The fossil record is the claim not the evidence

[Angrboda]

While I'm reluctant to defend Chad, there is a charitable interpretation that can be made. The fossil record itself doesn't support any specific theory without being interpreted to support a specific theory, taking into account any relevant auxiliary hypotheses needed to form that interpretation (such as the interpretation of dating methods and of the meaning of the geological column). The more defensible statement, interpreting him charitably, is saying that the fossil evidence is not in itself evidence that interpreting it to support evolution is correct; that the fossil record supports the evolutionary hypothesis is a claim, and one which requires additional support for it to be robust (from physics, from molecular biology, from dating of the geological column, and so forth). The fossil record by itself is a piece of evidence, but by itself, on the whole, it is not overly persuasive if considered independent of the other evidences. It is the mutual reinforcement of multiple lines of evidence which is what makes evolution a robust theory. If argued on the basis of fossils alone, it's hardly conclusive. Granted, I don't put any stock in it, but interpreting the fossil evidence alone as the result of a catastrophic flood is on much more equal footing with the evolutionary hypothesis, if, one doesn't take into account other evidences which corroborate the evolutionary hypothesis, and demote the global flood hypothesis.

So, perhaps Chad did mean it in an indefensible sense. However, I'm inclined to suspect that he was aiming for a parallel slogan similar to the "bible is the claim, not the evidence" slogan that is currently alive on the forum. I'm willing to accept he meant the more defensible statement above, and ended up trying to be too clever by half.