That is good I guess because I don't think any of the rest of us have a clue as to what you have been saying here.
......While our ancestors have been around for about six million years, the modern form of humans only evolved about 200,000 years ago. Civilization as we know it is only about 6,000 years old, and industrialization started in the earnest only in the 1800s...... [My edit: 11,500 years ago] https://www.universetoday.com/38125/how-long-have-humans-been-on-earth Göbekli Tepe (Turkish: [gœbecˈli teˈpe], "Potbelly Hill"; known as Girê Mirazan or Xirabreşkê in Kurdish) is a Neolithic archaeological site in the Southeastern Anatolia Region of Turkey. Dated to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic, between c. 9500 and 8000 BCE, the site comprises a number of large circular structures supported by massive stone pillars – the world's oldest known megaliths. Many of these pillars are richly decorated with abstract anthropomorphic details, clothing, and reliefs of wild animals, providing archaeologists rare insights into prehistoric religion and the particular iconography of the period. The 15 m (50 ft)-high, 8 ha (20-acre) tell also includes many smaller rectangular buildings, quarries, and stone-cut cisterns from the Neolithic, as well as some traces of activity from later periods. Göbekli Tepe Founded c. 9500 BCE Abandoned c. 8000 BCE The site was first used at the dawn of the Neolithic period, which in Southwest Asia marks the appearance of the oldest permanent human settlements anywhere in the world. Prehistorians link this Neolithic Revolution to the advent of agriculture....... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göbekli_Tepe
The way I understand it is that some scientists, such as Dr. Brett, are willing to have an open mind to how to interpret the evidence they see, even if it means going against common thought. The quote Dr. Morris used was Dr. Brett's honest evaluation of the record, although he still has an evolutionary bias. Remember, creationists use the same record to support OUR bias. Creationists aren't anti-science or against scientific evidence, we just interpret the evidence differently than evolutionists. This quote I got from the paper by Dr. Brett that you referenced earlier and touches on the discussion (I added emphasis): 6.5.1. Macroevolutionary implications Coordinated stasis appears to be a common phenomenon that characterizes fossil faunas in widely different paleoecological settings. A number of constraints on the modes of large scale evolution would seem to be imposed by the pervasiveness of this pattern. We contend that coordinated stasis runs counter to expectations of many traditional evolutionary models, including those of the Modern Synthesis (Dobzhansky, 1937). The pattern indicates that stability is the norm through- out life's history and that evolutionary change is rare and discontinuous. Moreover, and echoing the claim of Boucot (1990b), the pattern indicates that both significant morphological change within organisms and major ecological restructuring occur in a very small proportion of earth's history, perhaps less than one percent of geologic time. Many long-standing ideas about the mechanisms of large scale evolutionary change must be recon- sidered in light of this widespread pattern of stasis. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018296000855?via=ihub Now, for the creationists interpretation of the fossil records, below is a link to an article dealing with punctuated equilibrium....which has to do with how one interprets the lack of transitional fossils. The whole article is worth reading, but here is just an excerpt: Let’s unscramble this jargon. First of all, we have a new term, punctuated anagenesis (or “progressive evolution”) instead of punctuated equilibrium. This is a distinction without a difference. Both terms refer to stasis (which Landis and Schraiber acknowledge is common in the fossil record) and sudden evolutionary change. The only difference is that the new version includes more little jumps more often. More importantly, the components of “Lévy processes” are both random! Brownian motion, like the jiggling of particles under a microscope, is random. So too are the “jumps” they add to their model. Think of popcorn kernels on a hot plate jiggling in an earthquake. If some pop and land a little farther away than the unpopped kernels, they’re still not going anywhere. Yet from this kind of “model,” these evolutionists expect to account for all the complexity of the human body from bacteria, given enough time. And a little later on: The math in this paper is impressive, but meaningless if the premise is wrong. Landis and Schraiber are trying to account for rapid adaptive evolution by chance, using two unguided processes: Brownian motion and random jumps. Even a kid without calculus knows that chance plus chance equals chance. You’re not going to get rabbits out of hats, or out of assumed pre-rabbit ancestors (like reptiles), by unguided processes. Here’s what’s going on. These two evolutionists know that the fossil record shows stasis and abrupt appearance, just like Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould knew when they proposed punctuated equilibria back in 1972. Remember when Gould called the absence of transitional forms the “trade secret of paleontology”? Whether in 1972 or in 2017, evolutionists dare not employ teleology in any of their theorizing. Having ruled out design by fiat, all they have are chance and natural law. https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/punctuated-equilibria-is-back-but-still-magical/ So much for my new determination to keep posts short and to the point!
I've found a simpler way to both express and summarize my point, which is a point of logic: An Hypothesis concerning evolution does not have to be true for the biblical account in Genesis of the Old Testament to be false. Ergo it is a complete waste of time for you to dwell on defects in current evolution hypotheses if your goal is prove the account in Genesis is true. Further dialog between us is unlikely to be interesting to either of us, Nevertheless I would point out that you yourself would make for an interesting study on the nature of our species. It's unfortunate that your distortions of truth you persist in promulgating have the potential of doing harm among the naive. Certainly these distortions and false claims are, at minimum, a contribution to your religion falling evermore into disrepute.
I've mentioned previously, everyone has different interests in life. Some humans have an interest in religion while others don't. Where these different interests fail in humans imo, is those who have an interest in God believe they are right (because God is perfect and right in their mind). Because God is right their followers believe they are right, therefore everyone should do and think as they do, ie others are not allowed to be disinterested. Those not interested, are forced into interest via using the fear tool. Once you join religion, you are milked, exploited, herded.
Generally it is saying that what we see with our eyeballs is not reality. It suggests there are abstract layers that conceal reality, and it wonders when or where, at what level, these abstract layers wandered away, or drifted away from reality. It suggest that the search for reality is challenging, and that so far, the abstract layers are like "turtles all the way down", meaning, it's difficult to establish the actual foundation of these layers of abstraction away from reality. For example, first it was Newtonian math, then Einsteinian math, but now there is a new paradigm that is dooming the space-time theories of Einstein. They do not say that reality and Christ are the same thing, but i do. If this is true, then it is also true what i have said that if you can see what faith has produced (these abstract layers which conceal reality), then you can't see Christ, and visa versa, if you can see Christ (reality), you cannot see these abstract layers that conceal reality (Christ). It also means that the body (flesh) is not an aspect of Christ, and serves rather to conceal Christ, the body being an abstract layer of what i call the faith-flesh complex, which opposes what i'm calling the knowledge-spirit complex. This is the basic, ancient, primordial "enmity" alluded to in the bible. You are simply not able to admit that you are squarely in the faith-flesh camp, still trying, after millions of years of time, to validate the apparent existence of it's product (the material worlds), and prove that it has been blessed ("...it is good") by reality (Christ). It has not been blessed, and won't be, because it is not Christ's will. The faith-flesh complex is a wish that, by it's nature, goes against the spirit of Christ. Biblical evidence that the body is not an aspect of Christ, is the saying, "There is neither man nor woman in Christ". They do not say that the abstract layers are products of faith, but i do, and as i've pointed out, the bible also admits that the material world is faith-based (see anonymous letter to "Hebrews").
It is true that there are many Christians that believe evolution to be true. However, one of the main reasons that people reject the possibility of God and the truths in the Bible is that they are being told that scientific evidence strongly supports abiogenesis and macroevolution and that just simply isn't true. Evolutionary scientists typically reject any alternative interpretations of evidence that would suggest that God is involved. For example, Richard Dawkins has said, "The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative." Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, pp. 229-230 I believe that the scientific evidence favors the biblical accounts of recent creation and a biblical flood. There are also a few ways that the theory of evolution contradicts scientific laws. I believe these are legitimate concerns to share. I think it would be interesting to continue this dialogue, but I feel like we are so polarized in our views that it might not be a very pleasant discussion. I hope you think carefully about what you just said. Evolution has only been accepted for less than 200 years and the effects of evolution are that there is now an excuse to not believe in God. IF evolution is not the way we came to be and we were created by God, then evolution is just one of the many lies of Satan used to deceive people into rejecting God, and evolution will not offer any solace to those facing God on Judgement Day. Rejecting God because of faith in evolution will have eternal consequences. However, Christianity has been around for a couple thousand years and although some crimes have been wrongly done in the name of Christianity, they were done contrary to biblical admonitions. Christians are not supposed to be forcing others to accept their beliefs. Christians are supposed to try to live peaceably with everybody and live moral lives. I completely disagree with you that these beliefs have the potential of "doing harm among the naive."
If a God creation exists, that doesn't automatically assume religion is right. Lets assume there is creation. Humans puny efforts to reach God via religous practices (bible, prayer, hymns, church denominations, cultism=adherence to narrow minded and ancient unbending beliefs), etc, well imo, one needs to look at results, not words. The church talks a lot, very vocal. But the results show failure, exploitation, poverty, hypocrisy, confusion. The church has some sucesses, not 100% failure, its about 50/50. Some prayers answered, many not. Example, some of the most famous prominent evangelists are surrounded in scandal. Humans are prone to being conned and being devious. No matter that creation is maybe real, humans will never be able to reach God via any religous beliefs.