Fossil Ordering Re-Visited

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
It would be nice to have this alternative but generating the Mesozoic after the flood . . .

---

Hey, do you guys have any data or evidence for these stories?If all of the animals were wiped out in the early stages of the flood why do we see no remains of them at those levels. Do you have any idea what the fossil record looks like?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Sorry - Blitz and I were under the false impression that we were just two guys chatting on the internet about other people's work.

​

[Sarcasm hat taken off]

---

Okay, then, do they have any data?

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
Well, I'm not a geologist so I don't know too much about it. Instead of asking me about it, why don't you ask the authors of the article? Well, anyway, those references were for your benefit because you wanted to see the evidence they used in the article

---

However, these are not evidence for your scenario. You need to give us something that actually supports your scenario over the mainstream, evolutionary explanation, as well as the other creationist stories. You have exhibited one of the shortcomings common to creationists in that they do not understand what evidence is. Perhaps you could learn something about it by actually describing how any one of these references supports your story to the exclusion of other theories. You will quickly find that it can't be done. Sorry that you have wasted so much time on that last post.I think it is you who needs to ask the authors some questions. Besides it is not them we are debating here, it is you. If you cannot support your statements, you are in for a long day.[This message has been edited by edge, 08-03-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Yes Blitz, this has always been a fascinating piece of evidence that the mainstream interpretaion of things isn't quite right (vast understatement). I'll be interested to hear what our local geologists have to say about this 200 million year unconfomity that looks like it has seen the amount of erosion one might get inbetween cloud breaks at an afternoon picnic.

---

Your source here is pretty dubious. Perhaps there is a reason that there are no mainstream articles on this 'problem': it doesn't exist. I note that there are no references to any geology papers, texts or maps. Basically, this is completely undocumented. There is no reason to give this article any credibility at all.Do you think that the author is aware of how common micaceous shales are in the Paleozoic record? As are worm tubes? (By the way, where did those worm tubes come from in the middle of a global flood dumping sediments to form the Phanerozoic column in a year?). I think that the author is mistakenly identifying beds of the Mauv within the Redwall Limestone. I hate to rain on your parade, but there are many units in the lower Paleozoic that look identical but are not. Perhaps we could call all sandstones Coconino, as well (dang it, I hate to give creationists ideas!), and then point to another 'problem' for mainstream geology. Geology is not as simple as your professional creationists would have it.I will check further into this 'problem' as time permits. However, it probably isn't worth the time since no other geologists with a lot more experience in the GC have ever noticed it.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by blitz77:

quote:

---

I didn't say that. I just said that evolution can be wrong. Like how Aristotle believed in spontaneous generation for many animals-because he couldn't see where they came from.
"From this fact it is clear that certain fishes come spontaneously into existence, not being derived from eggs or from copulation (mating).", overturned by Louis Pasteur.
Like how Brahe's epicenter geocentric model was overturned by Kepler.

---

Oops, you left out the obvious one: the old, creationist paradigm was supplanted by evolutionary theory. So, do you admit that even creationism "can be wrong?"

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

quote:

---

Oops, you left out the obvious one: the old, creationist paradigm was supplanted by evolutionary theory. So, do you admit that even creationism "can be wrong?"

---

​

It could be wrong--but there are two positions left-old earth creationism (progressive creationism) or ID-- intelligent design

---

And neither has much science going for it. So which do you agree with? By the way, most IDists are also OE as far as I know. In fact, some IDists are also evolutionists. Behe for example. It sounds like we have cleared up the old earth part of the problem for you, anyway.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
Not yet. You'll have to build me a time machine unfortunately to clear up the old earth part of the problem.

---

Sorry, all I've got is evidence. If that is insufficient, then you will simply have to abandon science and live with your myths.