Many fossils are dated according to the rocks they are found in, the rocks are dated by the fossils that are found in them, and the fossils are sorted out according to their hypothetical evolutionary order. Thats circular reasoning.
This is a classic creationist blunder. And every time I read it, I wonder if you guys ever think about what you're saying. Can you really imagine a geologist standing up at a geological conference and saying: "I know this rock is ten million years old because the fossils in it are ten million years old. And I know that the fossils in it are ten million years old because I know that the rock is ten million years old" --- and no-one makes an objection?
Clearly the creationist fantasy of what geologists do cannot be an actual description of what they do; and it isn't.
Dr David Raup said about the supposed order of the fossil record, "So the geological time scale and the basic facts of biological change over time are totally independent of evolutionary theory... One of the ironies of the evolution-creation debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression and they have gone to great lengths to accomodate this 'fact' in their flood geology."
He makes an excellent point, which I have also made several times on this thread. You are not accounting for what the fossil record looks like. You are accounting for what you
think the fossil record looks like. But it doesn't look like that. Creationists aren't even trying to account for the facts, they're trying to account for what they imagine the facts to be.
Like this:
In a flood, it is the ocean bottom dwelling animals that would be buried first, by underwater mudslides. Like a cement truck dumping cement over the creatures. Thats how you get the mass fossilization of billions of marine invertebrates, you find smashed and squashed together in a frenzy all over the world.
That is simply not what the fossil record looks like. You pride yourself on the fact that your flood hypothesis accounts for what you
think the fossil record looks like, but you cannot account for what the fossil record
actually looks like.
And this is a curious thing about creationists that I have often noticed. You somehow manage to be
obsessed with science without actually being
interested in it. The fossil record exists, we can go and look at it, it's fascinating. But while you are terribly keen to explain it in terms of your favorite mythology, you've never bothered to find out
what it actually looks like. You're not that interested in it.