@fredsbend The Grand Canyon includes nearly 40 stratigraphical layers, including alternating layers of limestone, sandstone, and shale.

@El'endiaStarman Is it more a "God-thing" if science doesn't have an answer, or is the entire history of the planet a "God-thing" including events that also have a scientific explanation?

@BruceAlderman I would not be surprised at all if science managed to work out how the Cambrian Explosion, but do note that I only have four such currently-unexplainable-by-science events.

@Alypius That "Moore's Law" article is interesting, but I don't see how they are defining "complexity of life". As one of the commentors notes, "the water flea has significantly more genes than humans", so which one is more complex? And if you look at the taxonomical level rather than the species level, the Cambrian explosion produced much greater genetic diversity than we see today, so I'm not sure in what way the authors are trying to claim complexity is increasing.

@fredsbend By the way, the Drumheller Channels in what is now Washington state are a good example of a landscape carved by massive flooding. Note the lack of clearly defined layers.

@El'endiaStarman The video is on YouTube in four parts. Did you watch all four? At the end of the first one (the one I linked, with "1/4" in the title) there should be a link to the next one, etc.

@BruceAlderman Why do you only accept the possibility that He made it using a natural mechanism? Why could He not have spoken the creatures into existence 6,000 years ago?

@BruceAlderman Good question.

I think it would be helpful to clarify the Creationist position on the Theory of Evolution, because some of the terms are ill-defined.

Some Evolutionists claim that the definition of "evolution" is simply "change over time" but that is a false and misleading oversimplification. My car changes over time as it decays, but that is not all that an Evolutionist is referring to when they use the term "evolution". Creationists and Evolutionists alike believe that things "change over time". Sheesh, my kids look similar to me but not exactly the same... it would be fine to say my family "changes over time"...

When an Evolutionists refers to "evolution" they are referring to a combination of types of "change" over time. (A) They would include the simple reproductive mechanism by which a child's genes are different from either of their parents' genes. (B) They include genetic decay (e.g. the breaking of the Vitamin C gene in humans.) (C) They include genetic advancement (e.g. a bacteria that learns to consume new materials for its survival.)

That is all fine, and agreed upon by Creationists. But there is an implied (D) in their usage of "evolution" and that is the claim that genetic entropy, in combination with natural selection, allows one species to actually "evolve" into a new, more "advanced" species. For instance, apes and humans are said to have a common, more "primitive" ancestor. This is not merely "change over time"; this is an attempt at explaining the origin of species. This is where Creationists disagree.

The Creationist essentially has four problems with the Theory of Evolution. (1) It was invented by outspoken atheists to explain our existence apart from God. (2) It doesn't match our observations or our historical records. (3) It oversteps its bounds by using science -- which is a method of predicting results in carefully-controlled circumstances -- to history. (4) Even if the Theory of Evolution did match what we see today, it does not tell us when it began.

The Creationist's point is pretty easily illustrated with Darwin. He noticed that birds on one island had slightly shorter beaks than birds on a sister island, etc. He concluded that every living being must have originated with a single primitive ancestor. Let me rephrase that. He (completely ignorant of genetics) did what any three-year-old could do and noticed two birds were virtually identical, and hypothesized that they were related. (Good job!) Then he decided humans and bananas were too.

Anyway, I'm not sure why I bother... everyone in this room has probably already dug in their heels and will defend their position to the grave. I just thought I'd clarify some things in hopes of dampening the debate... but I sort of fueled it instead. (Woops.) Take care, and have fun. I'm off to do something productive.

@Jas3.1 The word species is poorly defined.

@TRiG I don't understand what the link is supposed to say.

Besides, it doesn't matter how you define species when you are referring to all of them.

@fredsbend Read it in context.