Creationist's Problem: Fossil Layers and Humans

Happens to me, too, sometimes. There's a conspiracy to make us look like fools.

Actually, I admit to having a not-too-good memory. I can easily believe that when this happens to me I am just not remembering the quote correctly. My post was meant to be a playful joke.

quote:

---

As for USA killing people, you cannot put someone to death without indisputable evidence, or numerous witnesses, (at least that is the way it's supposed to be).

---

You haven't been reading the news, have you? About a year and a half ago the governor of Illinois commuted the sentences of all the death row inmates because it was determined there were too many examples of innocent people being sentenced to death. Do a google search for "ryan death penalty".-

quote:

---

why would there be people who dispute about it?

---

I have no idea why people dispute it. The earth is so obviously, clearly over 4 billion years old, based on multiple, independent lines of evidence in many different scientific fields, that it is mind bobbling that anyone in an industrialized nation in the 21st century can still maintain a belief in a literal reading of genesis.--

quote:

---

Young Earth creationists do actually have some good evidence.

---

They might. However, if they do then for some reason they choose to hide it; I have seen so very little good evidence in favor of creationism.-

quote:

---

I do know a little if you want to hear it.

---

Yes, indeed I do! But put in in another thread - this one is for the lack of human remains in Mesozooic strata (or even older strata). Would you like to take a shot at that one?

quote:

---

Rock layers can also be formed by natural disasters.

---

The method of formation of the layers can usually be easily determined by trained geologists.-

quote:

---

You also have to admit that the fossil record is severely lacking of any intermediate links.

---

I admit no such thing.

I admit no such thing.Darwin stated no such thing.

Howdy, Ned.I interpreted P's statement as saying that Darwin said that we should see more transitionals in the fossil record than we do or than we did in Darwin's time. If I misinterpreted him/her, I will accept his/her correction. Obviously, if evolution is true, lots and lots of transitional species should have existed in the past; however, it was known in Darwin's time that fossilization is a rare occurrence, and the geologic processes that destroy fossils are many, and so I remember (perhaps incorrectly) that Darwin felt that we may not necessarily be able to ever find very many fossils. It would be nice if they were there, but probably they are not (in Darwin's view).That said, Darwin (or my caricature of him) is wrong. It turns out that there are lots of fossils after all, and that there are lots of transitional fossils. Darwin, I suspect, is leaping in joy in his agnostic heaven.At any rate, we still have the topic of the thread; why are there no human fossils in lower strata? According to the "evolutionist" framework, that is easy; lower strata are older strata, and humans did not yet exist when they were formed. But according to the Genesis view point, humans and other animals were all contemporaneous (thank god for Merriam Webster), and so there is no reason why dead humans shouldn't be found in strata that contain dead other animals.