It can be shown and proved by deduction alone that an "order" especially a generally established order, because it is fixed means that logically it is not possible to alter the arrangement, NO MATTER WHAT THE ARRANGEMENT MEANS.
That didn't make sense.
So if you create a meaning that is posteriori, I can't refute your model.
I'm not sure what that means either.
But you could easily refute the model by finding a rabbit in the Precambrian. That's even become a cliche.
Because the, "order" is already established, I can't refute ANY theory that incorporates the order, logically.
But you can: Just find a fossilized modern organism in an ancient fossil bed.
The scientists at places like creation.com, have given extensive answers. But it's hard to get evolutionists to read those answers given they don't value anything we say, and have already concluded we are wrong about everything we say.
What do they say?
what tends to happen is people at forums like these will take the representative creationist argument by the one creationist member, as the "best" argument from creationists. That way, politically, the evolutionists guarantee themselves a victory by omission. They might do this innocently, unwittingly, or on purpose, but it is so.
I don't believe that at all. I have no political affiliations, but I can and do refute creationist arguments.
Faith is just one member, not the official, relevant PHD expounder of Flood-models. If you want to know more (readers), go to creation.com they have over 8,000 articles, in depth, many of them covering these issues completely.
I don't come here to just go to other place. I come here to talk to people.
So what are those best arguments? What do the creationists have to say about the fossil record?