My whole life Evolutionists have been screaming incessantly that the order of fossils in the geologic column is direct evidence of evolution
WOW! Your whole life? Then surely you can provide 10 published examples of predictions of
a specific order of fossils. I mean, you've been the poor victim of incessant screaming about it.
... One of the most popular memes is that "the fossils prove evolution" ...
Really? I've never seen this meme - please provide 5 examples. Or is this another of your hypotheticals? Sure, the fossil progression OBSERVED supports evolution and refutes the laughable notions of a bible flood and all that pagan nonsense, but a SPECIFIC ordering of fossils? Never seen such a prediction. Or is this one of your hypotheticals?
What is with this giant backpedal all of the sudden?
Who is backpedaling? I don't even know what your position is half the time since it makes no sense.
What is this reliance upon hypotheticals all the time?
Perhaps it is just that people with backgrounds in science have different understandings and usages of words like "specific" and "prediction" than internet apologists.
Because to me, predicting a specific order of fossils means something like:
"I predict that we will find these specific fossils in this specific order: A, B, C, D, E, F."
And I've not seen any such thing. You seem to think this happens? or it should but doesn't? Who knows what you mean.
And apologists, desperate to prop up their failing middle eastern myths, seem to think that "predicting" that we will find fossils of 'older' creatures in deeper strata is the same thing. or something. it is hard to tell what such folk think. But it is clear that they cannot understand the material very well, since they cannot understand field-relevant "jargon."
I'll repeat:
You can't claim that the specific order of fossils is direct evidence of Evolution, without also claiming that Evolution theory expected that specific order of fossils. It's either both or neither.
Sorry, I do not accept your ad hoc constraints as valid. Theory relies on data in the first place. it is almost as if you are so naive and Dunning-Krugery that you think a theory is the first thing to be produced in the scientific endeavor, followed by all-encompassing predictions regarding the evidence for that theory, followed by actually finding evidence.
Is that what you think? It seems so, but it is hard to tell since your rambling is so muddled and contradictory - at least as far as how things are actually done in science. But that is because you have no science background, that much is obvious.
If it's neither, then you're just writing evolution stories based on the fossil order that was discovered, (i.e. ad-hoc.)
Well, isn't that better than writing creation stories based on ancient numerology nonsense and ancient middle eastern myths? Isn't writing about stuff that there is evidence for better than propping up silly myths like making a man from dust and a flood and all that?
Let me guess - you think that the TAB post hoc nonsense is TRUE science?
But it sounds like you've already conceded this, which I'm happy to see....
Conceded what?
I'm sure you are happy to fluff your own ego, you seem to do that regardless of how incoherent your ranting is.
But is is precious to see you pretend to know about things you don't.
So the fossil order is not evidence of Evolution.
Of course it is. Pity that your ilk cannot keep your accusations straight. I thought you were rambling about predicting specific fossil sequences?
If I'm so wrong then try channeling some of this hostility into actual arguments, and try and stay on topic, thanks.
Oh, you poor dear.
I have no intention of taking the time to address your every error - history shows that creationists will never adjust their thinking, regardless of what is presented. So I will just keep pointing out your errors and dopey motivations, thank you.
