Fossil sorting for simple

I read over your first link. It did not touch the question of this thread to my notice. Maybe I have a reading comprehension problem.In any case, it is your job to defend you postition.This thread says that all the so called scientific explanations of the ordering of fossils are inadequate.Where does your link offer an explanation that works?

That's all a bit off topic and beside the point, steve.The point is to explain the fossil ordering. The discussion above was just commenting on what bits about fossils there were in your links. The deal is that they do NOT discuss the ordering or explain it.We are waiting. When you've done with this one there are others perhaps even harder to explain. I can save you some time by letting you know in advance that there aren't explanations. We've been asking for them for months.

Why on earth do you need all that. That is ancient history and just there to fill in a bit of it for you. It is not relevant to the topic under discussion.You don't need the publications, you need a couple of history book is all.

So what particular facts do you need the details on?Is it the ordering of the various fossil forms? Which ones don't you like?For example, do you think flowering plants go all the way back to the Cambrian?Do you think that there have always been mammals around? Just which bits are a problem for you?It isn't a matter of one or ten papers. It is 10,000's of them.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-21-2004 08:14 PM

But the major (and a lot of minor) young earth creationists organizations and publications claim that the global flood did produce the fossil record. They go so far as to claim that it is evidence of the flood. That it could not be is one of the nails in the flood coffin.

I take it, steve, that you too have given up on this?

Lots of words, steve. Just where did you touch on the topic of this thread?You seem to be having the same problem as others of your views here. You have no answer for this question.

Ok, we are getting down to the details.Are you saying that you don't agree that there are geologic layers?Are you saying that there aren't certain ones that appear in a large number of places world wide?Are you saying that these don't show very specific characteristics from one occurance in the world to another?Are you saying that specific layers aren't layed down before (under) others whereever they appear and are undisturbed?Which details do you want to sort out? Do you have any of your creationist, flood believing, young earth organizations that suggest that these are NOT the facts?Or is it just that you realize you are heading for a box that there is no way out of. Is it that once you accept these geologic facts (which you have been given the references to support) you have no explanation that allows for a single, recent, global flood?So rather than accept these facts you want to stall?Please be very clear on which of the details you don't accept and what you need in the way of information that you haven't been already given. It wouldn't hurt to have you give your information that suggests to you that the earth's geology is not as has been described to you already.

Nope, there is no absolute age being used in this discussion. The issue is the relative positions of the various layers. Older ones underneath undisturbed newer ones. That is what it is relative to.

Ok, no one has brought up the absolute ages but you. Let's leave that for later. The issue, as noted already, is the relative ages of the layers.Where do you think we get to if we "lose the great age differences". With less differences (which you can defend later) how does that explain the ordering of fossils we see? In fact, it seems it makes your problem worse.

So it seems your argument comes down to this:There was a huge amount of random things going on. The global pot was stirred and stirred. 100,000's of creatures died and were preserved.And somehow they all ended up ordered in a very specific way just by good luck.Is that the whole of your reasoning? I haven't seen a teensy thing that is anything but that.Care to calculate the odds?(added in edit)I think you just don't grasp the amount of material you have to explain. It isn't a dolphin fossil up there and a icthyosaur fossil down there. It is whole layers of one kind of mollusc from billions and billions of animals all within one layer and under others. It is 100's of millions of trilobites with detailed gradual changes in layers of different relative positions.All of these things, all the plants, everything has to be organized very very well with very very few exceptions.All this just happened? Is that all you can say?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-24-2004 11:22 PM

That is not under discussion. What I asked was what difference does it make to the ordering problem? Does it matter one way or the other? How does it matter?(btw, if you think the earth is young there is a Dates and Dating forum if you are brave enough to venture there. You case is even weaker there) Nope, I think it is more fun to leave the big guns out at first. We're just discussing flood for now. We can worry about dates another time and in a thread where they are on topic too. Oh good! When it becomes necessary you can give us the details. Which layers are flood, which are not etc. Somehow that gets so very confused by many creationists. But I don't think we need to go into that at the moment.You agree then, that the relative ages are correct as determined by the ordering of undisturbed layers?As I see it, your "very big jiggle" would produce a rather random order and get things pretty well. Why do you think it doesn't?

And once again, how did these things get piled up in such a well ordered way? It isn't a "lot of things" washed into the same area. It is very specific things and not many other things. Why is that? Are you still saying it just happened that way? The changes are gradual, that is small changes between one type and another. You may decide that all happened in a year or not. You can explain that next.The types are ordered within relatively older and newer layers. How did that happen? Just worked out that way in the big jiggle? You bring ages back again? Why? What differences does that make?Again all I think I see you saying so far is:A "big jiggle" happened. The pot was stirred, billions of living things died and were preserved by many different means and by pure good luck they layered down as the flood passed in a very specific order. (how specific is one of the big guns for later ).Have I covered your argument completely? Have I left anything out? Do you really say it was just luck that sorted them?

Ha ha, very funny, simple ran out ages ago. Do you think that constitutes any kind of real argument?If you want to discuss ages please, please go to Dates and Dating. We're being gentle right now. Dating will enter into it later. Good enough, explain the fossil ordering within the context of a flood. Again, is the random shuffle and good luck your whole explanation or did I miss something else?Your whole last paragraph seems to describe a "year of jiggles". So do we agree that your description of the flood makes it a pretty darn big deal? It was a real catastrophe? It was very chaotic? Big waves, big winds, big earthquakes? That is kinda what I've gathered from some creationists. Do you agree?And how did that order the fossils? Which you didn't touch on in this post at all.

Oh, really? Highly organized? In what way?I had asked what you explanation was. It was the jiggles that shook everything into place. Is that not the explanation? You didn't answer the questions about that. Why not?