And there's another example of the problems we face in these forums - you obviously have your own definition of "evolution" but haven't bothered telling anyone else what it is. While the rest of us work with the common definitions used by pretty much every scientist in the world, you plod along with your own definition and then declare that we must all be wrong because you say so.
Perhaps the whole thing was knowingly done just to create a contradictory story and subsequent confusion over evidence and plausibility...
No ark? No animals 2 by 2? That would make for a lame story.
Yes, ark; yes, animals; the story would be exactly the same, but without the unnecessary realisation of the events.
While we are waiting for a response to your question, I'll make the following predictions. Note that as we move further from the mountains the thickness of the QPe/Qpt sediments decreases. I predict that if you can locate data on these sediments they will show the following characteristics: moving away from the mountainsHere is a geological cross section map of the region where I live.
The yellow region labelled Qpe and Qpt is a sedimentary layer composed of coalluvial and alluvial deposits of gravel, sand, clay and silt.
The pinkish region labelled Qvn is a basalt layer.
If the sedimentary layer is the result of a "global flood" then why does it not cover the entire basalt layer?
The standard response to such questions.Here is a geological cross section map of the region where I live.
The yellow region labelled Qpe and Qpt is a sedimentary layer composed of coalluvial and alluvial deposits of gravel, sand, clay and silt.
The pinkish region labelled Qvn is a basalt layer.
If the sedimentary layer is the result of a "global flood" then why does it not cover the entire basalt layer?
Have you ever met a Buddhist who believes in Biblical creationism? Or a Hindu who believes in Biblical creationism? Or a Confucianist? Or a Daoist? Or a Sikh? Shinto? Jainist? No?
