OK conservipidia, a corner of the internet oozing with stupid. here is a lagit quote from conserviidia with commentary from yours truly
"Biblical creationists (*cough* idiots) see most of the fossil record as a record of the burial of creatures during
Noah's Flood, wherein the creatures dwelling on the seafloor were buried first, then other marine creatures,
amphibians, slow-moving reptiles (hold here! so your telling me that a raptor which could run faster then a human got buried first?! also, why the would teridalctles not be found along side birds), faster-moving mammals and birds, and finally, humans, the most able to escape the floodwaters the longest (i know some vary dumb ass humans thaw would have gotten buried before any snail).
Atheistic (people that don't agree with us)
paleontologists[4],
geologists and
evolutionists believe that the fossil record is a record of the evolution of life on Earth, with the oldest fossils, those of the earliest and simplest creatures, being at the base of the fossil record (well herp durp, thats what we see) , and more recent and more advanced creatures higher up. This assumes no folding or bending of the geological strata (wait, what dose this have to do with anything)".
another lulz entry
"Some
evolutionary (Geologists) scientists assert that if human bones aren’t found with dinosaur bones, then dinosaurs and man didn’t live together (ah doieeeeee).
[41][42] Creation scientists point out that this is a false assumption; if human bones aren’t found buried with dinosaur bones, it simply means they weren't buried together (OK i fallow, bit the logic here is flawed).
[41]
Evolutionists (geologists) speculate that
radiometric dating (you can't radiometricly date sedimentary rock dumbshit) of rocks containing dinosaur bones indicates them to have formed between 65 million years ago and 250 million years ago, whereas rocks with human bones in them are dated as being much newer, less than 5 million years old. Creation science shows that those methods of dating rocks provide false results,
[Citation Needed] (*look left*, yea that joke made itself) and therefore reject this argument.
Creation science points out that the fossil record contains mainly marine organisms and that a small sliver of the fossil record contains vertebrates and thus shows that we shouldn't expect to find many human fossils at all.
[41] Moreover, as the biblical
Flood would be a marine catastrophe, it would be expected that marine fossils would dominate the fossil record. This is in fact what we find.(ok dipshit, if that were infact the case then we would fined dinosaurs and trilobites in the same layers, and im prity damn shure that things had already died since "creation" so those things would be unable to run or wind up in other layers),
[43]
Approximately 70% of the Earth is covered in salt water which would also explain the dominance of marine fossils (no, try again). In addition, creation scientists show there may have been a small pre-flood human population and that massive amounts of flood sediment are why we haven’t found human fossils in pre-biblical flood sediments.
[43] Also, creation scientists point out that we don't find human bones buried with
coelacanths yet humans and coelacanths coexist today (thats like saying if humans came from monkies why are there still monkies. this fish is not its ansester rather a last surviving member of the linage, meaning it evalved from it)"
fuck its late im sleepy and to fucking lazy to edit this to remove my lulz worthy dislexic spelling shit, fucking night!
