[GourmetDan]

You don't understand how fossils are dated. A billion-year-old mammal fossil is impossible *by definition*.

Fossil 'reworking' would be invoked to 'explain away' the out-of-sequence find. That's why the assumption was developed. To 'explain away' anomalous fossils.

The 'fossil record' is a mess and is a fiction developed by the mind of man. It represents nothing.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

You don't understand how fossils are dated. A billion-year-old mammal fossil is impossible *by definition*.

Yes I do.

And you are incorrect. The problem you're having is that the leader of the ID movement has already testified, under oath, that ID does not require facts to make its case.

That's why you don't know anything about paleontology or radiometric dating. That would require using facts to support your position and there aren't any.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You don't understand how fossils are dated. A billion-year-old mammal fossil is impossible *by definition*."

No it isn't. It just hasn't been found; the ToE predicts it never will be. There is nothing in the dating methods though that cares if the ToE is correct. That they agree with the ToE anyway is evidence that the ToE is correct.

BTW, you use the term *metaphysical* but you don't seem to understand what it means.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You don't understand the history of radiometric dating!"

[atlaw]

Fossil 'reworking' would be invoked to 'explain away' the out-of-sequence find. That's why the assumption was developed. To 'explain away' anomalous fossils.

Perhaps you could provide a list of "anomalous fossils" that have been "explained away."