Which view makes sense of the fossil record ?

Have you ever read any of Faith's posts?

Your first link has nothing about out-of-place fossils, and reveals a misunderstanding of "living fossils".The "fossil" pollen was collected by the spectacularly incompetent Burdick and has been long debunked. E.g. CC341: Out-of-place pollen asa: Precambrian Pollen. PRATTs are boring. 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?

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?

I think Mike was referring to the entire, if I may use the phrase, geologic column rather than just the Grand Canyon.

Yup. Notice that Mike has so far ignored my request for the consensus on those boundaries. I surmise that's because for every "major" boundary there's a creationist who thinks it's a fludde boundary.