This is APPALLING reasoning, called, Arguing from silence fallacy.
Argument from silence - Wikipedia
You might at least learn the meanings of the terms you throw around.
The fact is you SHOULD know that on the pre-flood continent both species could have been separated by ecological zonation, by thousands of miles.
Claims of "ecological zoning" were answered in my post.
Your argument is that if a flood happened today, you should be found in the same strata as your friend who lives 2,000 miles away from you.
Please do not lie to me about what my argument is.
This really is awesome, because it is so backward. Do you think one of the most complex eyes, the aggregate eye, from a trilobite, was, "simple".
No, of course not. Why do you ask? Have you hit your head on something?
But what you fail to know or either deliberately OMIT, is that in some places there isn't even found a cambrian-era. Here you make it seems as though there is neat an uniform fossil-record, with every strata, neatly laid down all over the earth.
I do know that, which is why I do not in any way "make it seems as though there is neat an uniform fossil-record, with every strata, neatly laid down all over the earth".
You also fail to mention that we find, "marine fossils" in every layer ...
That is because I am not a liar.
... not just the bottom layer like you want to make out.
That is not what I "want to make out" and I explicitly say the exact opposite. I quote the creationist Henry Morris saying it, and then point out why it's complete bollocks. Once more I have to wonder if you have hit your head on something.
This is amusing considering you think the fossil-record is a, (and I quote) "apartment complex".
No I do not. As people can see who (a) bothered to read my post (b) are not suffering from severe concussion.
Oh I see it, but it's all of that negative-evidence which I don't see, that counts.
Your ignorance of the fossil record does not "count for" anything.
So for the sake of argument, even if the fossil record didn't favour a flood, what makes you think that this would somehow favour evolution?
I think that the aspects that favor evolution favor evolution. In this particular post, I was analyzing the conspicuous failure of the creationists not the triumphant success of the evolutionists.
No true scotsman fallacy. If there are creationists with genuine scientific qualifications, then they are, "real" scientists, so the term, "real" is a question-begging-epithet.
I said that real scientists tend to call it "hydraulic sorting". This is true.
For me the, "great creationist fossil failure" is the greatest rhetorical-epithetical baloney of this thread. In case you haven't studied logic 101, if I find in the fossils, when looking for a pine tree, an identical 250 million year old pine tree with no evolutionary ancestors, then that is the only logical, "success" I can hope to find. If a flood largely created the fossils, and animal kinds have always been the same, then I would expect to find that very thing, no matter what the layer is. It also would not matter the evolutionary-age of the layer, for all layers, or most, would have been laid down in one year.
So logically speaking, the fossil record is the greatest success we could hope for, for if we argued apriori what the fossils should contain, and if we had never known what they yet contained, we would predict as creationists that we would find the same animals that look identical. And if evolutionists had never seen the fossil record, since their theory explains how everything on earth was created by evolution, the correct logical prediction would be that the fossils would generally show evolutionary change, not, "stasis". Putting the word, "evolution" before stasis might make a nice oxymoron, but let's face it, in order for a jellyfish to become a jellyfish I don't need evolution, I JUST NEED JELLYFISH! (Occam's razor)
So, you have no explanation for the order in the fossil record?
I thought not.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
