I would not call it snarky I was claiming that he provided no new info to me.

I believe it is possible to separate the age of rocks from the age of fossils.
I have not seen any evidence and I have looked that proves the fossils were layered at the same time.
It is true that there is no real counterarguments to the "fossil record" but Christianity is not
about a "negative" counterargument it is about the argument, the offensive, the reason why we believe
in God not the reason why we hate the devil. Sadly, Islam is a far bigger threat to Christians than
any evolutionist can ever hope to be.

And Bravus your argument made no sense, but I will answer your question, Your inability to respond with a better explanation or to strengthen your argument is my proof. I believe if you had a stronger argument you would use it to shut me up. I have listened to many evolutionists and I have never seen or heard an argument that connected the age of fossils to the age of rocks definitively.

You still haven't argued for how it would be possible for a fossil to exist in a rock of a different age. You've attacked my argument here and in another thread for not bringing evidence, but yet you haven't even clarified your position, let alone brought any evidence.

It's simple: as I understand it, sedimentary rocks are created by sedimentation, and fossils are created in the same process, at the same time.

You clearly have a different theory or explanation. What is it?

You are using evolution to prove evolution.

Layered rocks are created in layers, not sedimentary rocks are created by sedimentation.

There is no evidence of sedimentary there is only evidence of layered rocks. Sedimentary is YOUR theory.

You are literally stating because it is sedimentary then it is sedimentary.

To be honest you would have to state, because it is layered it is sedimentary, then you would have to explain why.

You can't say because it is sedimentary then it is sedimentary that is religion!

Fair enough, although I think the point is more semantic than substantive.

OK then. How did the fossils get inside the layered rocks?

This discussion would be a lot simpler if, rather than attacking the words I use and making me play '20 Questions', you would simply and clearly describe your theory of how fossils come to be in rocks that are of different ages than the fossils. You clearly have such a theory, so why not just describe it as clearly and simply as you can?

I will respond with no answer.

And I will stand by my claim, scientists claim to have disproved the Bible by claiming that the fossil record proves that the Bible is inaccurate. If then it is found that the connection from rock to fossil is a weak connection then it can be said that the scientists have not weakened the Bible's argument. Therefore if the fossil record is not a strong argument then the Bible stands uncorrected.

This is why I claimed evolution is like Islam, evolution is simply an alternate belief system. It has its strong points and its weaknesses. My only argument is this, evolution is just a different interpretation of the evidence. Evolution itself is not strong enough to counter the Bible's creation story. It does bring forth questions not all Christians can answer but then again so does Islam. The problem is when evolutionists claim to have disproved the Bible through the fossil record. My main argument was a claim that the main counter-proof in evolution, against the Bible, is quite weak.

Fair enough: you do not bring anything except attacks to a conversation. You claim that the connection is weak with no evidence but your assertion.

Good day to you, sir.

You call them attacks I call them warnings similar to the warnings given in the Bible.

I bring simple warnings that evolutionists are different from Christians and instead of being swayed by weak arguments Christians should judge these arguments made by evolutionists.

Strength and weakness is decided by opinion, your claim is empty because there is in fact no scientific reasoning to judge the weakness of an unprovable untestable argument. An argument that contains a missing link betweem the age of fossils and rocks. Your proof of the fossil record is simply an assumptions. Assumptions are scientifically weak.

[quote]"Anyone that truly understands the size of this universe, cannot have an ego."/quote]

A good quote! The question is, do you understand its meaning?

If you are going to disagree with someone, than say so....just to say they are weak arguments or don't answer your question and then to offer no thoughtful alternative is, just well, weak and self serving.

True meaning...I was having a debate with an atheist and he claimed that Baruch spinoza was the person who came the closest to understanding the reality we live in. I made a joke that Baruch seems like a nice guy and I would debate him. The guy responded by saying something along the lines of insulting my intelligence compared to Baruch's. So I responded "Anyone who understands the size of..." The true meaning of MY quote is that if Baruch truly understood God's universe he would be too humble to refuse to debate me.

Read my full heated debate I think I won!

Unless you're a spiritualist you'd have a pretty tough time debating Spinoza, since he died in 1677. Either that or a very easy time winning.