<br></div>
Bob Jones, Earth Science p. 306
"Polystrate tree passing through sedimentary rock suggesting rapid depostion. Joggins, Nova Scotia. Geological Survey of Canada, 1910, Neg. 15092."
Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men p. 114
Search for "Polystrata trees", especially one of interest is the 30 foot petrified tree in the Kettles Coal Mines near Cookville, TN. It spans several different coal seams which are dated thousands of years apart.
---
And if you're going to say my little 2.3 billion year remark and the thing about "evolution always been taught" then you're just playing games. Any fool knows evolution cannot have been taught before the theory arose. And I'm not going to look up such a massive and irrelevant number when you understood what I was talking and that it was a vast amount of time but still not statistically long enough to be certain of the outcome. Just like you couldn't be bothered to look up "" comment. Can you show me a place that has those numbers? Then don't come all up on me for doing what you just did. I'm just able to understand that those are abstract numbers used to relate an idea, not to provide a mathematical equation. Please stop with the personal bickering and the use of the word "fiction." You call me condescending! There's a reason I bring up the juvenile characteristic of highschool students.
And besides, it's not even evolution that we're talking about. It's the Theory of the Origin of Species, as I have made a clear distinction between.
Strata-dating is just as irrelavent and unreliable as fossil dating, especially since they use the same method. To date something you already have to assume a time period to derive your answer from. You have to have the answer before you can get the variables, it's like having two variables in a single algebra equation and being asked to solve it.
And Sandy, if you want to talk fossils, then what about the Kanapoi hominid fossil at Laetoli, which is identical to modern humans, which has been placed 4.4 million years back on the time scale. That doesn't fit with evolution
But that's an 'isolated' case so I don't expect it to 'disprove' Origins. But lets try to be good scientists and not use the words "prove" and "disprove." I've been trying to shy away from them.
But I'll add a little theory about neandertal and other earlier human fossils. Have you ever heard of rickets? I know i hadn't. But during the ice age when there was little sunlight and less food humans would not have been able to find enough vitamins and minerals to sustain themselves, and this disease, which causes defective bone growth as a result of too little vitamin D and calcium, would have set in, causing bone structure to stunt and deform. Since we only have ... how many human fossils? I don't want to offer a number and allow you to dismiss my argument with the swash of "fiction" and a lunge of "circumstantial." Lets say 20 to 40, few of which come from the same area? Is that acceptable? This could also explain why, on the evolution timeframe, neandertal shrunk in size as he evolved, because over time rickets would have gotten worse, especially when new children were born into a world where they lacked calcium and vitamin D from birth.
---
Chuck, yeah really. That stuff is hilarious ... in the embarassing 'why did you have to discredit yourself with a children's song' sort of way.
