addmoreice (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

ok for the record heres how it works.a strata must always reside _below_ another strata in order to be older. strata go from newest to oldest in order from top to bottom in the column. the earth though MOVES. it is possible for some locations to reside HIGHER in one older strata than some newer strata! how then can we say it's older? simple. i said UNDER not higher or lower. ever seen a mountain? one edge is UNDER another strata edge the other is high in the air.

Promatheos (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

You, sir, fail.

addmoreice (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

find me a fossilised bunny in the cambrian or any equivalent...just one. thats all you would need.you don't find any. ever.and as a side note: evolutionary biologists deal with the things like the 150 genomes that are mapped every day that all correctly line up with evolution. paleontologists and geologists deal with the bones and the rocks.if you need a refutation the 'argument' of 'those 26 locations' i can do so. heres a hint: even other creationists don't use this one anymore.

M1t20 (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

There are 26 places on this planet where the geologic column goes along with the "index fossils" Good Work. You have proved to yourself evolution is wrong because "needs to be consistant over the ENTIRE world in all ways." 26 times it works, but that's good enough for Evolution Scientist

addmoreice (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

the (facts of) evolution -i-s- (are) fully in concordance with -t-h-e- evolution. i need to check my comments better before posting. i rewrote that like 4 time to say exactly what i meant but then didn't notice the dijointed sentences =P sorry about that.

addmoreice (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

there are 26 what? 26 places it needs to work? wrong. the evidence for evolution needs to be consistant over the ENTIRE world in all ways. nothing can contradict it. if there is a contradiction then some OTHER idea needs to not only explain things better but also why evolution seemed to work so well (like einsteein did for newton).the evolution is fully in concordance with the evolution. creationism (especially YEC) doesn't even try to be. it says "here is our conclusion. what can we use?"

M1t20 (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

You haven't found proof. You have found one place where it works-there are 26.

M1t20 (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

Take the Grand Canyon.With the theory of Millions of years eachline would've been the top-agreed? Why don't we find markings of erosion then? Why are they pilled right on top of eachother? Carbon dating doesn't work at all. It certainly wouldn't work without a geological column- which is how "scientists" actually date things. It also needs an Equilibrium. which would take 30,000 years. Problem? we haven't met this equilibrium because carbon is actually forming more than it's decaying. Good Work.

addmoreice (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

"First Fossils somehow transend geographic categories" they don't. sorry your wrong. tiktaalik was found predicted to exist in a specific location, at a specific depth, with specific traits according to evolution. we went there dug and oh look. found it."Second you can't prove the fossil produced offspring" your right, i can't prove in most cases that the fossil produced offspring (pelvic scraping patterns can indicate in some mammals). the population that fossil belonged to though...

addmoreice (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

1) fossils do not need to be covered in mud rapidly, helps but not required.2) great asssumption, what predictions can be made by this assumption. namely the radiometric dating of fossils (oh look they can be dated) would tend to indicate they didn't all die at once! next wouldn't a massive flood mean that a large amount of mud in a single event be rather evenly mixed? rather then in stripes of materials like we actually see? you know layed down in yearly patterns?