[DittoJed2]

Why do the anti-evos keep harping on a mistake that was corrected within a decade, and is more than 7 decades old? Don't they have any research in the interim?!

Because evolutionists continue harping on a highly flawed and continuously unproven theory. Because discredited evolutionary charts are STILL appearing in textbooks even 40 years after they were debunked (take the embryo charts from the 1870s for example). Because the holy shrine of the geological column which has been preached continuously for DECADES, is garbage and is so full of circular reasoning that one just gets dizzy watching it spin (we know how old this fossil is because of the layer of sediment it is found in. We know how old this sediment is because of the fossil found in it. Oh, nevermind the petrified tree standing straight up through what was supposed to be millions of years of layering. Just BELIEVE THE CHART, BELIEVE THE CHART. YOU'RE GETTING SLEEPIER, BELIEVE THE CHART.)

[Virginia-American]

Because discredited evolutionary charts are STILL appearing in textbooks even 40 years after they were debunked (take the embryo charts from the 1870s for example).

Be a bit more specific please.

[Virginia-American]

Because the holy shrine of the geological column which has been preached continuously for DECADES, is garbage and is so full of circular reasoning that one just gets dizzy watching it spin

Absurd. It's been 'preached' (actually 'known' is more precise) not for decades but for centuries. longer than evolution.

From Talk origins discussion of the geological column

My comments in bold

The principle of faunal succession in the geologic record was established by direct observation as early as 1799 by William Smith. By the 1830's Adam Sedgwick and Roderick Murchison established a correlation between the various types of fossils and the rock formations in the British Isles. It was found that certain fossils, now referred to as index fossils, were restricted to a narrow zone of strata. Studies done on the European continent soon demonstrated the universal validity of index fossils

decades before Darwin.

Note that evolution has nothing to do with how the index fossils are used to date strata! Any kind of object clearly restricted to a specific point in the geologic column would do just fine. If green dice were found only in the middle Ordovician strata, they would make excellent "index fossils."

Evolution should be seen as an explanation of the faunal succession....

Radiological methods give absolute ages, and these agree in ordering with those that had been previously established by creationists (ie pre-darwinian) scientists. (There is no way to know how many of these early geologists would have become evolutionists if they had been exposed to the theory).

It continues:

Creationists, on the other hand, must explain to us how sediment and rock laid down in a mere year can yield such fantastic, orderly differences in radiometric ages....

...And so on. Please read the cited site and explain where the logic is circular