I have reviewed your links.

Unfortunately, these links go to WikiPedia and WikiBooks and provide nothing to support what you are saying.

Yes, they do tell a story, but this story is a mass of speculation and assumption, and furthermore, this story does not make your case.

By providing these links, you're essentially saying:

"See, scientists know about the strata/layering issues so it must have been considered in the fossil record."

But ask yourself, how could it have been considered in the fossil record if the strata/layering discoveries are more recent than the geologic column, which is based on the fossil record (itself based on vast assumptions)?

To justify your position, you would actually have to claim that scientists knew about this strata/layering problem before the geologic column was invented. But they didn't.

How do you resolve this?

Isn't it time we just look at what the science really says and stop telling stories based on vast assumptions?


Evolution keeps evolving because scientific discoveries keep debunking it.


"Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study."

—Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182 [Harvard professor and the leading evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of the twentieth century].


Does Oil Take Millions of Years To Form?

What About the Finches?

Let's consider the recent fossils t...been said to be ancient extinct fossils?