I could pour maple syrup over this and eat it for breakfast. There isn't a single shred of evidence for anything here CTD.

Quote
I'm paying attention. You want to blame the messenger who reports that these things are used, rather than the evolutionists who decided to use them in the first place.


I want to know why you are defending Woodmorappe's decision to use dictyonema as an index fossil for the Ordovician age when this foram's evolutionary lifespan encompassed several subsequent ages as well. This isn't a scientific way to try to date things, though it is how someone might go about doing it if they want to show . . . say . . . some "anomalous" results. If you're going to continue to try to pick bones about this, then find an article which talks about the use of dictyonema as an index fossil (note the word "index" there) and link to it here.

Quote
Would you like to explain why the Green River Formation is evidence of a global flood when there are also 4 million layers of varves there?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that's in another thread. and it's not like anyone cares.


In other words you clearly can't. I care because I see a conflict between a link you yourself provided in this thread, claiming that a stratum of mixed fossils in the Green River Formation is evidence of a worldwide flood, and the fact that a large part of that very same formation also contains 4 million layers of varves which could not have formed in a flood. Brushing inconvenient conflicts like this aside is not a very scientific way to go about finding the truth.

Quote
In spite of your own source clearly demonstrating the invalidity of the glacier interpretations


Now who's making stuff up? Please refer me to a single instance where I quoted information from my sister-in-law which you or anyone else here were able to falsify. I was speaking to her today about methods used for geological dating. Do you actually understand how scientists come up with the dates that they do? Or is it easier to ignore them so that you can claim they're all lies?

Quote
You want evidence that your ape man chart doesn't show man evolved from monkeys? Look at all the question marks. All it shows it that some people wish man evolved from monkeys.


The chart shows you the geological dates for the rocks in which those fossils were found. Can you deal with it? Or are you able to explain how the dating methods used for the homo erectus fossil are erroneous?

Not a single answer here to any question anyone has asked you. I suggest you do some research and look at some real science sites. I also suggest you start with learning about how rocks and fossils are dated. This is a good, basic introduction. This is a good one too. You can find info there about paleomagnetics, which is one of the ways the homo erectus fossil I cited was dated. And at this site, you can see how a series of hominid fossils from Spain, species homo antecessor, was dated using not only paleomagnetism but also electron spin resonance (ESR) and uranium-series results on teeth. The dates derived from all of these methods corresponded. They show that the fossils are more than 780,000 years old.