Creationist inconsistency when inferring relatedness

Well that's not profound or rocket science is it?You don't need to posit a date for the rock to assume the lower strata would be placed earlier.I would still value an actual article from the mining community.What I see here as using induction to assess what might be in a rock layer not a strong assertion about the date of the rock.It is not as though there is no controversy in geology however.

Except that you do and obviously can't contain your anger.This is an informal discussion forum not a peer reviewed journal.I look forward not very excitedly for the occasion when you present an argument on the issue as opposed to ad hominem. Accusing people of ignorance does not replace an argument.It sounds more like you want to stifle argument for you own dogma. Sad.I presented two bits of evidence for my case here one undermining the strength of the claim for a falsifiability phylogenetic tree and the other casting doubts on the provability of claims of pseudogenes (which are an integral part of the claim for consillience).Do you intend to debate that or just be insulting? I think I have my answer for that.

The point with the Rwandan case is that they abused the concept of homology and morphology in creating false classifications.There are implications behind making homology and hierarchical claims.Someone describing how the heart works does not carry those ramifications. And notable Atheists like Dawkins have actively used evolution to make socio-political anti religious points. The people in the field are the ones who have tried to enforce the alleged ramifications.I don't think you can claim humans evolved and not expect to have deep consequences to how we view ourselves and society.