The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

Fossils of single-celled organisms were found at 4.3 miles as well as water.

So how did that water and fossils get there?

You still have to explain how this could be the case. Was the landscape there at one time but it all became sedimentary rock?

And if so how did that happen?

And no dinosaurs survived?

Where did they go when their environment got squashed under all that sediment?

I intended it to be a brontosaurus in its own "time period" poking its head out from between the strata, unhappy because there is nothing to sustain life in the strata.

That isn't my argument at the moment, although it represents my viewpoint, yes. But at the moment I'm focused on the strata of the Geo Column each as forming the surface of the earth in its own time period, and since their fossil contents are supposed to have lived in that time period on the very site where they are buried, a whole landscape, or ecology perhaps, is supposed to have existed on that spot and yet all that actually exists on that spot is the sedimentary layer itself. You have to imagine there having been a landscape there originally in which the fossil creatures lived, but that requires imagining a very complex scenario in which such a landscape ends up as a sedimentary rock, EVERY landscape of EVERY time period ends up as a sedimentary rock. This isn't particularly a problem for marine creatures since their habitat is in the water and doesn't form a landscape on the surface, but when we get to the terrestrial creatures their supposed environment becomes something more akin to the surface of the earth we are living on. For every sedimentary deposit that contains terrestrial fossils we have to conjure this supposed environment and then suppose it was eventually all reduced to a flat sedimentary rock. The rocks as observed in the strata, where they haven't been tectonically deformed, are pretty flat, often with pretty tight contacts between them, and yet we are to imagine that there was once a whole landscape on their surface somewhat like the landscape on the surface now? And that makes sense to you? That makes sense to Geologists?

I have NO idea what a "fossil landscape" could possibly be but this scenario seems reasonable to you? Era after era landscapes form and get buried by sediments? Which harden into rock with flat surfaces on top of which eventually another landscape forms and gets buried and so on and so forth? This IS what Geology seems to be saying, which is such a monumental absurdity it is extremely hard to account for how you all fail to see it.

You can't get a stratum, a thick flat rock that extends over a huge area, from a lake.

THE strata is of course a different thing from strata formed in a peanut butter jar.

What is refered to as The Geological Column is an artifact of summing all of the individual geological columns into one master geological column, but its not a real thing that exists in the planet rather it is a concept of what all of the stratum together would look like.

Even as a creationist, I agree with you that there would be fossils before the flood. I place the flood at the PT boundary which is where the flooding evidence exists. All fossils before the PT boundary are pre-flood fossils.

Good point. But there are pre-flood archosaurs. Precursor to dinosaurs and modern crocodiles.

But Creationism does predict that increasingly modern kinds will be found fossilised in ancient strata ...

In addition our modern terrestrial environment was not a prevalent ecosystem in pre-flood times. ie generally the more prevalent terrestrial conditions before the PT boundary were of a cold wet, low lying nature. These low-lying regions were susceptible to marine transgressions, not the place for burgeoning human settlements. One would expect human settlements to have being in the less vulnerable regions with eco-systems similar to ones where mammals currently thrive ie where angiosperms are a prevalent part of the eco-system.

I wont even bother posting the links here ...

Its not surrender, its obvious that kinds can adapt rapidly by changing allele frequencies.

You say: "But Creationism does predict that increasingly modern kinds will be found fossilized in ancient strata ."

Creationism claims that creatures are relatively unchanged since creation.

Regarding lobsters, it's possible that the prevailing environment during the Cambrian was too sulfuric or too anoxic for them.

Then there is a recent discovery of early eocene mammals in Turkey.

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.

Like I explained in my previous post, pre-flood mammals would be found in a rare pre-flood environment conducive to mammals. One would look in the same place one finds pre-flood angiosperm fossils. ie Siberia.

Obviously mammals would not be found in those wet flood vulnerable areas suited to amphibians.

The theory of evolution is missing a lot more fossils than just mammals. You are missing nearly EVERY fossil. The ones found are only a tiny tip of the iceberg of fossils that should exist because you should be able to show a transition for EVERY creature that exists.

Yet you just have the occasional sequence ..... and sometimes dubious sequences. So the lack of mammal fossils in creationism is nothing compared to the evolutionary lack.