The Cambrian and precambrian are the earliest era's where fossils can be found. They would be the best layer to find a falsification of evolutionary theory in since nearly any animal would be found well before its ancestors should have evolved. The more recent the geologic era you wish to consider, the fewer species of animals that would count as falsifications of evolutionary theory. Since creationism suggests that all modern animals existed since the earth was formed there's no reason why focusing on these periods is invalid or unfair.
That still doesn't address my point. The stages of evolution seem to generally follow the altitude of fossils found. The "oldest" are bottom sea dewllers, then come the middle sea dwellers, then the upper sea dwellers, the amphibians and then mammals and so on. The fact that you claim that the layer to falsify evolution in is the one that is perhaps the most distant layer environmentally from our point of view is nothing else than convenient.
Radiometric dating methods have not been shown to be unreliable, if they had geologists wouldn't rely on them.
Geologist "rely" on the dates that confirm the paradigm they have been taught. If scientists don't agree with a given date result from testing, they will simply declare that date or test to be contaminated and just throw it out:
This is from the Nevada Bureau of Mines, Report 9, 1965, and is found at http://books.google.....A24&dq=when st
Page 16: "For some unexplained reason
, however, the radiocarbon ages of all samples of tufa from the high-shore zone (4,300 to 4,370 feet altitude) are considered younger than expected
(perhaps by 6,000 to 8,000 years) on the basis of the local stratigraphic relations on certain "landmark" radio carbon dates, and on the interregional correlations prepared in this paper." In other words, the radio carbon dates were rejected because they did not fit existing 'landmark' dates.
Page 17: "Broecker and Kaufman (1964) concluded from this investigation that radiocarbon ages... are in almost all cases reliable to within +/- 1,000 radiocarbon years. However, these workers virtually ignored the stratigraphic assignments of the samples in making their appraisal; their evaluation was based almost entirely on geochemical considerations. Unfortunately, we cannot concur with their conclusions as to the relatively high reliability of radiocarbon dates
from pluvial lake deposits, on the basis of our own evaluation of the radiocarbon ages combined with the stratigraphical associations of the samples from Lakes Lahonton and Bonneville."
Page 18: "Obviously, either the stratigraphic interpretation or the radio carbon age determination from the high-shore tufas is in error.
Data adequate to resolve this dilemma are not available at present. The 7,000-year gap (out of 18,000 years estimated) in radiocarbon ages from the earlier Sehoo, together with other considerations, however, suggests the possibility that all the radiocarbon ages...are considerably too young.
, particularly those from the higher shores. The most obvious hypothesis to explain radiocarbon ages that are too young is to assume that contamination... has occurred...
"Because of the serious uncertainties in the higher-shore radiocarbon dates, we prefer for the present to disregard these dates, relying instead on...
"On the basis of the chronologic scheme it is apparent that the radiocarbon ages of the tufas from the high-shore zone are 6,000 to 8,000 years too young.
The highest Sehoo lake maximum is inferred to have occurred in early (pre-dendritic) Sehoo time, about 18,000 years ago. Such a date is consistent with the maximum extent of continental glaciation in the Midwest." I might post more evidence later of how scientists work together before nreporting new finds to adjust certain data to fit existing theories without conflict, which sometimes also requires rejecting previously obtained dates from testing.
Page 21: "In view of the numerous dilemmas between the radiocarbon dates and the stratigraphy, we can only affirm the statement made by Eardley and others concerning the radiocarbon shronology of Lake Bonneville "The results are inconsistent, and, at present, baffling."
show me a rejected date of 500 million years or older
Again, you are using "cambrian rabbit" tactics to prove your point. In other words you are assuming an age
, where the original environment in question may very well give vastly different readings than those that are considered more "modern", and besides, since I don't believe in such dates, perhaps it would be better if we turn that question around and you tell me how anyone knows that ANY date that goes beyond recorded history is correct? In other words, what dating method is not built on uniformitarian assumption?
Reproductive isolation isn't used where it doesn't apply (asexual organisms) or can't be used (extinct organisms). It would be rather dumb to use a criteria that's impossible to check, don't you think?
Yes, I think we both agree that such a thing would be dumb, which is why I brought it up.
As an example, would you agree that a T-rex and a squid are separate species and that this classification is based on physical characteristics and not reproductive isolation?
Sure, common sense
dictates that! But don't you think that the difference between a T-rex and a squid is much greater than todays coelacanth and the fossilized version? Creationists are accused of being vague about kinds and yet you think just because I can see the difference betwee a T-rex and a squid then I am supposed to be satisfied with your "evidence of speciation"?