The known fossil record isn't a fixed entity that was established a hundred years ago and has seen no modifications since. Also, what your video shows is old knowledge and yes, scientists can study fossils that have been found in diagonally-deposited strata. Have you ever seen a sand dune? The sand is deposited in the same way as your video showed. You will still see divisions in different layers of strata even when you are looking at a slope, contrary to what the video claims.

Since scientists often use index fossils to help date strata, I don't see why you are saying that scientists can't tell . . . what exactly was is that you were claiming scientists can't tell? Are you claiming that they are out there in the field today using a 100-year-old guide to finding fossils and that they ignore how the strata before their eyes are deposited in order to stick to their "faith" in the 100-year-old fossil guide? You don't seriously believe this, do you?



I don't have the patience at the moment to watch yet another video. If you think it says something relevant to the discussion, please tell me -- and in doing so you can demonstrate your understanding of the concept as well. I'd be interested in "problems with the fossil record." I hope they're not the same kind of "problems" that were claimed about polystrate trees, which are not actually a "problem" because scientists know that not all sedimentary layers are deposited gradually.



It seems to be, when someone makes claims that are contradictory to known scientific facts and people believe him. (Why are all these creationist leaders "him"s?)



You have yet to provide any facts to substantiate this claim, despite being asked numerous times.

You focus on the less than one percent of the time that scientists are wrong and many of your examples are dated . As far as the safety of GMA fillings I don't think anyone has actually studied their safety . You should focus specifically on the facts regarding evolution.
You haven't answered the question of how old you believe the earth to be or how old dinosaur fossils are .
There are financial gains in hyping the safety and efficacy of drugs but there are no similar gains in promoting evolution .The drug companies , not the scientists are responsible for hyping unsafe drugs.

Discover
Verify
Reconcile

This is how history is properly investigated.

Fantasize
Cherry-pick
Propagandize

This is not.

We all understand that your mind makes sensational logical leaps with bare minimum information. This is probably because of all the detailed research that you have done.

However, those of us without that wealth of information need a little more of an explanation in order to piece together how this post applies to what Knowitalls had stated.

Frankly, without a little connect-the-dots from you, this seems like a non sequitur and an attempt to hurl an insult at evolutionists in general and knowitalls in particular.

Could you tell us how this post is related to knowitalls', admittedly unsubstantiated, claims?

I posted in the quick reply box. I wasn't replying to kia's post

It is not on me to show that the topic of the thread relates to things people post herein. If dots need connecting, the obligation to post on-topic carries the obligation for those who post apparently unconnected thing to do the connecting.

Linda, I don't think you're getting the gist of what I'm saying.

The Drama In the Rocks video points out that this kind of layering/stratification had not been taken into account when the fossil record was invented.

For this reason, there much misinformation about the fossil record.

Furthermore, the fossil record only appears in the order that scientists like in a few places. These few places have been hand-picked as the ones that define the fossil record.

In many other places, the fossils are not ordered the same way. But this enormous, repeating discrepancy is completely ignored by "science".

Furthermore, scientists have openly admitted that fossil dating methods are often contrived. Other scientists have admitted that fossil dating is based on circular reasoning.

Of course, this information plainly supports my position that evolution is a social control being used to force people into accepting a world view that is not based in truth.

Evolution is clearly a social control, not an observable science, and since science is a process of observation, evolution has to be taken on faith, and is therefore, by definition, a religion.

So, we can conclude that evolution is a religion used for social control.

Now, please tell me if you think that makers of the Drama In the Rocks video conspired together to tell a lie about layering/stratification, because either they are telling the truth, or they aren't.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/modern-science/chapter09.html

In what is surely the most worthwhile essay in the series honouring the 100th anniversary of Darwin's birth, J.G. FRAZER discusses several noteworthy creation and evolution stories with common elements.

I'm surprised they didn't understand the implications better, and sweep this under the rug. It is thoroughly absurd to suppose independent invention. It could not be achieved as a conclusion by any thinking person and requires one of the biggest, most obvious assumptions I have ever encountered.

This is funny enough to share.

At the NCSE, of all places, they have an article which favourably quotes a peer-reviewed paper which maintained

and


NCSE article

PDF of cited paper

Honest mistake, or betrayal of "the cause"?