Yep, you said it, therefore it must be true. 'That's science for you! Just make the assertion and BAM it's true!
You can't read the bible that way.
And now a God hater that doesn't believe the Bible is going to lecture us all about Bible hermeneutics. But, wait! There is no explanation. Its Yet Another Fact By Fiat!
just how do you suppose the space shuttle poked its way through the firmament (Gen. 1:7)?
Now let's add to the good fun by an insult wrapped into a lie. (And a very poor understanding of a Scriptural passage.)
And as for the fossil record: Yes, fossils can be deposited sometime in a layer or so above where they "should" be deposited. I
And rebuttal? First it is required by all Evolutionists to change the statement because answering the real objection isn't possible. Clearly you have no intention of dealing with statement that marine fossils are found up on top of mountain ranges, rather you just say "above where they should be". This is the beauty of Evolution. It can be anything you want it to be since evolution is assumed a priori, so when fossils are found "above where they should be" you leave the safe confines of uniformitarianism and inject catastrophe or some massive geophysical anomaly in a feeble attempt to cover for it.
I presume you have already read and ignored how this can occur.
A patented Evolutionist debate tactic. Insult your opponent and hypocritically accuse them of doing what you routinely do.
But on the large scale, the fossil record is fantastically consistent.
Then make an easily demonstrable but huge lie. Clearly you have already read and ignored the thousands of statements made by evolutionary scientists who find fossils in layers where they shouldn't be. Those who haven't sold their souls to the evolutionists can see these things all the time.
While you debate minutia... <hypocritical minutia snipped>
Projection...
Evolution is called a theory, not a law, because by its nature it is impossible to recreate in a laboratory setting,
But if you were honest and used scientific terminology correctly, you wouldn't even call it theory because none of it is demonstrable in the laboratory, it is sheer speclation meriting, at best, the title "Hypothesis". But you and evolutionists aren't honest and won't use scientific terminology correctly because "it is the agenda, stupid". It has nothing to do with facts and truth, it has to do with jealously guarding evidence that would expose the lie.
What science hasn't shown are the big points:
Well, duh. I think that is usually my point. Science hasn't shown anything that would be mandatory prerequisite for accepting any part of evolution (like any example of macro-evolution). Even that crap about an earth that is billions of years old is made-up and unprovable. In the past century alone, evolutionists have changed the age of the earth by billions of years. When you have error best expressed in terms of orders of magnitude, it seems to me that something is heavily fictionalized. But to the pseudo-scientific evolutionist, it is just a matter of keeping the faith alive.
Until you deny God, the enormity and antiquity of the universe only serve to emphasize how treasured mankind is.
Blasphemer. I think I have had enough with your outrageous lies and insults. Evolution clearly teaches Goo to You Via The Zoo. The results of evolutionary thinking have given us abortion, eugenics, euthenasia, suicide, racism, genocide, and man depreciating ideologies like communism that places the role of the State far and above the individual. Your delusional statements don't have any correlation with the facts. In fact evolution is the most dehumanizing and the most condemning philosophy ever put forth - how dare you lie and blaspheme by saying otherwise.
A class troll if I ever saw one.
Oh, I'm a God-hater, am I? Anyone who disagrees with you is a God-hater?
As for the firmament line (Gen 1:17), you have an explanation for how the firmament doesn't mean a solid partition. It seems so cut and dried to you, because you've been taught that. But before our modern, scientific era, anyone would have thought tha firmament meant something solid through which the waters could not pass.
Likewise, people now hold that days means the length of time for the sun to set, rise, and return to same position. This could not be so since the sun had not been formed yet on the first day. And the bible does tell us that one day is to God like an uncountably vast number of (literally, a thousand) years. So, we can understand that one day means a period of activity, followed by the time for rest.
>>Clearly you have no intention of dealing with the fact that fossils are found on top of mountain ranges.<<
Pardon me, but I was not trying to be condescending. I did actually believe that you were familiar with the arguments of evolution, since you were so confident of your rejecting them. I thought you were familiar with the theory of plate techtonics.
See, the earth moves around. We can observe various portions of the Earth move several centimeters per year. This is not theory, but actual observation. Sometimes the earth moves faster, like it did a few weeks ago, with catastrophic results.
The result is that the portions of the Earth collide and are pushed upwards. Again, we can watch this happen. It's not theory, it's fact. Hence, stuff which was on seabeds becomes quite high.
I am aware that the flood could have caused sea creatures to be deposited on mountainsides, but that would not account for how they came to be embedded deep into rock. on the mountainsides. Again, this theory is quite well confirmed by the fact that fossils occur only in sedimentary rock (formed by accumulation of debris, which is then pressed together into rock on seabed floors) and metamporphic rock (sedimentary rock nolecularly altered into new rock), never igneous rock.
When I referred to rock found above the K-T layer, I was referring to its local, relative position. The K-T layer is a band of rock which has a very high level of unusual minerals. It's about 65 million years old, according to radio-isotope decay rates (no, not Carbon, Iridium), and corresponds with the absence of great numbers of now-extinct animals being found only "below" it.
>>While you debate minutia<<
What I meant by minutia are the slightly erratic location of certain organisms which you refer to when you say, "Clearly you have already read and ignored the thousands of statements made by evolutionary scientists who find fossils in layers where they shouldn't be."
They are not far from where they should be, often a few millimeters, unless you are talking about something completely different.