FYI, DId you know that when a fossil is found in a stratum to which it "theoretically" does not belong, evolutionists use several means of explaining this discrepancy. For example, if it is supposed to be older than the containing bed, it can be said to have been redeposited from an earlier eroded deposit or to indicate the survival of its particular species longer than had been previously believed.
If it is supposed to be younger than its stratum, it can be explained as due to the reworking and mixing of 2 originally distinct deposits or else as showing that the animal dates from earlier antiquity than previously thought. OFTEN, discovery of such an anomalous fossil has been deemed sufficient justification for redating the entire formation to conform to the SUPPOSED age of the particular fossil.
The dates are constantly being changed Ichneumon - perhaps you should do some scholarly research. Your the one that needs a better education.
Try reading "Geological Correlation and Paleoecology" by Robin Allen. He is an evolutionist who admits "the findings of historical geology are suspect because the principles upon which they are based are inadequate"
There's tons of information on the sad state of the evolutionary time scale but you prefer to remain ignorant.
The geologic time series is built up by a hypothetical superposition of beds upon each other from all over the world. So despote fossils having been found grossly out of place in the "time scale, many creatures supposedly primitive have persisted to the present day, including many which somehow skipped all the way from very early period to the present without leaving any traces in intervening periods.
Uniform geology is a joke
I have'nt even touched on all the examples of "old" formations found resting confortably on "young"formations.
Honest geologists admit the "accepted" geologic time scale is an extremely fragile foundation
FYI, DId you know that when a fossil is found in a stratum to which it "theoretically" does not belong, evolutionists use several means of explaining this discrepancy. For example, if it is supposed to be older than the containing bed, it can be said to have been redeposited from an earlier eroded deposit or to indicate the survival of its particular species longer than had been previously believed.LOL! You point out that if a fossil is found in younger strata than it's ever been found before, then either the strata has been mis-dated or the fossil species has lived longer than previously thought. And if the fossil is found in older strata than it's ever been found in before, then either the strata has been mis-dated or the fossil species has existed since earlier times than had previously been thought.If it is supposed to be younger than its stratum, it can be explained as due to the reworking and mixing of 2 originally distinct deposits or else as showing that the animal dates from earlier antiquity than previously thought. OFTEN, discovery of such an anomalous fossil has been deemed sufficient justification for redating the entire formation to conform to the SUPPOSED age of the particular fossil.
And to you, this act of changing our understanding of what happened when new, surprising data comes to light - is a BAD thing.
Oooookaaaaaayyyyyy...