I'm waiting to hear how those brachiopods got to the tops of mountains with their stalks still attached to the sea floor or to other dead brachiopods
There are two ways:
(1) Water existing in many locations for much longer than 40 days. The recession rate was most certainly different in different places around the globe.
(2) I already explained the transplantation method, in which strong current carry already developed organisms to new locations. They settle in, take root, or otherwise inhabit the area until the water recedes.
The only place it works is in your head. Wet sediment would just roll down a slope that extreme.
You have continually denied that this model works, yet, it has been demonstrated physically for you.
I really can't help you with this one because you just keep denying what you see before you.
I haven't "explained them away," I've explained them. Geologists understand very well how they are formed.
That's simply not true.
Yes, there are myriad of theories that attempt to explain some situations, but to say they are well-understood is a lie.
I have read evolutionist argument after argument for polystrat fossils and they are garbage; All of them.
They usually are long-winded explanations that sound quite scientific and impressive, but when you really think about what they are claiming, it is purely ridiculous.
Yes, there are instances when trees could possibly be buried quickly and keep their form, and they love to give examples of this, but this argument does not cover a large percentage of what we actually find in the field, so this evidence is just ignored by evolutionists.
I'm not surprised. This is the standard modus operandi that evolutionists use to baffle simple minds into accepting their religion/faith.
If you don't admit and recognize the enormous holes the evolution-claims about polystrate fossils, you are either (1) mentally incapable of understanding the way simply physical processes work and been emotionally baffled by evolutionists claims, or (2) in deep denial, or (3) not being honest.
In all honestly, the more I have studied evolution, the more I am shocked that anyone ever bought into this garbage. It's simply not scientific.
It much more resembles a long, drawn out, and eccentric series of "how it could have happened" claims... Honestly!
"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—Dr. Fleischman, Erlangen Zoologist
"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.
"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.
