Instead of continuing to tattle around here, you better start to regain or restore your own intellectual faculties.<quoted text>
A lot of folk here treat a claim of science, as long as it's under that banner, as truth never mind realising that science with its inductive methods cannot actually gives us truth. The problem of induction is unknown on these threads. Besides, scientific explanations were only ever meant as useful fictions. Thus many theories work very well when they are in fact false.
I'm not convinced some people here even realise all human knowledge involves an assumption somewhere. If the assumptions are sound (dare I say true) then well & good. But if they are unsound or demonstrably false then everything built upon them is also false.
My challenge to a lot of the evolutionary claims is that the assumptions behind are not trustworthy. But it's very hard to debate people who are not only blind to their assumptions but blind to the very idea of assumptions.
"Fossil stratification explained by some species happen to be able to swim better and run faster to catch the hills".
And, apart from this CRAP, you STILL didn't address the stratification of the observed fossil stratification and geological column. And now after having ducked and dodged a bit, you just come back and act "as if nothing has happened". Up to the next lunacy and caboodle.
Tell me, why are creationists always exhibiting such a deplorable state of creationism?