antelope_sniper,
As an example, some fossils can develop in a short period of time. Many fossils occur in amber, and the formation of amber cannot happen rapidly.
That used to be the consensus for oil, all fossils and petrified wood, diamonds, opals etc. Now scientists know differently. As scientific information grows, this most likely will change also.
First, plant resin polymerizes to produce copal, which takes thousands of years. Then the volatile oils must evaporate, which can take millions of years more.
Your uniformitarianism is showing. See above paragraph.
Multiple layers of fossils. Sometimes each layer preserves an entire ecosystem, which would have taken decades to establish.
Ever hear of the petrified forest in Yellow Stone. It was thought to be twenty-seven forest grown in place over several millions years. That is until some creationists geologists received permission from the government to prove otherwise. None of the trees had roots. They were
ALL deposited in a
HUGE flood just like the trees we find in Spirit Lake after Mt St Hellens eruption. One day in a geological catastrophe is like a million years of evolutionary theory.
In-place marine fossils on mountains, showing that the mountain must have risen since the fossil was deposited.
Exactly
! Like after a world wide flood
! How predictable
!Reworked fossils, showing that a mountain must have risen and eroded since the fossil was deposited.
Reworked is an evolutionary theory to try to make sense of theoretical out of place fossils. They are only out of place if you ignore the lack of fault breccia.
It's when you look at the evidence in the full context of
real science that your one little talking point of evolution becomes irrelevant.
In order for your beliefs to be right, the vast majority of creation science would have to be wrong. You constantly reject obvious evidences to cling to a constantly change narrative of evolution.
What more likely, that a GED educated follower of a bronze age cult is right, or is that what we've learned though the modern peer review process of science more consistent with reality?
The peer reviewed process is a joke. What happened to the guy who invented the MRI machine. Because he is a creationist he was banned. I read where a couple of evolutionist were quite upset by the action of the "peer reviewed" system. How long did it take before Dr Robert Gentry work on the polonium halos was accepted. Some still try to reject it while the majority accept his discovery.
Your position is tenuous at best and criminal at worst. Look at what has happened when kids are told they are animals. They act like animals.
