Why is evolution so controversial?

Or maybe he's confused and ignorant and can't maintain a coherent argument. Another common creationist trait.

You could always form a Cambrian Cow Consortium (CCC) and go looking. And you'd either find a CC or continue indefinitely. IMHO scientific tests are not necessarily finite time.

Lying again. The claim was layers, not rocks. I looked at that search and count five on the first page that discuss layers on the sea floor, including at least one sonar image that clearly shows layers: And if you go to the image search version , you can easily see: Remember, it's layers, not rocks. And those layers exist. Exactly how to those layers fail to resemble the geologic column? I looked at that search... it's an image search, and you missed this one:

quote:

---

This image sequence shows the cross-section of a core drilled in the Mediterranean Sea. Sediment layers can be formed from dust, volcanic ash, river sediments, underwater mudslides, plant and animal skeletons, precipitated calcium carbonate, or salts left behind by an evaporated sea. (Image courtesy Integrated Ocean Drilling Program)

---

Layers out the wazoo.And you missed: And: (from a lake)And: And:

quote:

---

Sediment and rock cores recovered by drilling the seafloor provide access to a vast repository of geological and environmental information on Earth's history. The core shown above, collected 300 miles off the northeast Florida coast, reveals an amazingly detailed record of a meteorite impact event in the Caribbean 65 million years ago. This event is believed to have caused mass extinction, perhaps as much as 70 percent of all species, including the dinosaurs. The dark layer contains the debris from the impact. The rust colored layer represents the debris from the vaporized meteorite. The graded gray core material overlying the rust layer shows the gradual repopulating of the ocean with microorganisms. The approximately 40 cm of core material was collected at a water depth of about 2600 meters, 110 meters below the seafloor.

---

Layers, Faithie-poo.

Must be someone just as ignorant as you.. The ocean floors are much younger than the Earth. Plate Tectonics. The Atlantic is only around 130 million years old.

You produced links and claimed that they show you are correct. I looked at the links and they prove you wrong. See above, from cursory inspection of your links (which you obviously did not do). Exactly what evidence would you expect to find if fossils werr being formed? Something like Whale Fall?

I notice you skipped over my proof of your lies. Typical. Pretty incoherent, but it hasn't stopped accumulating. It never has. BUt the sea flor on which it has accumulated ahs been moved to underground or land. Sea floor has been subducted and uplifted over billions of years. Completely incoherent. The principle of superposition applies. Each layer accumulating at the bottom of the ocean (and on land) represents a new time period with more recently evolved life forms. Yup, pretty much (but not only) marine fossils get fossilized at the bottom of the sea. And land animals get fossilized on land and in swamps and what-not. Each fossil is modern at the time it forms. Do you think that we expect billion-year-old fossils to be forming now? Billion-year-old fossils formed billions of years ago, and were subducted or uplifted, For the hundredth time, including several times in this thread, ocean floors HAVE accumulated lots more than we see today. But the ancient ocean floors have been removed by subduction and uplift (for both of which we have solid proof). Today's ocean floors are only a couple of million years old at most. Mostly calcareous and siliceous ooze, the precursors of limestone. Some clay that is the precursor of shale. In the shallower parts of the ocean, sand that is the precursor of sandstone.Sediments are not sedimentary rock, and do look a little different. But close investigation reveals the true story, that one becomes another over long time periods and the appropriate conditions. It's hard not to laugh when you can't even remember the mainstream explanation of the age of the ocean floor and its accumulated stuff from one message to the next. Talk about ossified, your brain...Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Typo, I meant "couple of hundred million.

Both. Some goes on top, some goes underneath, some of what goes underneath comes back in solid or liquid form. Yes. You just are intellectually incapable of understanding or even remembering modern geological theory. You've seen and read many accurate descriptions of exactly how this happens and you haven't even remembered that it exists. Start with Dr. A's geology thread. Oh it is. We measure it. We have, as you have already forgotten, all sorts of evidence including photos of layers on the sea floor, and we know a lot about them. You get an occasional non-marine fossil in marine sediments. But as I wrote above and you obviously don't understand because you haven't a clue about the mainstream geology is, some of it goes on top and some goes below. Of the stuff which goes below, some of it returns in solid or liquid form, it doesn't just disappear. We have images of it happening today. And you are ignoring that some goes on top. There are detailed investigations and scenarios for how this has happened for lots of interesting places. You've been exposed to a few of them, but of course you don't remember and can't learn. Ther's no problem to answer. Just a few looney tunes who can't face reality.

See my reply above. There are three classes:1. Stuff that gets pushed on top of other stuff.
2. Stuff that gets pushed underneath other stuff, and is never seen again.
3. Stuff that gets pushed underneath other stuff and returns in one form or another (uplift, lava).I know that comprehending the concept of three (very broadly stated) classes is difficult, but it's required.

"Bears zero resemblance" is an intensely subjective statement. A scientist would explain what differs between the two states and why those differences are significant. Unlike a petro-brained fundy, who would just assert.{ABE} Of course, there is a resemblance; both are layered. So it's definitely [/I]not zero resemblance. Now Faith should argue how little resemblance there is, and give reasons and evidence. Who am I kidding!Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

As usual, you have not listed any reasons. You've just asserted that there is no relationship. You didn't look at my whale fall link, of course. Whale fossils are forming now. Mammals, big mothers.Of course you have no clue about how many fossils and what type we expect to see with our knowledge of the sea floor. How much of it do you think we've seen? Not much at all.

And everywhere else it has been discussed.

It hasn't been absolutely clear what the nature of Faith's original material was in your view. You could be interpreted as saying that the original material on land was marine. Of course, it's hard to make any sense whatsoever out of her mish-mosh.

I see you admit you don't understand the argument presented about the water. Such problems are detectable and avoidable, as was discussed in the paper you don't understand.You don't even understand your problem. You are tying to discredit all radiometric dating. There is, of course, lots of evidence you ignore that radiometric dating is accurate. But you are trying to find a bad result or two. That's pointlessA few errors don't matter. A lot of errors (presuming for the sake of argument that you can demonstrate a lot of error) don't matter. Why, even if you could demonstrate that the vast majority of radiometric dates are wrong that wouldn't matter. One correct radiometric date destroys your young earth.You need to demonstrate that all radiometric dates are wrong, every single one of them. The only way to do that is to find a systemic error that invalidates the whole kit and kaboodle. The RATE group, comprised of pretty much all the YECs that understand radiometric dating, acknowledged this fact. They tried to invoke accelerated nuclear day (AND), i.e. fast decay rates. This would indeed falsify the whole kit and kaboodle if it had happened. They failed miserably because their claimed evidence for such acceleration was bogus and AND would leave subtle traces such as no water on the molten surface of the Earth and all life gone twice over from radiation and heat. (They acknowledged these minor issues in 2005 and expressed hope that further research would lead to a solution. There has been no furhter research.)