The bird that can't fly forever, especially in a violent storm or a fish swimming in its natural habitat? No critical thinking is needed.
In a flood, humans who died from drowning because they couldn't get into a boat would have been buried before pterosaurs........but every human fossils we've found are ALWAYS "above" pterosaurs.
The key word is "always" obviously because pterosaurs are NEVER found "above" humans.
Proving evolution to be false, is NEVER evidence to support that Noah's flood did occur, but you making it a big deal, is because you don't understand logic and/or what evidence is.
Again, there has never been any exceptions where pterosaurs have been found "above" humans.
I don't just believe that you are lying, it's a fact that you are lying.
All I'm saying is that the fossil record does support evolution and refutes the global flood. Feel free to deny all you want, but the fact remains, you're wrong so prove me wrong if you can.
I'm wasn't counting, but if I have tons of evidence for evolution, and/or against the flood..............some evidence is found in the fossil record. The evidence is that, no fossils have ever been found within a single sedimentary layer where human fossils are scattered among other fossils of various animals that are equally as likely as humans to be crushed by a pile of mud. In other words, human fossils should be found in the same sedimentary layer as marine animals such as clams. Also, your ignorance doesn't automatically make a thing to be true. That means that a pile of mud is not considered as a sedimentary layer.
And, "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," is only logically valid when being used against general negative claims, but not against specific negative claims like Noah's global flood.
Let's make it easy, how about you give your definition of "evidence" then present your evidence for your claims instead of asking others to provide examples that are irrelevant to the discussion and only relevant to your strawman arguments. This way we can determine whether or not you understand what "evidence" means so we won't talk pass each other.
Then let's make it even more easier, you exclude any red herring, ad hominem, burden of proof shifting, assertions and/or assumptions in your response to this post.
BTW,
A fact remains a fact regardless of it being used as an ad hominem or you denying it. And an ad hominem is not a fact regardless of you assuming that it is.
