FSTDT

“Alternative facts” aren’t new. Young-Earth creationist groups like Answers in Genesis believe the Earth is no more than 6,000 years old despite actual mountains of evidence to the contrary, and they've been playing the “alternative facts” card for years. In lieu of conceding incontrovertible geological evidence, they sidestep it by saying, “Well, we just look at those facts differently.”

Nowhere is this more apparent than the Grand Canyon, which young-Earth creationist groups have long been enamored with. A long geologic record (spanning almost 2 billion years, in total) is on display in the layers of the Grand Canyon thanks to the work of the Colorado River. But many creationists instead assert that the canyon’s rocks—in addition to the spectacular erosion that reveals them—are actually the product of the Biblical “great flood” several thousand years ago.

Andrew Snelling, who got a PhD in geology before joining Answers in Genesis, continues working to interpret the canyon in a way that is consistent with his views. In 2013, he requested permission from the National Park Service to collect some rock samples in the canyon for a new project to that end. The Park Service can grant permits for collecting material, which is otherwise illegal.

Snelling wanted to collect rocks from structures in sedimentary formations known as “soft-sediment deformation”—basically, squiggly disturbances of the layering that occur long before the sediment solidifies into rock. While solid rock layers can fold (bend) on a larger scale under the right pressures, young-Earth creationists assert that all folds are soft sediment structures, since forming them doesn’t require long periods of time.

The National Park Service sent Snelling’s proposal out for review, having three academic geologists who study the canyon look at it. Those reviews were not kind. None felt the project provided any value to justify the collection. One reviewer, the University of New Mexico’s Karl Karlstrom, pointed out that examples of soft-sediment deformation can be found all over the place, so Snelling didn’t need to collect rock from a national park. In the end, Snelling didn’t get his permit.

In May, Snelling filed a lawsuit alleging that his rights had been violated, as he believed his application had been denied by a federal agency because of his religious views. The complaint cites, among other things, President Trump’s executive order on religious freedom.
That lawsuit was withdrawn by Snelling on June 28. According to a story in The Australian, Snelling withdrew his suit because the National Park Service has relented and granted him his permit. He will be able to collect about 40 fist-sized samples, provided that he makes the data from any analyses freely available.

Not that anything he collects will matter. “Even if I don’t find the evidence I think I will find, it wouldn’t assault my core beliefs,” Snelling told The Australian. “We already have evidence that is consistent with a great flood that swept the world.”
Again, in actuality, that hypothesis is in conflict with the entirety of Earth’s surface geology.

Snelling says he will publish his results in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. That likely means Answers in Genesis’ own Answers Research Journal, of which he is editor-in-chief.

Let's try taking this from another direction. StratThinker, you clearly accept that genetic mutation and natural selection produces variation within species, regardless of how we're defining the word "species". You've already said as much. So, explain to me:

- Exactly how we're defining "species" here, and where we're drawing the line between a "species" and a "kind".

- How that line prevents the same mechanisms of genetic mutation and natural selection from applying anywhere higher in the hierarchy. We'll set aside the other mechanisms involved in evolution, because you don't seem to be aware of them.

- Your alternative explanation for the apparent genetic and fossil lineages that evolution is used to explain.

1) I draw the line between a species, kind and a sub-species as this:
a) A group of animals are in the same species if and only if most of them can produce fertile offspring with each other. (Thus if group A of animals can produce fertile offspring with other members of group A, and similarly for group B, but group A cannot produce fertile offspring with group B, then group A and B are of different species). Note this a simplest definition and does not consider that you may have group A can reproduce with group B, and group B can reproduce with group C, but A cannot reproduce with C.
b) A species can split into sub-populations which due to variations over time, the members of the sub-populations can no longer produce fertile offspring, thus one species can become multiple sub-species. This is called speciation.
c) What I would call a "Kind" is one of original species that God created which could not reproduce with each other at all, I would also use it to encompasses all of the daughter species of the original species. It is probably impossible to fully know what are the original kinds (please read carefully), but it is possible to put some limits on what they were. If two animals can produce any offspring (even an infertile one) via natural means, then they are of the same kind and their species are of the same kind. For example Lions and Tigers are of the same kind. If species A and species B are of the same kind, and species B and species C are of the same kind, then species A and C are of the same kind even if no member of A can reproduce with members of C at all (i.e. the kind relation is a transitive relation, it is also reflexive and symmetric)

Note the last statement makes the idea of "kind" falsifiable (together with the fact that the Bible says that there are more than one kind of animal). If according it, we can show that all animals are of one kind, then we have disproven the Bible.

2) All animals, bacteria, plants, ect that ever lived are subject to natural selection and mutations. What do you mean by "higher in the hierarchy"? According to the creationist model, the highest in the hierarchy is the kinds.

Are you asking "why couldn't all of these variations given rise to all known species starting at one species, why do these changes 'stop'"? The changes do not stop. Natural selection decreases genetic diversity but increases fitness. Mutations increase diversity but usually decrease fitness. If you have too intense natural selection, then you get genetic uniformity. If you have too little natural selection, then risk a gradual increase in multiple recessive harmful mutations per individual, up to the point where if almost any two random individuals reproduce, their offspring will have a pair recessive harmful mutations. Thus it is not that the changes stop, it is that they are not necessarily sufficient to produce the tree of life.

I am very tired, and I must work tomorrow. So I can't complete this now.