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.

lIST OF eVIDENCES aGAINST EVOLUTION

 lIST OF EVIDENCES AGAINST EVOLUTION:

THERE IS NO FOSSIL RECORD BECUASE THE STRATA IN WHICH THEY ARE FOUND CANNOT POSIBLY BE TIME PERIODS.BECAUSE OF THE PHYSICAL SITUATION ALONE.   THEY COULD NOT POSSIB LY EXIST ON THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH OR AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA AS THE TABLETOP FLAT HORIZONTAL LAYERS OF SEDIMENTS THEY ARE THAT STRETCH FOR THOUSANDS OF SQUARE MILES.

THE FOSSIL RECORD CANNOT EXIST BECAUSE THOSE TSTRATA IN WHICH THEY ARE EMBEDDED SHOW NO SIGNS OF THE DISTURBANCES WITHIN THEM THAT SHOULD BE EXPECTEDED OF ANY SEDIMENTARY LAYER THAT EXISTED ON THE EARTH FORE EVEN A THOUSAND YEARS LET ALONE THE TEND OF MILLIONS ATTRIBUTED TO THEM.

iN THE SO CALLED FOSSIL RECORD ITSELF THERE ARE BOTH EAC  SEA CREATURES AND LAND CRATURES FOUND TOGETHER IN THE SAME SEDIMENTARY LAYER.   THAT COULDN'T HAPPEN IF THE FOSSILS WERE CREATURES THAT DIED AND WERE BURIED IN THE SEDIMENT.  EITHER THE SEDIMENT WS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA OR IT WAS A LAYER OF THE SURFACE OF THE LAND.  yOU WOULDN'T GET LAND ANIMALS IN THE FORMER, NOR FISH IN THE LATTER.

tHE FOSSIL RECORD CAN'T BE EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION BECAUSE IF IT WERE IT WOULD SHOW EVERY CREATURE SHOWING UP IN EVERY LAYER ABOVE THE FIRST ONE IT APPEARED IN , IN EVEN GREATRER NUMBERS SINCE THEY ALL PERSIST INTO THE PRESENT.  oR AT LEAST THOSE WHO ICH DO PERSIST INTO THE PRESENT WULD SHOW UP IN ALL THE LAYERS, AT LEAST ALL THE SEA CREATURES IN THE SEA LAYERS AND THE LAND CREATURES IN THE LAND LAYERS.   tHEY EXPLAIN THIS AWAY WITH THEIR NOTIONS THAT THERE WERE ALL THESE EXTINCTION EVENTS.   tHAT'S REALLY PRETTY FUNNY.    bUT STILL THERE SHOULD BE ZILLIONS OF SIH IN ALL THE SEA LAYERS AND THERE AREN'T.  aND CROCODILES GALOERE PLUS LIZARDS AND IQUANAS WITH THE MANNMMALS.  ETC.

THAT'S JUST THE GEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE.  tHE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE STARTS WITH THE OBSERVATION THAT THE GENOME OF EACH SPECIES IS THE SOURCE OF ALL THE VARIATIONS IIN THAT SPECIES, AND THERE IS NO WAY THAT HAS EVERY EVER MBEEN DEMONSTRATED TO TURN THE GENOME OF ONE SPECIES INTO ANOTHER.

aNOTHER EVIDENCE IS THAT AS NEW VARIATIONS ARE DEVELOPED, NEW PHENOTYPES FOR NEW POPULATIONS, THERE HAD TO BE A REDUCTIONIN GENETIC DIVERSITY AS THE PHENOTYPES THAT ARE NOT PART OF THE NEW POPULATION GET ELIMINATED FROM THE POPULATION.  tHIS IS DEMONSTRATED CLEARLY IN DOMESTIC BREEDS WHERE TOEO GET A PARTICULAR BREED REQUIRES LOSING THE TRAITS FOR DIFFERENT BREEDS.   aND EVENTUALLY WHAT IS CONSIDERED TO BE A PURE BREED WOULD HAVE MANY HOMOZYGOUS GENES FOR ITS ASALIENT TRAITS, HAVING LOST THE ALLELES FOR THE OTHER TRAITS.

kEN hAM TALKS ABOUT THE FACT THAT EACH SPECIES IS CAPABLE FO ENORMOUS VARIATIONS.  

i THINK i ASHOULD LSO POINT OUT THAT ALONG WITH THE BAZILLIONS OF FISH THAT SHOULD PERSIST THROUGH ALL THE LAYERS IN WHICH ITS SUPPOSED EVOLVED DESCENDANTS ARE FOUND SHOULD  INCLUDE THE VERY FIRST TYPES FOUND.   

aND ALL THE CREATURES FOUND IN THE SO CALLED cAMBRIAN EXPLOSION TOO.  ARE THEY ALL CONFINED TO THAT LAYER?  bAD FOR EVOLUTION IF SO.

bILL nYE DEBATE WITH kEN hAM: a mAJOR pIECE OF eVIDENCE aGAINST eOLUVTION eMERGES

 Now I'm watching an old debate tween Bill Nye who calls himself the Science Guy, and Ken Ham, biblical creationist.  Ham brings up the fact that evolution involves historical science as opposed to observational science, which i've mentioned here many times, and Bill Nuyye challenges that idea, saying science is science, the distinction is meaningless.

But th distinction is not meaningless.  Historical science studies events in the past, one time events that can't be replicated in the lab as observational science often can do.  He says it's like the cience done by crime scene investigation in reconstructing facts to arfive at the identity of the criminal, but this isn't the same thing since they have many other situations of a similar nature to compare it to and use as clues to how to go about the investigation.  That is not true of a one time event in the past.  there is nothing to compare the worldwide flood of noah to.  There is nothing to compare the supposed evolution of one species to another to, say fish to amphibian or reptile to mammal.  All we see in the present is built in variation to a single species through the built in genetic codes ofr that species.  Ther eis no way to see anthing that could show us how ot get a species from a species.  That has to be imagined from scratch.  As does the worldwide Flood.

One thing he says I have to mention, as he goes on to talk about the fossil record:  He says there is not one single case of a fissil in one layer of rock showing up in the next layer.  Not one case he says.  He says that to show how irrational the idea that a Flood created the layers is since you would expect the creatures to try to swim up to the higher layer and pparently they didn't.  But this is more important for the idea of evolution it seems to me, since they are often at pains to tell us that it isn't that one creature just becomes another creature but that the same  reature remains the same while part of the population evolves into the new creature.  Or they branch from the first creature into two different creatures.  Evolution isn't one thing changing into tanother.  Monkeys don't stop existing twhent ,  or I should say apes,  when human beings evolve from them.  They always want us to note that.  

So kokay, th shere should be fossils from lower levels in the level above and in fact in all the levels above that.  Fish evolved into amphibians but we still have plenty of fish in the world and so on.   I'd neve herard that before , that the lower fossils aren't found in starata above their first appearance.  i know it's not completely true because the trilobites show up in many layers, but he did sayh it so there must be one way it is true.  I wish I could find out, but even when I could still see that's the sort of thing it's hard to discover.

But I'll say 8it again.  This is evidence against evolution as much as it might beofre against the Flood.  There is really no sense in the facts as they stand:  each layer befing the location of very particular fossils that don't show up in other layers.  That makes no sense on any system of explanation.  

jUST WAN WBACK TO THE DEBATE AFTER WRITING THE ABOVE TO FIND HIM SAYING THAT THIS IS CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT, THAT THERE ISN'T ONE SINGLE INSTANCE OF ONE FOSSIL APPEARING IN THE LAYER ABOVE ALTHOUGH IF THE FLOOD STORY WAS TRUE YOU'D EXPECT ANOMLS IN THE LOWER LEVEL TO TRY TO SWIM UPWARD, AND IF WE COULD PROVE THAT THERE IS SUCH A CAST WE COULD CHANGE THE WORLD.  i GUESS MEANING WE COULD WIN THE DEBATE FOR EVOLUTION ONCE AND FOR ALL.    bUT OF COURSE AS i JUST POINTED OUT WE WOULDN'T.  bECAUSE IT MAKES EVEN LESS SENSE FOR THEIR CASE.

\jUST TO TRY FOR AN ANSWER TO HIS CHALLENGE, i'D START WITH THE FACT THAT THE LAYERS MUST SURELY REPRESENT CHANNELS OR STREAMS OF WATER WITHIN THE OCEAN OF THE FLOOD, THAT PICKED UP AND CARRIED THINGS ALONG IN SUCH A WAY THAT THEY COULDN'T HAVE DONE MUCH IN THE WAY OF SWIMING ANYWHERE.  jUST FOR ONE EXAMPLE i THINK OF THE LAYER SWEEN INT THE GRAND cANYON THAT WAS STUDIED BY CREATIONIST sTEVE aUSTIN, THE LAYER OF THE NAUTILOIDS.  bAZILLIONS OF THEM ALL IN THAT ONE LAYER, PRETTY CLEARLY ALL SWEPT THERE IN ONE WAVE OR WATER.   

jUTiT'S VERY LIKLY THAT MOST IF NOT ALL OF THE CREATURES IN ANY LEAYER WERE ALREADY DEAD BY THE TIME THEY WERE DEPOSITED ON LAND SINCE THEY WERE SWEPT ALONG WITH TONS OF SEDIMENTS WHICH WOULD SUFFOCATE THEM.  

correction::   OOPS.  wHEN HE SAID IF WE FOUND A FOSSIL FROM A LOWER LEVEL IN TGHE NEXT LEVEL UP WE'D CHANGE THE WORLD i WAS WRONG TO THINK HE MEANT THAT WOULD BE EVIDENCE FOR EVCOLUTION.  oBVIOUSLY HE MEANT IT WULD BE EVIDENCE FOR THE fLOOD.  i GET HIS POINT BUT i DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE A BIG THING FOR THE fLOOD, AND IT WOULDN'T EVEN BE MUCH FOR THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION EITHER BECAUSE     eVOLUION

THEY NEED A LOT ORE THAN A SINGLE FOSSIL HERE AND THERE, THEY NEED SWARMS OF FISH IN EVERY SEA LAYER AND AMPHIBIANS IN EVERY LAYER ABOVE THE ONE WHERE THEY FIRST APPEARED IN EVEN HIGHER NUMBERS AND SO ON.

fOR SOME TIME i'VE HAD IN MIND THAT i NEED TO FIND OUT HOW MANY FOSSILS FROM LOWER LEVELS SHOW UP IN HIGHER ONES AND HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO FIND THAT INFORMATION

i'D ASSUMED THERE WERE SOME, i DIDN'T KNOW THERE WERE NONE WHICH IS WHT nYE SAYS IS THE CASE.  i STILL FIND THAT HARD TO BELIEVE.  BUT FOR EVOLUTION TO BE TRUE THERE REALLY DO NEED TO BE JUST AS MANY REPTILES IN THE MAMMAL LAYER AS THE REPTILE LAYER, JUST AS MANY AMPHITIBANS IN THE LAYERS ABOVE THE ONE SWHERE THEY FIRST APPEAR, AND EAVEN MORE THAN WHEN THEY FIRST APPEAR.  bECAUSE ALL THOSE ANIMALS PERSIST INTO THE PERRESENT, THEY DON'T DISAPPEAR WHEN SOME NEW CREATURE APPEARS THAT IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE EVOLVED FROM THEM.  bUT THAT SEEMS TO BE WHAT THE FOSSIL RECORD SHOWS, ACCORDING TO bILL nYE.  THE EVOLVED CREATURE AND THAT ONE ALONE IN THE LAYER ABOVE THE ONE WHERE THE CREATURE IT SUPPOSEDLY EVOLVED FROM APPEARS.  THAT DOES NOT AMOUNT TO EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION AT ALL.   

i'M ADDING THIS ONE TO MY LIST OF EVIDENCES AGAINST EVOLUTION.  iN FACT i THINK IT'S BETTER EVIDENCE IN MANY WAY

Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham - HD (Official) (youtube.com)