More histrionic hyperbole. Instead of posting fan fiction, how about actually addressing the evidence?
The burden of proof is on those who enter into a Biblical arena of ideas with a dust covered, road worn trunk full of false ideas masquerading as "evidence". Do you have any evidence for Cosmic, Stellar and Planetary, Chemical, Organic, or Macro evolution? Not a single thread.
The only "evidence" you have for establishing these 5 unobserved mythological evolutionary ideas is the very observable Micro-evolution, which is shamelessly extrapolated into the "evidence" to which you so confidently point, friend.
No, that is a claim made by Creationists based on an ICR Acts and Facts tract from the 70s. Geologists know that the continents undergo periods of deposition and erosion, subjection and uplift.
See? A shining example of how evolutionists totally disregard the argument.
I'll ask you again: WHY IS THE FOSSIL RECORD STILL THERE IF IT ONLY TAKES 10M YEARS TO WASH ALL THE CONTINENTS OUT TO SEA AND THE STUFF THAT STARTED OUT AT THE BOTTOM LAYER SHOULD HAVE WORKED IT'S WAY UP AND OUT THE TOP AND INTO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA MANY TIMES OVER?
The age of geologic periods are not determined by superficial means like erosion. They are determined by radiometric dating.
You mean a method that is at best proven to be "unreliable"? A method which relies on ASSUMPTIONS as variables in the formulas? Newborn rocks with wildly varying birthdates of millions of years ago? What we know is that after the Flood, the Earth underwent a massive change and evidence for change in half lives took place, likely due to a bombardment of solar radiation that had previously not existed via the "windows of heaven".
Besides, ever hear of Helium Diffusion dating, which proves these same zircons could NEVER be millions of years old? What about how circular reasoning is often the case to prove that the fossil is as old as the rock in which it's found, and the rock is as old as the fossil contained therein?
Have you ever taken a critical look at what is easily seen as wildly inconsistent claims of evolution, like the supposed "Reducing Atmosphere" of the "primitive Earth"?
Creationists have much bigger problems like heat. Limestone generates heat as it lithifies. So much heat, in fact, that if all the worlds limestone formed in 10,000 years, the heat would be enough melt the crust of the earth. There's also the heat from radioactive decay. Even the ICRs RATE project determined that there was 500,000,000 years worth of heat in the geology record. If all that heat happened during the Flood year, it would have melted the crust of the earth and boiled off the oceans into space.
What if God spoke the limestone into existence, as stated in Psalms 33:6,9 KJV?
And, the Big Bang theory obliterates the Law of Conservation of Energy and was mathematically disproved years ago, but it's still treated like it's Gospel.
What about all those rock formations that are twisted and folded and wrapped around each other with no sign of heat whatsoever? Are those magic rocks? What about all these layers graded coarse-to-fine that are found all over which prove rapid rock layer formation? I think you need to examine evolution more critically, friend.