Oh, I get it. When the evidence contradicts your story, you simply lie about the evidence. We can't stop you from being dishonest, but we can point it out. It would be nice if the ninth commandment meant something to you.<quoted text>
So you say I twist things but then what is the mechanism that places the evolutionary order of life in the right layers? This is my point. Every fossil must be buried quickly under pressure.
The nested hierarchy of morphologies matches the nested hierarchy that had been predicted. Your dissatisfaction with this fact doesn't change that fact.There is no layers of depths from which you can trace backward in time. And another thing. You could equally have said, at some earlier point when the theory was being developed, that so and so fossil preceeds or follows this so and so fossil. It is impossible to know for sure because it is the unobservable past.
Lactose tolerance or lactose intolerance. Which is beneficial and which is harmful?You always place much greater weight on the unobservable past than the routinely observed and testable present: we don't see beneficial mutations or macroevolution as the rule. There are only 1 or 2 highly questionnable cases.
We've never seen someone gain a pound of body fat, either. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen.We have never seen a bone fossilize by the process of slow gradualism.
Oh, cool. You get to define reality as you seen fit. Can just anybody do that?This means that by and large, all fossils form by catasrophism not uniformitarianism.
Well, sure, when you make shit up, things can hypothetically turn out however you see fit.This blows the lid off the geologic column! My rule places much more weight on the observable and testable. Your theory is devoted almost entirely on the unobservable past and the very rare exception.
Stringing together several falsehoods doesn't turn them into truths.And as you always do, I'll sprinkle a few supporting comments: The arrow of time is in the exact opposite direction of evolution. Everything in the known universe is moving toward less complexity, including all living genomes. The radiometric dating is only as good as its assumptions about quanties of parent and daughter elements and rates, and it doesn't explain always finding elements that should have been long decayed away.
Yes, just like we don't see people get taller as they grow up. Tell us more about the magical properties of water.So regardless of the geologic column or any guesses about how old the earth is, my Rule of Non-Macroevolution stands.