The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

Just for the record, I didn't actually say mountains, there is a difference between highlands and mountains.My explanation does take into account multiple marine transgressions. That was central to my point, that the transgressions were more common back then, making it difficult for non-amphibuous organisms to survive on the land.As for being ridiculous, that is opinion. When faced with flooding, I would choose highlands.

Exactly, my pre-flood timeframes are a little shorter than the Proterozoic-Paleozoic is supposed to be. (understatement- lol) Edited by mindspawn, : wrong word used, edited

I did post evidence of pre-boundary angiosperms in this thread, maybe you missed it.The pre-flood biblical account does not mention the Middle east.My timeframes are different to yours, you know that.The bible does not locate creation week, except to describe it as the source of four rivers that watered the land. ie a highland area from which rivers flow down.Yes there were many creatures, pre-flood. Siberia is not inconsistent with the bible account.Evolutionists are missing more fossils than creationists. So if you cannot find the intermediate of the trilobite, you have no leg to stand on , because evolving of a trilobite from bacteria-like organisms is a silly notion to jump to after Darwin observed a finches beak.

You say I lack evidence. Very few of you have posted any evidence, I have. I am often quoting to support my statements.I believe old earth evidence. I am not a YEC.Anyone can look up OOPARTS and decide which of those out of place artifacts are convincing and which are hoaxes. I wont post them as evidence on this more scientific site, but I do believe there are signs of pre-flood humans.

I was called loony by someone on this thread. I responded to that.

I am not asserting any facts or supposed facts. Historians could have had endless arguments over whether Troy was a real story or not. Until they found the city. Sometimes one does not use science, but instead looks at claimed evidence and decides whether it rings true or not. That is not science nor scientific procedure, and I do not claim OOPARTS are science, or evidence, or facts.They are interesting claims, some of which are convincing to me, and I'm sure others would agree. But that is not evidence and so I will not post them as evidence.

I have never heard of that theory.

Semantics aside, evolutionists claim that a trilobite evolved from a LUCA. In fact they claim all organisms evolved from a LUCA, that is what LUCA means.

You quoted Darwin:"We do not make due allowance for the enormous intervals of time, which have probably elapsed between our consecutive formations, longer perhaps in some cases than the time required for the accumulation of each formation. These intervals will have given time for the multiplication of species from some one or some few parent-forms; and in the succeeding formation such species will appear as if suddenly created. "
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter9.htmlSo Darwin acknowledges that the fossil record appears as if species are suddenly created. This still favors creationism because sudden creation explains the sudden appearance of species better than evolution which gives excuses for the huge lapses in the fossil record.

I haven't got time to deal with all of your posts, being very involved in work lately. However I logged in and saw this post , which is impressive due to Dr Adequate's ability to get to grips with my viewpoint, and also I enjoy his dry humour. So this is the post I will currently make time to respond to. I deal with some of your points in point form.1) You say that the deposition of the Siberian Traps would have annihilated all the mammals. True. Hence Noah would most likely have located the ark by a river delta or lagoon least exposed to the traps. ie exposed to the downriver flooding of volcanic induced torrential downpours before being exposed to the volcanic activity.2) By focussing on pre-boundary marine portions of Siberia you imply that the entire Siberian region was marine before the PT boundary. Without that implication your point is irrelevant. But with that implication you are incorrect. So choose, you are either making an incorrect point, or an irrelevant one. In fact there were major terrestrial areas in Siberia during the Permian. Kindly refer to the link which shows a map of the late Permian which shows a large terrestrial region. Other maps show how the Permian traps dominated this terrestrial portion of Siberia.
USGS.gov | Science for a changing world3) You refer to the flourishing of coral alongside trilobites if I understand you correctly. I have no problem conceding that point because there are other reasons why organisms would have radiated out from a central location. ie trilobites feed on bacteria, yet lobsters feed mainly on fish droppings. Fish have various feeding habits but its possible that their eco-systems are primarily based on seaweed and plankton distribution.So its possible that the radiation of prevalent species was caused through first bacterial radiation of both anoxic and aerobic types of bacteria depending on prevalent conditions, then trilobites suited to either habitat. Then a radiation of seaweed and plankton followed by various types of fish which fed on the plants or the plankton or eachother. Then the "bottom feeders" which feed on fish droppings. This is just a suggestion which requires more research, my main point being that conditions change and therefore the prevalent organisms change even though the others are still around in niche locations.4) Reptiles were flood survivors , being able to handle marine conditions. Mammals numbers were minor during the Triassic and confined to the Turkish/Iraq border area and the southern Turkey highlands. Even the birds were of small number and took time to radiate and breed in sufficient numbers to be discovered in dinosaur fossil layers. Only the small fast breeding mammals/marsupials and of course birds could infiltrate the Jurassic landscape, they could fill ecological gaps that the large reptiles could not.5) Pre-boundary reptiles are not that different to Triassic and Jurassic kinds. The various kinds of archosaurs and even others like the placerias have a strong resemblance to what we know as dinosaurs.6) Regarding the extent of the fossil record, my view is not as extreme as the popular flood model which tries to explain most geologic layers before the KT boundary as flood related. I focus mainly on late-Permian to early Triassic as flood layers which does explain a significant portion thereof. ie I am not confined solely to the P-T boundary but sometimes late Permian fossil graveyards containing disarticulated fossils reflect the flood. Also sometimes early Triassic layers with limited fossilisation reflect the flood. Not that I understand geology well, this just appears to be where science confirms flooding as per my non-stretched timeframes model. (evolution having stretched timeframes)7) Regarding my preference for the P-T boundary, my main difference is my absolute respect for science and mainstream geology. I dispute the timeframes of mainstream science, and I dispute the assumption that one predominant group of kinds evolved into another group of kinds, but I do not dispute general consensus concerning the changing world conditions over time and the predominant kinds within each geologic period.The P-T boundary does actually show flooding in the geologic record, and has a logical radiation of marine survivors followed by ark survivors. The K-T boundary however does appear to be collision related (iridium layer etc) as opposed to flood related.

To explain the intermediates, some are, and some are not.Organisms do rapidly adapt. Sometimes a genetically related clade can be proven through DNA, with evidence beyond evolutionary assumptions. Other times the genetic basis is flimsy yet a clade is assumed.Sometimes fossils of various species are merely laid out in a sequence and intermediates claimed, which is laughable logic to a creationist because truly it proves nothing. You can lay a cod next to a coelecanth next to a mudfish next to a frog and assume evolution. But when you lay a fish fossil from an old period next to a coelecanth from a younger period, next to mudfish from an even younger period, they evolved??? This can be highly amusing logic to intelligent creationists.

I'm happy with the evidence of the real scientists. The timeframes and evolutionary assumptions are off, but the evidence itself does not favor evolution over creation, even though it is real mainstream scientists discovering such evidence. Yes rapid adaptation does exist, and so you will have occasional minimal evolution in clades, but there are such huge gaps for most organisms especially around the Cambrian explosion that evolution is nothing more than an interesting idea.

The air barrier was not magic, it was toxic. Birds and mammals are susceptible to oxygen toxicity. Pre-boundary oxygen levels were very high, at or above 30% until the end-Permian. Atmospheric pressure adds to this toxicity, effectively increasing oxygen by 1% for any .1 increase in pressure. Birds and mammals would have been more suitable to highlands where the air pressure was lower and oxygen content lower.Added to this is the competition from huge pre-boundary insects that were larger than many birds, and terrestrial mammals being susceptible to flooding. This would explain the numbers not reflecting in the fossils. Yes there are some gaps, but not as many as the theory of evolution which is missing intermediate fossils for nearly every species over every time-span.

I have answered the question about pre-boundary mammals many times, I referred earlier in this thread to a "boreal cradle". Organisms radiate out from a unique location when world conditions are suitable. We have cycles on the planet during which common organisms become rare, and rare organisms become common. There are always these unique locations which contain rare organisms. They recently found a cave in Bulgaria with a number of unique species. We have the Komodo Dragon, a rare huge terrestrial reptile, but in the past huge reptiles used to dominate terrestrial conditions. We have the bat, a mammal flying creature. given the right conditions its possible that mammals will dominate the air. Organisms that are rare can suddenly become proliferate. This does not indicate evolution, but indicates rare animals suddenly proliferating when conditions become suitable. If we do not find their fossils in earlier ages and do not find their intermediates either, why do we favor the theory of evolution over a radiation from a unique location?The Bulgarian cave:
BBC Earth | Homewhen I referred to gaps, I am referring to a sequence of fossils over time, showing the trilobite evolving from a
LUCA. Then every other organism on earth needs to have a sequence as well. Thus nearly all evidence of evolution does not exist, all you have is a few clades showing accurate signs of adaptation from a recent common ancestor. This is exactly what creationism would predict, clades recently adapting from the original kind.

I admit I didn't research the feeding habits of trilobites and other arthropods well. Possibly only some shrimp eat fish poo. Nevertheless my main point is that organisms radiate out from unknown locations when conditions suit them. There are many subtleties in conditions, temperature, feeding, co2, oxygen, predators. Some organisms need shells to survive, some do not. some can handle sulfuric conditions , others cannot. But what is obvious , is that an organism will proliferate when conditions are suitable.When we find a crayfish suddenly appearing in the fossil record, do we assume that they evolved and the intermediate fossils were too rare to be found. Or do we assume they were in a rare location, and the original fossils were too rare to be found?Please explain why the theory of evolution would have any advantage over the concept of rare locations. I say creationism has an advantage, because we do observe organisms in rare locations that would be difficult to discover thousands of years from now. Yet evolution has far too many missing intermediate fossils to be the preferred theory.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.