Wrong, evolution demands that its congregation believe nothing happenned after its Big Bang, so they have to try and negate the worldwide flood that has immense foosil evidence.
There is no modern geological evidence of a world wide flood as described in the Bible and other, older, sources. There is plenty of modern geological evidence of catastrophic flood events. In fact, there is plenty of historical evidence of major floods. None of the geological evidence indicates a world wide flood, covering
all land, certainly not within the last ten thousand years.
Amazingly, Charles Darwin who invented the 'Theory of Evolution' had to admit that what he saw in his travels and studies indicated a catastrophic event that changed the face of the Earth. And even though his geological bible was Lyell's insane Theory of Uniformity or 'no cataclysmic changes ever happened. He did state the following in admitting that a worldwide flood and a dividing of the earth could have caused all the resulting fossils find that have been discovered worldwide.
Again, you make assumptions about what you do not fully understand. Your characterization of Charles Lyell's uniformitarianism is completely off. It does
not state that "no cataclysmic changes ever happened". It simply states that the forces driving geological change today are the same forces that have always been acting on the Earth.
From Wikipedia:
Uniformitarianism is one of the most basic principles of modern geology, the observation that fundamentally the same geological processes that operate today also operated in the distant past. It exists in contrast with catastrophism, which states that Earth surface features originated suddenly in the past, by geological processes radically different to those currently occurring. Note, however, that many "catastrophic" events are perfectly compatible with uniformitarianism. For example, Charles Lyell thought that ordinary geological processes would cause Niagara Falls to move upstream to Lake Erie within 10000 years, leading to catastrophic flooding of a large part of North America.
But let's check it out from Darwin's own words with mine in parenthesis______ (..).
Let's just examine Darwin's own words as your comments tend to be based on gross misunderstandings of the subject at hand.
*****************************************************
It is impossible to reflect upon the changed state of the American continent without the deepest astonishment. Formerly it must have swarmed with great monsters, now we find mere pygmies, compared with the antecedent, allied races. The greater number, if not all of these extinct quadrupeds lived at a late period and were the contemporaries of most of the sea shells. Since they lived, no very great change in the form of the land can have taken place. What then exterminated so many species and genera. The mind is first irresistibly hurried into the belief of some great catastrophe: But thus to destroy animals both small and large, in southern Patagonia, in Brazil, on the Cordillera of Peru, in North America up to the Bering Straits, we must shake the entire framework of the globe. No lesser event could have brought about this wholesale destruction, not only in the America's but in the entire world. It could have hardly been a change of temperature, which at about the same time destroyed the inhabitants of tropical temperate and artic latitudes on both sides of the globe. No one will imagine that a drought …could destroy every individual of every species from Southern Patagonia to the Bering Straits. What shall we say of the extinction of the horse ? Did those plains fail of pasture ? Certainly, no fact in the long history of the world is so startling as the wide and repeated extermination of its inhabitants.
This material is taken from The
Voyage Of The Beagle first published in 1839 (as
Journal and Remarks) What this shows is a still young Darwin who is only just beginning to assemble his observations into his Theory Of Evolution By Natural Selection. It should be no surprise that he would speculate about the nature of catastrophic geological events. At this time science had little to no idea of the age of the Earth, plate tectonics, asteroid and comet impact, etc. Darwin is not expressing incredulity concerning catastrophic changes in Earth's past. He is asking questions about what caused them. He is certainly not citing Lyell as claiming that no changes ever occurred because
Lyell never said any such thing. Since the mid 19th century geologists have come to understand these catastrophic (as well as slow, gradual) changes in great detail. Darwin would no doubt have been fascinated and amazed by any modern 101 level geology textbook. Geology has not refuted Darwin, it has vindicated him.
****************************************
So let's stop this insanity that no cataclysmic events have ever occurred here on Earth, and pretend that 'all things continue' as they always have from the beginning of some nice sweet Big Bang explosion that just happened by accident to create everything in perfect harmony. The Uniformity theory is just as 'bogus' and unscientific as the theory of evolution which is built upon it's back, and Darwin admitted cataclysmic change, and true scientists know it happened, and yet the devoid evolutionists try to evade this fact and forget it, and become willingly ignorant of True Science and the fossil record and our TRUE HISTORY.
Yes, let's do stop the inanity. Your grasp of uniformitarianism is every bit as wrong as your grasp of the "randomness" of natural selection, the distance to the moon, the nature of barycenter and Lagrange, Doppler cosmology and the expanding universe, the Van Allen radiation belt and, well, pretty much everything you've ever typed here regarding science.
