Biblical scholars place the flood about 4,350 years ago, but since there is no evidence for a flood at that time creationists keep searching farther and farther back, looking for anything that might fit.
A lot of creationists, our own missing Faith included, place the flood back at the KT or PT boundaries for the simple reason that they can't find evidence that isn't easily refuted for anything more recent.
The fact that they then have to pretend humans were around 60 or 250 million years ago seems to be an easy problem for them to overcome. They generally mumble something about the dating being wrong somehow (but of course they can't provide any evidence for how) and proceed merrily on their way, ignoring mountains of evidence that shows them to be wrong.
Creation "science" as usual, eh?
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
Yes its true that human settlements are found in low lying coastal regions today. But we do not have the marine transgressions today that occurred before the PT boundary. So the situations are different.
Yet we find that it was a good place to live and lots of stuff did live along the shorelines, BUT no humans. No humans in the mountains before the P/T boundary either. Or fishermen.
Remember the whole point of the Flood you claim at the P/T boundary was to kill ALL the humans but eight of them yet not even one human or any human artifacts has ever been found below the P/T boundary.
Its not surrender, its obvious that kinds can adapt rapidly by changing allele frequencies.
What exactly are you suggesting? Do you propose that all the dinosaurs evolved from some late-Permian archosaur that sailed with Noah --- that they had enough time to evolve all that diversity and then go extinct in just a few thousand years?
And ... no-one noticed?
You say: "But Creationism does predict that increasingly modern kinds will be found fossilized in ancient strata ."
I said no such thing.
Creationism claims that creatures are relatively unchanged since creation.
Apart from (for example) the evolution of the Ornithopoda, Thyreophora, Marginocephalia, Sauropodomorpha and Theropoda.
Regarding lobsters, it's possible that the prevailing environment during the Cambrian was too sulfuric or too anoxic for them.
Do you have a shred of evidence for that? And they are just one instance of a general pattern, though. Are you going to make piecemeal excuses for everything that looks exactly like scientists are right?
It's also interesting to see the quote in context as is so often the case when dealing with Creationist Quote mining:
quote:“The most important discovery we’ve made so far took place in central Anatolia,” he said. “There, we found an ancient community of fossil mammals that is utterly unique for two reasons. First, many of the fossil species are completely unlike any other fossil mammals we’ve ever seen. Second, even in cases where the Turkish fossils are somewhat familiar, they occur alongside other types of mammals they’ve never been found with before. One of the groups of mammals we’ve found is an extinct group called embrithopods, which look vaguely like rhinos except they had two nasal horns that diverged from each other in a Y-shaped pattern.”
The KU researcher said embrithopods are commonly found in Africa, but there they typically occur alongside African mammals. By contrast, in Turkey the embrithopods lived among mammals obviously related to species from Europe and Asia.
So in context they found some critters THEY had not seen and that seem to be local but that were found with recognizable and identifiable species within a different mix of species than most often found together.
They generally mumble something about the dating being wrong somehow
Creation "science" as usual, eh?
A quick review of mindspawn's last appearance shows him running away from the losing end of a debate about why dating was wrong. So yeah, "science" as usual.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
quote: Stromatolites still make my point. It's the correct order.
You are going to have to offer more than assertion if you expect me to believe that.
quote: Obviously the order of fossilisation relates to death. There would be dead bacteria cells accumulating within hours of creation, and yet the first exoskeleton of a trilobite some time later.
Since, as I pointed out, bacteria do not die of old age, and since you need the stromatolite to form before it could "die" it is hardly obvious that you are correct. Does it really take less time for a stromatolite - of the size found in the Precambrian - to form than it does for a trilobite to reach a size where it needs to moult ? It certainly is not obvious.
quote: Generally creatures are more likely to fall to the ground and get covered by sediment when dead. Generally a live creature would squirm out of falling sediment, less likely to be buried and fossilised.
So you actually do assume that bacteria have short lifespans and die of old age ? That's not obvious - it is just ignorant.
Well like I said in this thread, there are many OOPARTS. Out of place artifacts. So humans were not entirely confined to the Siberian region, but that is where most of the evidence of pre-flood humanity would be.
The bible refers to the fountains of the great deep bursting forth, yet most other times the word for fountains/springs in Hebrew is followed by "of water". As if to clarify the substance. Yet in the flood story there is no mention that these fountains are of water. This is the trigger for the flood, and also in history this lava event is widely acknowledged as the trigger event for the End Permian Extinction.
At the PT boundary the ice caps melted, the southern ice cap was far more extensive than anything today, and so naturally sea levels would change. The PT boundary is associated with widespread marine flooding into the continental interior. From a human perspective there is a double whammy. Death by lava, then if one escapes that , death by flooding when the ice caps melted.
The DNA evidence is clear that the widest variety of DNA representing most population groups is currently found in the Middle East. The interpretation of your map is probably skewed by the non-DNA based fossil assumption that the first humans existed in the Ethiopian region. I love the evidence of scientists but the interpretation is often along the lines of presumption rather than evidence. Other than a map with arrows, have you any true evidence that in fact humans did come from Africa rather than what the haplogroup spread would suggest?
You make good points there, but it does still remain obvious that under creation conditions the accumulation of bacteria cells would exist under the layer containing the first trilobite fossils. Its obvious too that these cells wouldn't fossilise immediately, taking time to fossilise. Yet during the fossilization process, physically they would obviously remain under the trilobite fossils. Being an accumulation of cells and sediment in a mat, they would have no reason to climb on top of the first trilobite exoskeleton. They would therefore form into Stromatolites whilst being lower in the strata.
I apologise for my lack of clarity regarding the burial of dead creatures as opposed to live creatures. I was intending to refer only to those animals with the intelligence and ability to move whilst being buried alive. Maybe my description did not express that. These animals able to avoid burial would do so, and in this manner dead cells of bacteria would most likely precede the first exoskeleton which would obviously come from a more mature trilobite after many generations of dead bacteria had accumulated on the ocean floor.
The order of fossilization is not inconsistent with creation week.
quote: You make good points there, but it does still remain obvious that under creation conditions the accumulation of dead bacteria cells would exist under the layer containing the first trilobite fossils
Since there shouldn't be a layer of dead bacterial cells at all (you haven't even mentioned anything killing them), nor is there such a layer in the fossil record that pretty much leaves your claim dead in the water.
quote: Its obvious too that these cells wouldn't fossilise immediately, taking time to fossilise into stromatolites.
You don't get stromatolites by fossilising dead bacteria.
I did edit my post as I studied more on stromatolites. Yes you are correct in what you say , but the reality is that these would have existed on the bottom layer whether alive or dead. It would therefore be difficult for any exoskeleton to be buried under them. So however you express yourself, the order remains consistent that there would be the existence of bacteria under trilobite exoskeletons under creation conditions.
Why couldn't a stromatolite grow over a discarded exoskeleton ? Why couldn't a discarded exoskeleton be around near a stromatolite? Why is there such a huge gap between the oldest stromatolites and the Cambrian explosion ?
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ESRv...48..217H ""The end Permian mass extinction has long been related to a severe, first order lowstand of sea level [Newell, N.D., 1967. Revolutions in the history of life. Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Pap. 89, 63-91.] based primarily on the widespread absence of latest Permian ammonoid markers, but field evidence reveals that the interval coincides with a major transgression. Newell's hypothesis that marine extinctions are related to shelf habitat loss during severe regression remains tenable for the end Guadalupian and end Triassic extinction events but not for other crises. Rapid high amplitude regressive-transgressive couplets are the most frequently observed eustatic changes at times of mass extinction, with the majority of extinctions occurring during the transgressive pulse when anoxic bottom waters often became extensive. The ultimate cause of the sea-level changes is generally unclear.""
The bible is clear the flood had rising water levels, followed by receding water levels. Geological evidence shows both a transgression and a regression during the boundary, often leading to debate over the sequence of events at the PT boundary. The above quote shows lack of clarity about the cause of the marine transgression. The links below hopefully give some clarity regarding the source of the rising sea levels at the PT boundary:
https://www.researchgate.net/...intervals-of-mass-extinction Accordingly, it can only be proposed as a plausible speculation ˇ Hallam, 1999 . that a major episode of global warming at the end of the Permian was caused by a marked increase in atmospheric CO 2 as a consequence of both subaerial and submarine volcanism on a massive scale. With the concomitant diminution in solubility of oxygen in seawater, a tendency towards marine anoxia would be a notable by-product of such volcanism. In summary, all major biotic crises coincide with rapid global sea-level changes with the exception of the late Palaeocene event and possibly the F–F crisis.
Regarding the huge gap, always the timeframes come up. There appears to be a huge gap in the time periods only in evolutionist's eyes because evolutionists believe in huge timeframes. There are many creationist websites that show anomalies in radiometric dating. This particular thread is dealing with the ordering of fossils, not the aging of fossils.
Can you tell me the actual height distance in the layers between the stromatolite and the first exoskeleton? Any reason why that difference is impossible to be laid down over a few years while the first trilobite sheds the exoskeleton? A few meters?