Summations Only

The one overwhelming fact of the fossil record is that fossils increasingly differ from modern forms with increasing depth in the geologic column. This ordering cannot be the result of global flood because water is incapable of ordering anything except by size, weight, density and shape, and none of those factors explain the order of the fossil record.The geological strata and the fossils embedded therein are a record of the past. This is a belief that you share with everyone else. The difference is that you believe they are a record of events of 4500 years ago, while the evidence says that the record extends back billions of years. If the disappearance from the fossil record didn't indicate extinction, for example of the dinosaurs, then where are they today? Contrary to your claim, the disappearance of the dinosaurs from geologic layers higher than the Cretaceous really does seem to indicate extinction.Disappearance from the fossil record is a very strong (but not conclusive) indicator of extinction - I don't think any fossil species ever thought extinct has turned up alive, though new species that are members of higher taxa once thought extinct have been found. For example, the coelacanth was once thought an extinct order, but during the 20th century two species of modern coelacanth were discovered. They aren't the same species as any of the extinct ones, but they do have extinct fossil relatives in the same genus and more in the same family and even more in the same order. No fossils of the modern coelacanth species have ever been found, possibly because they evolved too recently to have been buried deeply enough to fossilize and then be uncovered through uplift and erosion, or possibly because we just haven't searched in the right place yet.See the Wikipedia article on Lazarus Taxon for a number of other examples of taxa once thought extinct. Interestingly (though a different topic), the same article has a long list of conservation species thought to have gone extinct sometime during the last couple centuries but since rediscovered. You seem to be trying to express a tautology. Significant extinction events, ones where many species simply disappear, are recorded in the fossil record at several points in time. For example, 75% of the species on Earth disappeared at the end of the Cretaceous, including the dinosaurs (except the birds). The strata themselves tell us a great deal about the environment in which they formed, and therefore what environmental pressures were present to affect adaptation. Here's a table from Sedimentary Rocks Contain Clues to Ancient Environments that describes the environments that create different types of sediments: Most sedimentary layers are lacustrine or marine, and those that are land are from lowland regions. This is because land is exposed to erosive forces that produce sediments that are transported to lower elevations and usually eventually to water, while sea and lake beds are much lower in elevation and tend to accumulate sediments on their bottoms.--Percy

Classifying fossils of past eras into species, genus, family, etc., isn't all that different from the process Linnaeus began and that we continue today with modern species. The main difference is that it will often happen with fossils that different species will be judged the same species when they are only similar. For example, tigers and lions cannot be told apart simply by examining their skeletons.That fossils of one era differ modestly from those of the era just before and the era just after is impossible to deny. As one considers different eras more and more widely separated in time, the differences in their fossils increase, also impossible to deny. It is not an illusion, but you must call it that because having no evidence you are left with no recourse but to deny the evidence before your very eyes.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

I think this is one example of how that interpretation is an illusion. How about the depth of the column itself? Those found in the lowest levels were probably the marine creatures that died off most completely, and the higher you go in the column the more you are getting into creatures that survived the Flood in greater numbers. Those at the highest levels of course survived because they were represented on the Ark.We wouldn't recognize any that completely died off because they wouldn't be represented in our world. It's not a matter of primitive versus modern, it's just a matter of what lived and what died. If it died out completely, we wouldn't see anything like it that is living.As long as you think in terms of the timescale paradigm you'll think in terms of modern versus primitive and in terms of supposed events occurring at different levels because you view them as time periods. But the Flood paradigm gives a completely different interpretation. Yes, and you believe that it is a record that shows changes over time whereas I believe it all happened at once and is over and done with. The Flood wiped them out, not some event in some past time period. Their nonappearance in a particular layer only means that they weren't in a location to be picked up by the Flood. ABE: Or as I thought by the end of this post, they had already all died in earlier phases of the Flood. /abe Only to those who think in terms of the timescale paradigm. From the Flood point of view it has nothing to do with time, it's all about space or geography, location, or unknown factors having to do with how water behaves. Not time. Coelacanth (which I see you discuss next). Everything has evolved since the Flood, so what you are thinking of as the "modern" type of coelacanth most likely just wasn't around at the time of the Flood. That would be why today's coelacanth is different from that in the great graveyard of antediluvian life. Just the usual continuing variation that all life undergoes over generations, otherwise known as microevolution. In other words today's coelacanth didn't exist at the time of the Flood, it's a descendant of those that did but that earlier generation have all since died out. It's not necessary that an earlier generation completely die out, but that's probably what happened. Which wouldn't particularly support either of the paradigms. I'm trying to maintain an awareness of the actual physical phenomenon in the physical world since otherwise it will get co-opted by the illusory timescale paradigm explanation of the fossil sequence. All that most likely means is that they'd already died in earlier stages of the Flood. It was killing everything in its path so by the time it got to the higher levels there wouldn't have been much left alive. I'd have to spend time thinking through this part of your argument but at first glance it strikes me as the usual strange illusion created by the timescale paradigm being imposed on simple physical facts, inventing all kinds of scenarios out of different kinds of sediments that are nothing but mental constructs having nothing to do with the actual reality.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I've commented before that that's the level of variation we see in the trilobites up the geological column. They are all cousins, they do not represent more evolved'/modern types in the higher levels. In fact there really isn't any such thing as degrees of evolution, all that ever happens is variations built into the genome of the Kind so that you can get great diversity of the Kind, many different cousins, but it's all horizontal, not vertical evolution. But those aren't "eras," they are just the separate grave sites of different branches of a creature's family, the kind of differences I'm talking about above, that are brought about by built-in variability or "microevolution." Some of the same kind of fossils show up in different layers, you know, there isn't always a big difference from level to level, and all the separate grouping of more different types means anyway is that creatures got buried with their own kind, perhaps due to their flocking together when picked up by the Flood, or due to some unknown factors of how water behaves. But I'm not denying any of the physical facts, I'm denying only the timescale paradigm as the explanation of the facts you are describing. The timescale interpretation is the illusion; the facts themselves are better explained by the Flood paradigm.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I think this is one example of how that interpretation is an illusion

---

If so, it would be the first one you’ve come up with. Which would be very strange if you actually had good reasons for thinking it is an illusion.

quote:

---

How about the depth of the column itself? Those found in the lowest levels were probably the marine creatures that died off most completely, and the higher you go in the column the more you are getting into creatures that survived the Flood in greater numbers. Those at the highest levels of course survived because they were represented on the Ark.

---

That fails to adequately address the issues or the evidence. Whales only appear quite late in the fossil record. Are we supposed to believe that they aren’t marine creatures and were on the Ark ?In fact it doesn’t address absence from the fossil record at all. Anything alive could have been killed and buried in the very first terrestrial deposits. Plants, being immobile certainly should have been and it rather beggars belief to think that there were no dead land animals around either.

quote:

---

I've commented before that that's the level of variation we see in the trilobites up the geological column. They are all cousins, they do not represent more evolved'/modern types in the higher levels.

---

That’s your opinion but the experts disagree. Why should we take your opinion over theirs ? At least they have a good grasp of the evidence.

What would be strange is if I always came up with the best explanation for what I'm trying to get across, or that even when I did, which I do from time to time, my opponents could transcend their adherence to the other paradigm in order to get my point. I was merely addressing the fact that it is marine creatures that are found in the lowest levels. That doesn't mean they don't appear in higher levels as well. There must be factors due to how water behaves involved in the location of whale fossils. I was suggesting that the first deposits would have been mostly of the creatures found originally at lower depths. The habitat of land animals is higher up than the marine creatures so it would make sense that they got caught ni the Flood in the later stages. I'm sure there are all kinds of exceptions because there would have been many factors involved, but original habitat should be one big factor. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

They would have a different opinion because they are seeing everything through a different paradigm.

And in addition there is fossil evidence of land based plants that certainly could not move to avoid the flood yet show the very same pattern as we see with the critters. We see proto-trees below true trees; grasses don't show up until near the extinction of the dinosaurs about 70 million years ago but the first flowers showed up about 140 million years ago.And when we look at the plant evidence we see the same changes over time within each grouping with every species evolving over the millions of years and new forms never found below the older forms.How did the Biblical Flood sort the plant fossils in the order found in reality?

quote:

---

What would be strange is if I always came up with the best explanation for what I'm trying to get across, or that even when I did, which I do from time to time, my opponents could transcend their adherence to the other paradigm in order to get my point.

---

Interesting attempt to cover over the fact that the whole idea that the order is an illusion is something you made up without any support at all. Especially as you kept saying it when the discussion was about the actual physical order. Even to the point of denying that there was any objective order - even in this thread.

quote:

---

I was merely addressing the fact that it is marine creatures that are found in the lowest levels. That doesn't mean they don't appear in higher levels as well. There must be factors due to how water behaves involved in the location of whale fossils.

---

And that dodges the issue. In fact you have absolutely no plausible reason why whales should only appear so late in the record. Your claim that there must be a reason is purely a paradigm-driven assumption.

quote:

---

I was suggesting that the first deposits would have been mostly of the creatures found originally at lower depths. The habitat of land animals is higher up than the marine creatures so it would make sense that they got caught ni the Flood in the later stages. I'm sure there are all kinds of exceptions because there would have been many factors involved, but original habitat should be one big factor.

---

Since - Biblically - all land animals should have died in the first 40 days I find it hard to imagine that there would have been any around in the later stages. And there is no evidence that habitat plays a big role at all

quote:

---

They would have a different opinion because they are seeing everything through a different paradigm.

---

Or because the evidence points that way.But that doesn’t answer my question. Why should we believe you over them. Just because they disagree with your paradigm?

I am sure it has been pointed out before that the early geologists went out looking for evidence for the Flood and recent creation, and realised as the evidence accumulated that the only conclusion they could reach was that long ages were involved.
The major periods - Devonian, Silurian etc were worked out quite early because it could be seen that similar fossils occurred in the same order in different areas. These periods were soon subdivided into stages, again based on the appearance and/or disappearance of particular fossils. There are now about 100 of these stages, many worked out by 1850 and nearly all by 1900.The fossils in these stages are of all sizes and include plants.That long ages had to be involved was concluded from looking at the evidence, and not by imposing presuppositions on it. When radiometric dating became available, numbers could be applied to the years involved.The Flood being able to do this sorting, AND to nicely sort the igneous layers used in dating, defies belief.Somewhat off topic, but when you throw volcanism into the mix, with chains of volcanoes getting older as you go along them, at a rate consistent with tectonic plate movement, and try to fit in literally more than 100,000,000 cubic kilometres of volcanic products in Large Igneous Provinces into the Flood, it becomes more than a little harder to explain.

Obviously, it's some mysterious property of water that we don't know about.I think that pretty much explains everything.

Of the Miracle Flud water since normal water can't do such things.

This is where dating comes into the picture.The evidence clearly shows large amounts of time, and disproves your all-at-once belief.And this is why you have to ignore or deny scientific dating--dating alone shows your beliefs are wrong.