You pretty much ignore citations and evidence, so we know this is not the case.
The vast majority of fossils were not deposited in floods. Most fossils are marine, and were deposited in still waters, not in turbulent waters as in floods. Some fossils are found in sandstones deposited by wind in deserts, and not by water at all.
Please explain clearly exactly how it differs.
reef shark gotta keep swimming, never stop.
Symbiosis is a high level druid spell, which grants the druid one of the abilities of the targeted class, and also grants the targeted class a druidic ability. It’s marginally useful for PVP. I usually target a paladin, because that gives me access to a short range stun spell. If there’s no paladin, then I’ll choose a mage, because I get their mirror image ability.
We shall worship with the Druids
And go running through the wuids
Drinking strange, fermented fluids –
It’s good enough for me! 
LlllllAl
Not surprising mainly because carbon-14 dating would be a wildly inappropriate technique to use, which would be blatantly obvious to anyone who had the slightest understanding of what it is or how it works. It’s like criticizing a doctor for not taking an X-ray to diagnose your cold.
Hence extending the symbiotic relationship between basement owning parents and graphics card manufacturers.
You beat me to it. The problem (for our purposes here) is range: it can date back only about 60,000 years.
That’s long enough to disprove the young-earth hypothesis, but not long enough to cover most evolutionary data. Furthermore, it only applies when the original organic material is present, which is not the case with fossils created by many fossilization processes such as remineralization and casting/molding.
Analogy time.
Near my house is a stone bridge that’s over a hundred years old. This bridge, like many of its type, is held up by a stone arch. Now, the interesting thing about a stone arch is that the entire weight is held up by one stone - the keystone - which is located at the apex of the arch. If you remove the keystone, the entire structure collapses under its own weight.
Scientists “claim” that they understand how such a structure can be built from the ground up, but just stop and think about it. If you picture any possible half-built arch, it will be missing the keystone! Therefore it will collapse to the ground! Clearly it is impossible for such a structure to have been built from the ground up, as the so-called “scientists” claim.
The construction of such an arch obviously requires the keystone to somehow float in the air for months while the arch is built down from it, which is impossible. Therefore, the only logical explanation is that God caused the entire bridge to appear out of thin air all at once.
Now, some will claim that there are newspaper reports and photographs from the time that purport to demonstrate that the bridge was indeed built from the ground up, but that sort of historical data is open to interpretation and can easily have been faked. There is no one alive today who actually watched it happening - YOU didn’t see it, I didn’t see it, so for a construction engineer to claim that he understands it better than I do is obviously a lie.
Some people also point to other bridges that have been built in living memory, but just because we know how THOSE bridges were built doesn’t mean that we can just extrapolate willy-nilly and ASSUME that my bridge was built the same way!
Why is there such a massive conspiracy among scientists to deny this obvious proof of God’s existence?!
Nice try Smeghead. But it’s obvious arch bridges were built by ancient aliens.
reef shark, you’ve simply rejected everything presented to you in this thread, what kind of evidence would you accept? Are you going to demand that we present detailed specific information on every single state in the development of a symbiotic relationship that may have taken millions of years to develop?
Shit, a shred of evidence supporting the assertion he made in the OP title would even be a change.
I think it would involve both a time machine and a fully-staffed biochemical laboratory capable of examining every biological specimen on the planet, down to a cellular level.
One might point out that doing this would tend to interfere with the processes actually being able to occur, but that would be a meaningless quibble. SCIENCE demands nothing less than an uncompromising commitment to thorough data-collection and analysis.
It’s become rather evident that approaching reef shark with a request for an exact definition is rather like approaching Dracula with a sun lamp mounted upon a crucifix made of garlic.
Every moment of stopthought makes Jesus smile.
Prove to me that acorns can grow into giant oak trees. Nobody’s ever seen it happen. And pointing to a whole forest of trees at different stages of growth or development doesn’t cut it: those are different trees. You have to show me the same acorn growing into a giant oak tree. And you have to do it in, oh, to be generous, the next four months.
I knew it was the Stoics. Even when it was the bears, I knew it was them.
What are you doing? Don’t you see that the SyFy Channel always takes notes? Now the same outfit that is giving us Sharknado* will come now with Sparkling Biters From the Sea!
Cool…can’t wait to see Sharknado. 'dopers have already ruined After Earth for me, but I’m just going to go and enjoy Sharknado for myself, and not listen to anyone’s opinions on it before hand! I mean, what could be better than tornadoes carrying around giant sharks and terrorizing LA?? Can’t wait!
Tornado-borne sharks with frickin’ laser beams on their heads, that’s what!