Quote:
Originally Posted by jaime90  Actually, if a worldwide catastrophe happened, we would expect to see millions of dead things laid down in layers by water. And guess what-?! The smaller animals would've probably been buried first, animals like trilobites, clams, etc. And the animals least likely to drown (humans and birds) would be found in the top layers. |
Wrong - as already shown in post 21 above (which you did not respond to). Also - trilobites lived
in the sea - so they certainly would not "drown" before humans!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaime90 Also, the fossil record is based on circular reasoning. You cannot say that a dinosaur is supposed to be 65 million years old so the rock it was found in must be 65 million year old. You're dating the rocks by the fossils and the fossils by the rocks. It makes no sense. |
Wrong again - rocks are NOT dated by the fossils in them. I gave you a link in Post #10 that talks about how old rocks and sediments can be dated. Please read that, and post back with what you think is in error with these techniques. I am NOT talking about Carbon 14 - so don't go there - but other radio-isotope dating techniques that are used to date materials tens of millions of years old.
Jaime - you started this thread many, many posts ago by asking how scientists respond to people who claim that dinosaurs lived in the recent past - recent enough to have been seen by humans. That question has been answered many times over. You then claim that you are not a creationist, yet you keep repeating the creationist arguments over and over - such as with nonsensical arguments about how a "global catastrophy" would rearrange the fossil record - without responding to the information that you've been given. It is clear that you are trying to argue religous beliefs with scientists, and that's never going to reach consensus.