The blog-entry shows why the request to find a human in the Cambrian is a Red-Herring because the fossil record have never belonged to Charles Darwin. Because certain animals are found in certain places, it's a rigged game, you already know that I don't have the ability.
It does no such thing. A rabbit in the Cambrian would be a major problem for evolution.
Since you know so much about the fludde, what is the consensus of all these creationist PhDs on where the pre-fludde and post-fludde boundaries are?
a lot of creationists such as I and the folk at CMI, incorporate a flood-boundary as a conjectural part of our model. It seems very much as though the evolutionists here didn't even know this, otherwise the blanket-statement would never have been mentioned because it's effectively to shoot ones self in the foot.
I'm certainly aware of that. I 'my pretty familiar with the problems of such models. You have been around here long enough to know that your characterization of the reality - based group here is false.
Great argument. The lack of evidence against evolution is evidence against evolution.
Oh, and if you asked one of us why the fossil record is evidence for evolution you'd get something like "because the order of the fossil record can be derived from first principles of the ToE without any knowledge of the fossil record". No mention of Darwin.
I see you are holding on to pollen. It's not anomalous, it's thoroughly debunked. I One of the oldest PRATTs. You aren't much different from Faith.
And while I'm here, what's the consensus on the fludde boundaries?