Religiot
Well-Known Member
- Mar 15, 2020
- 1,046
- 384
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Incredible: not only did you not read the article, but you're also regarding the knowledge of the time of deposits as irrelevant.Lol we aren't talking about microbial life. All I see above is a lack of response. Knowing the time between deposition of a lower and older layer, and a younger upper layer, is irrelevant to the question of which layer was deposited first and which was deposited second.
Your religion is not only unscientific, but illogical, and thus, it is absurd.
Yes, you continue to maintain your dogma, despite any superseding arguments on my part--madness!So as I said before....
The fact that you continue to maintain the pretense that I don't understand what you are saying, is only further proof of how absurd you're willing to be in order to maintain your dogma.And we know that fossil foot prints came after the layer or ground/earth in which the foot prints were made (because the bottom layer had to already exist for the animal to walk on), and we know that the layer above the foot tracks had to come after the foot tracks were made because the animal needed time to freely walk. Therefore the layers on the bottom are older than layers on the top, including in areas in which fossil foot tracks are found between the two.
Dating the rocks by the fossils, and dating the fossils by the rocks, is manifestly absurd to anyone not committed to your religion.Now, given that we know that rocks deepest in the geologic column were laid down first and that shallow rocks were lade down later in time, and given that rocks altered by earthquakes are readily observable to see if such a think even needs to be considered, we can observe a succession of fossils in these rocks and can determine which fossils came earlier or later in time than other fossils in the succession. Fossils in the deepest layers are oldest, while fossils in the shallowest layers are the youngest. For example, we find dinosaurs in stratigraphically deeper layers than we find groundhogs, therefore dinosaurs predated groundhogs. Example 2, we find trilobites in deeper layers than we find dinosaurs, therefore trilobites predated dinosaurs.
LOL! --the fact that you don't understand that the axiom you just established serves only to confirm your religion, but not test it, demonstrates a blindness, so great, that I no longer believe there is anything I could say or prove, that would dissuade your faith.Then once we understand the order of fossils (the fossil succession) we can then put the theory of evolution to the test.
LOL! As much as I enjoy a good laugh, I'm not in this conversation for entertainment, therefore, I must digress.Someone seems to be having trouble coming to grips with the simple law of superposition.
Upvote
0