"NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS!"

The whole world sees the same thing I do fossils in the ground. The stories of what got them there when vary.

It is a matter of record, why ask that?

Haven't yet talked about "what got them there." Still trying to get on the same page just with basic observational facts that aren't even controversial that for reason you can't bring yourself to acknowledge. 

So which is it: have dinosaurs been found in the bottom most rocks of the fossil record or have they not?

As I understand the situation TruthMuse isn't so much disputing that dinosaur fossils haven't been found in the lowest strata to date (although he seems very reticent to admit it), as claiming that this doesn't signify anything.

It might be nothing more than chance that accounts for this and we can't be certain that any day soon a paleontologist will pluck a dinosaur bone from the bottom layer of some rock formation. It's just a matter of time.

Is that about it T_M?

I think he may be using a variation of the 'absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence' argument without realising it?

Of course in this instance evidence of dinosaurs isn't absent at all - there's a huge amount, just not in the lower (i.e. older) layers, in which we increasingly find only simpler and invertebrate lifeforms.

Your comment about chance is incorrect. And it is too much work if it takes 2-3 weeks just for a guy to acknowledge basic non-controversial facts about the fossil record. And even if he's using absence of evidence that still doesn't change the fact he won't acknowledge the absence! (Or write about it in the correct forum OP, which he can't seem to do either)

"Your comment about chance is incorrect" - yes, of course but I was trying to give some insight into his thinking, not mine!

From what I've read of his comments he does seem to think that no useful conclusion can be drawn from observations of the past. He attaches no significance to the fact that of all the dinosaur remains that have been found, none have been in the lowest strata.

As far as he's concerned this means nothing and I'm not sure he can be convinced otherwise?

Ahhh, my bad. I misunderstood your comment. I do believe a big part of it relates to this "False Dichotomy: "Operational/Experimental vs. Historical Sciences" nonsense that gets propagated. 

I have pointed out earlier it isn't difficult to come to the wrong conclusion with correct math if there are variables not accounted for. What do you think I'm an error about?

That's not what we were talking about

Fine, then remind me.

#23

You see fossils, that is a fact, they are in the ground that is a fact, what is the problem? I agree those are facts.

So which is it: have dinosaurs been found in the bottom most rocks of the fossil record or have they not?

If they were found there why ask me that, facts are facts, what that means to you, do you think that is a fact or opinion?

Pulling teeth?

Why can't you just answer the question? You say you support truth, so then what's the objective truth of the matter: have dinosaurs been found in the bottom most rocks of the fossil record or have they not? They either have or they haven't, so which is it? (This is not a trick, or some controversial question, but a simple, straightforward question that it seems everyone can agree on)

What question they are found where they are found and not found where they were not found, what does that tell you? I don't care why you think they were found where they were and not where they were not, and neither do I care what the YEC thinks because what we think is just what we think. It doesn't move the chains for me regardless, because there could be a limitless amount of reasons most of which I don't know.

Got it. You want to be evasive, and avoid answering a simple, direct question with a direct answer (probably because it doesn't fit your "all life at the same time" view). It's really rather ridiculous that you can't acknowledge something as simple as the fact that we don't find dinosaurs in the bottom most rocks of the fossil record. 

What am I being evasive about, outside of your condescension, what is it you are telling me that shows us anything other than where we find them? I'm not denying them and if you cannot have a conversation without going personal in every post this ends now.