAT i'VE ARGUED THAT THE PROCESSES OF EVOLUTION OR VARIATION INVOLVE THE REDUCTION OF GENETIC DIVERSITY WHICH WORKS AGAINST THE WHOLE IDDEA OF EVOLUTION FROM SPECIES TO SPECIES.  aS YOU GET A MORE AND MORE REFINED BREED OF DOG OR ANY OTHER ANIMAL YOU ARE LOSING THE ALLALES FOR TRAITS THAT DON'T BELONG TO THIS BREED AND THAT IS THE ONLY DIFRECTION POSSIBLY AS NEW PHENOTYPES ARE DEVELOPED.  tHIS IS A FORMULA THAT WORKS AGAINST EVOLUTION.

AI'4 H44N FOMINY 6O 6HINK 6HW6 HORY PLWN IE W HIY TWF6O5 IN IR4N6ITYINY H4 AEP4FI4E O5 AKINR 6O EHO3 6HW6 I6 54MWINE 6HW6 AKINR WNR RO4EN'6 GW5Y.  AI6 MWY GW5Y ELIYH6LY HU6 TO5 6H4 MOE6 PW56 NO, W FHIHUWHUW IE H4 EWM4 WE W AY54W6 ARWN4 O5 W 3OLT 3H4N YOU FOMPW54 6H4I5 HORY PLWN4E.  AWNR 6H4I5 H4HWGIOTE TO5 6HW6 MW6645.  AEWM4 3I6H FW6E WLL OT 6H4M EHW5INY W HORY PLWN 6HW6 IE 54FOYNISWHL4 IN 6H4 EK4L4F6ON OT 4G45Y KINR OT FW6.  AAAAAAAA  AWNR HIRE.  AWNR 

2h3When you compare the body plan or skelecton of an ape with a human being you have to see that the claimed similarity is really not there.  The proportions are completelyh different.

Apparently the great variation that occurs within a given genome does not occur in the part that determines the body plan.   

There's more to say about all that but I have to mention that I'm still sort of shocked and amused by Bil l Nye's giving me an argument against evolution when he so emphaticlaly said that you absoluteoyly camnot find a fossil from a lower layer showing up in higher layers and that's supposed to be an argument aginst the Flood.  I'd been trying to get a sense for some time of how many of the fossils get carried over into later time periods, and it was a big surprise for him to say absolutely none.  He says it twice too, in his opening statmeent and again in his half hour talk.  this is deadly for evolution since it completley falsifies the fossil record.  If those were really time periods then they should show an accumulation of living things from earlier times as well as the new evolvedld creatures, but apaprently that is not the case.  A According to bill Nye.

cONTINUING bILL nYE AND kEN hAM DEBATE

fINALLY HEARD THE DATE OF THIS EVENT:  2014, TEN YEARS AGO.

iNTERESTING.  nYE THINKS IF THE fLOOD WERE TRUE THAT THERE SHOULD BE EVIDENCE OF GREAT TUMULT IN THE STRATA RATHER THAN THE PLACID FLAT ROCKS THAT ACTUALLY EXIST AND CAN BE SEEN EXPOSED IN THE WALLS OF THE gRAND cANYON.   tHIS IS THE SAME ARGUMENT i'VE BEEN MAKING AGAINST EVOLUTION, THAT IF THESE LAYERS ACTUALLY PERSISTED ON THE EARTH FOR THE MILLIONS OF YEARS ASCRIBED TO THEM THERE SHOULD BE EVIDENCE OF ALL SORTS OF DISTURBANCES SUCH AS EARTHQUAKES AND VOLCANOES WITHIN THEM SINCE THIS IS A VERY ACTIVE PLANET, AND THERE AREN'T ANY.  nO, WE SEE THESE PLACID FLAT FROCKS THAT EXTEND FOR THOUSANDS OF SQUARE MILES.

hE POINTS TO THE VERY FEW PLACES WHERE IT SEEMS THAT A RIVER BED CUTS THROUGH A LAYER AND THAT SORT OF THING BUT THE EXAMPLES ARE RIDICULOUSLY FEW AND THE BETTER EXPLANATION THAN THE EVOLUTIONIST EXPLANATION IS THAT THE THING THAT LOOKS LIKE A RIVERBED WAS WATER ....  CASUSED BY WATER RUNNING BETWEEN THE LAYERS AFTER THEY WERE LAID DOWN.   eSPECIALLY IN LIMESTONE WATER BETWEEN THE LAYERS COULD MAKE CUTS AND HOLES IN THE ROCK.

i WOULD SUPPOSE THAT MANY OF THE LAYERS WER LAID DOWN BY HUGE WAVS FLOWING OVER THE LAND, THOUGH IT'S ALSO A POSSIBILITY THAT THERY WERE PRECIDIPATED OUT DURING THE HEIGHT OF THE fLOOD WHEN THE WATER WAS FAIRLY STILL.   tHESE ARE SPECULATION FOR A FUTURE TIME i THINK, BUT MEANWHILE THE LACK OF ACTIVITY WITHIN THE LAYERS IS FAR MORE OF A PROBLEM FOR THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION BASED ON AN OLD EARTH THAN IT IS FOR THE fLOOD.

THERE IS PLENTY OF TUMULT AND TURMOIL AFTER ALL THE STRATA WERE IN PLACE, WHICH CAN BE SEEN ON THE CROSS SECTION OF THE gRAND sTAIRCASE TO gRAND cANYON AREA i'VE OFTEN MENTIONED.  THAT'S WHEN THE ONLY VOLCANO TO BE SEEN ON THAT DIAGRAM IS SEEN TO HAVE OCCURRED AFTER WARD AS IT PENETRATES FROM THE VERY BOTTOM OF THE STRATA TO THE VETY TOP IN ONE SMOOTH LINE OF MAGMA.  aND THE ENTIRE STACK OF LAYERS IS SHOWN TO HVE BEEN DEFORMED AS A UNIT, SLIGHTLY RAISED UP AND SLOPONG DOWNWARD, THE MOUNDED UP OVER THE UNCONFORMITY AST THE BASED E OF THE GRAND CANYON.  tHE UPPER PART OF THE CROSS SECTION SHOWS ALL THE TUMULT YOU WOULD EXPECT FROM THE RECEDING WATERS OF THE fLOOD AS IT CUT THE CLIFFS THAT MAKE THE STEPS OF THEgRAND sTAIRCASE AND SWEPT AWAY MOST OF THE LAYERS ABOVE THE pERMIAN IN THE gRAND cANYON AREA, AS WELL AS NO DOUBT CUTTING THE CANYON ITSELF , AGAIN AFTER ALL THE LAYERS HAD BEEN LAID DOWN.   aS i'VE ARGUED IN ANOTHER RECENT POST HERE.

nYE RAISES QUESTIONS THAT ARE PROBLEMATIC FOR THE fLOOD BUT IT JUST MEANS WE DON'T HVE ANSWERS FOR THEM YET.  tHE MAIN ANSWER IS THAT WE CAN'T KNOW FOR SURE WHAT HAPPENED BECAUSE NOBODY WAS THERE AND THINGS WERE VERY DIFFERENT BEFORE THE fLOOD ACCORDING TO THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT.  pLANTS AND ANIMS WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH HARDIER THEN, TOUGHTER LAND LIVED LONGER, COULD WITHSTAND THIGNS NO DOUBT THAT THEIR DESCENDANTS TODAY COULDN'T WITHSTAND SO WELL.  aLL THIS IS AGAIN FOR FUTTRUR E STUDY, BUT MEANWHILE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LAYERS WERE NOT DISTURBED IN THEIR LAYING DOWN AND WERE VIOLENTLY DISTURBED AS A BLOCK AFTERWARD.  wHICH IS SUPPORT FOR A YOUNG EARTH AND AGAINST AN OLD EARTH.