Definitions within science are important. (I understand they are also important in theology, so I would hope you would understand the truth of that statement.)
Are they? Then you would agree that finches are the same species and no hybridization is occurring, correct? I mean definitions are important, right?
Definition of SUBSPECIES
“a category in biological classification that ranks immediately below a species and designates a population of a particular geographic region genetically distinguishable from other such populations of the same species and capable of interbreeding successfully with them where its range overlaps theirs.”
Or is it now ok for you to ignore that definition and classify finches that interbreed separate species, because you want to be able to claim speciation?
Shells are most assuredly not rock to begin with. Shells that come to form rock or a portion of rock have undergone several changes. A number of the 37,000 links I suggested you consult deal with this. You could try checking those out, or choose to remain ignorant.
Andso we find shells, followed by animals after we have a catastrophic event in the future, assume marine life formed first and evolved into animal life, even if we know animal life existed at the same exact time as those shells, right?
The post to which I was responding did not, I think, specify fish bones and animal bones. My palaeontological studies focused very much on invertebrates, so that was the example I gave in response. If your question used terms with standard scientific meaning, then my response met your request.
I know it didn’t specify them, as none were found. So after layer upon layer of shells, then in the future when something happens to fossilize fish and animal bones, we will assume fish and animals evolved after an extended period of time later, even if we also understand right now they existed right alongside those shells.
I now understand that your use of terminology was loose. That's OK. Your ignorance in this field has been established. I offered you a way to address that - by studying some of the 37,000 links on taphonomy. You could still do that, or choose to remain ignorant.
Or your so ignorant you refuse to accept that layer after layer of shells being deposited, while animals existed right alongside them, yet can’t be found, might cause a sane person to question his belief of the same thing being found in the fossil record?
IF you were not so ignorant about the process of fossilisation you would understand why your remark here is meaningless. The links are still there on Google Scholar for you to investigate, or you could choose to remain ignorant.
If you could have a rational discussion without resorting to ad hominem attacks because your scared..... your terrified to compare what we found now to the past.
Irrelevant and ignorant. You can choose not to be ignorant. Just try
this link. It won't hurt.
Yes, yes, more shells, yet no animals beginning fossilization, because simple hurricanes, local floods, and all the other excuses evolutionists use do not create any. But perhaps you should rethink your layers upon layers of shells in the fossil record and deduce from the current situation that animals existed right alongside them, yet can’t be found in any of the strata the shells are found in, because a catastrophic event has not occurred yet to bury those animals in sediment of sufficient depth, just as none can be found until later in the fossil record until they were buried in sediment of sufficient depth.
But no, you wouldn’t want to compare the situations, would you...... even if they are exactly the same.... yes, absolutely terrified to use the current example of what we observe and apply it to the past....
Oh the evidence you are submitting is telling indeed. Thatlayers of marine life can be found and no animals, even if animals existed right alongside them.... telling indeed. But let’s not use what we now observe and apply it to the past, instead let’s ignore it and conclude animals don’t exist right now alongside that marine life, since that’s what the strata indicates... oy vey!