Evolution vs Creationism

"We need to know that the time DOES have a correlation with the altitude the fossil is found in first for this to be true." But within the geological record is a definite ordering of fossils and rocks that is consistent, predictable, and useful to an understanding of change over time. Many strata are not dated from fossils. Relative dates of strata (whether layers are older or younger than others) are determined mainly by which strata are above others. Some strata are dated absolutely via radiometric by I Want This" href="#">dating. These methods are sufficient to determine a great deal of stratigraphy. Some fossils are seen to occur only in certain strata. Such fossils can be used as index fossils. When these fossils exist, they can be used to determine the age of the strata, because the fossils show that the strata correspond to strata that have already been dated by other means. The geological column, including the relative ages of the strata and dominant fossils within various strata, was determined before the theory of evolution. Radiometric dating is very reliable. Creationists point to instances where a given method produced a result that is clearly wrong, and then argue that therefore all such dates may be ignored. Such an argument fails on two counts: First, an instance where a method fails to work does not imply that it does not ever work. The question is not whether there are "undatable" objects, but rather whether or not allobjects cannot be dated by a given method. The fact that one wristwatch has failed to keep time properly cannot be used as a justification for discarding all watches. How many creationists would see the same time on five different clocks and then feel free to ignore it? Yet, when five radiometric dating methods agree on the age of one of the Earth's oldest rock formations ( Dalrymple 1986, p. 44 ), it is dismissed without a thought. Second, these arguments fail to address the fact that radiometric dating produces results in line with "evolutionary" expectations about 95% of the time (Dalrymple 1992, personal correspondence). The claim that the methods produce bad results essentially at random does not explain why these "bad results" are so consistently in line with mainstream science. Significant changes to rates of radiometric decay of isotopes relevant to geological dating have never been observed under any conditions. Emery (1972) is a comprehensive survey of experimental results and theoretical limits on variation of decay rates. Note that the largest changes reported by Emery are both irrelevant (they do not involve isotopes or modes of decay used for this FAQ), and minuscule (decay rate changed by of order 1%) compared to the change needed to compress the apparent age of the Earth into the young-Earthers' timescale.Exerpts from TalkOrigins.org "The human and mouse genomes are really similar in their chromosomes and the level of DNA sequence. [1] Therefore there is a problem. Did humans evolve from rats or chimps? Plus, if we just compare current species, how do we know which came first? The DNA record does not say anything about time. Therefore, we will have to use radiometric dating to date fossils, which I already proved to have an error margin in the last round." Yes humans and mouse genomes are similiar, but the thing is humans did not evolve from chimps or rats, humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor. Mammals (humans, rats, chimps) have similar evolved from a common ancestor. My third piece of evidence was the endogenus retroviruses. These viruses can make copies of their genome and insert them into the DNA of species they infect. HIV is a retrovirus. If the viruses infect the cells of eggs and sperm, they can be passed to the next generation. The human genome has lots of such retroviruses, but they are all nearly rendered harmless by mutations. Now, where this fits with human and chimp common ancestory is the fact that these viruses sit on the exact location on the human and chimp chromosomes. So these viruses infected our ancestor and passed it on to both decendants. again Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution Is True.I rest my case.