The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

There is no such thing as THE strata...There's different strata all over the place.

Sure, they really aren't. Can we now count on you to stop referring to them as THE strata, as if there was only one?

Sure, but that's abstraction. There is not an actual geological column that has all of the layers in it.Different places on the planet have different stratum in their individual geological columns. So really, there are lots and lots of geological columns.What is refered to as The Geological Column is an artifact of summing all of the individual geological columns into one master geological column, but its not a real thing that exists in the planet rather it is a concept of what all of the stratum together would look like. But you're not talking about a real thing. You're talking about an abstraction as if it is a real thing. That's only ever going to lead you astray and cause confusion.Nowhere on Earth is there a place where The Geological Column exists in it entirety. You know, if you Google "the geological column" then you get either creationist sites talking about it, or evolutionist sites talking about the creationist sites talking about it. You don't get any scientific sites talking about it:GoogleWhy do you think that is?

Yes, the strata are real.What would be wrong would be to say: "The strata is real."It's especially wrong if you're implying that there's just one strata, there are so many instances of different ones.It's deceitful to conflate that implication with the entirety of The Geological Column.

Uh... humans are apes. Humans. Are. Apes.What you said is the same as saying that one car is a fully fledged Corvette while another car is a fully fledged Chevrolet.Or that one animal is a fully fledged dog while the other is a fully fledged mammal.It's called a nested hierarchy <--clicky

Okay, humans are apes, so let's go back to what you were saying: So going "from ape to human"... it doesn't quite make sense because humans are still apes, but we can roll with it. Let's say "from non-human ape to human ape".How is a nested hierarchy from non-human apes to human apes different from what you are calling "rapid outward expansion"? Given that the theory is that going from a non-human ape to a human ape will always be via a route of a nested hierarchy, and given the assumption that we can always tell the human apes from the non-human ones, how can you stand by a claim of no intermediates when there are clearly fossils of apes that fall in-between being clearly non-human to sorta non-human, to maybe human-ish, to pretty-close-but-not-quite-fully-human? Its not superficial though. As the fossils get older, the more non-human the apes are. And as you get closer to modern times, the fossils become more and more human-like. Check it out: Those fossils are certainly consistent with evolution.The only way they are consistent with creationism, is if they were being created to look like they evolved!Why would God do that?