Fossil sorting for simple

Well, I find that no creationist has ever tried to address the question of grasses. The facts:1. Grasses live pretty much everywhere.2. Ferns live pretty much everywhere.3. Grasses don't run fast.4. Ferns don't run any fster or slower than grass.5. Grass pollen is almost exactly the same as fern pollen as far as density and shape go.6. Grass pollen is only found in the top 10% of the fossil record (starting in what we date as around 60 million years ago).7. Fern pollen is found in the top 70% of the fossil record.OK, we know that they weren't separated by living in different ecological zones, we know that they weren't separated by how fast they can run, and we know that they weren't separated by hydrodynamic effects. What separated the grass pollen from the fern pollen so effectively?

Yes, but ...Then you have almost all the fossil record, all the dinosaurs, all the trilobites, 90% of the fossils, in strata where grass pollen is not found. So, by that reasoning, 90% of the fossils and about 98% of the rocks are pre-flood. Is that in accordance with your theories?And why should there be a lot more fern than grass? Remember, grass of one kind or another grows everywhere and flourishes andywhere plants can grow. Paleontologists and "evolutionists" have an answer ... grass hadn't evolved yet. What's yours? Did God create grass immediately after the Flood?

I don't agree, as you can see from my previous mesage. It works, but the implications are likely to be unacceptable to simple. You are probably already aware of the creationist penchant for addressing specific problems with ad-hoc solutions, ignoring the big picture, and winding up contradicting themselves.

Not really, but they both are lightweight and both are blown around in the air by slight breezes. To the exzct same amount. Their properties in water (floating, sinking, absorbing water, etc) and air are identical. Huh? Mammals appear lower in the fossil record than grasses, but mammals higher in the fossil record are found wiht grass pollen. There are no grass pollens found with any dinosaur remains or in strata with any dinosaur remains or in any strata below dinosaur remains (which is a lot of strata).

Do you really think that grasses existed yet didn't grow anywhere when dinosaurs roamed the earth?

Agreed. And, as you said later on, if we ignore the radioisotope dating methods the evidence of antiquity is still ubiquitous. IMHO this point should be stressed more. I discussed this and posted some links in http://EvC Forum: What is the basis for a Creationist argument against Evolution? -->EvC Forum: What is the basis for a Creationist argument against Evolution?. The theory of a young Earth and/or a global deluge was dead in geologic circles before Darwin and before the discovery of radioactivity, and those theories were discarded by sincere and honest Bible-believing Christians who desperately wanted to believe. Their honesty and the evidence was too much for them to continue their belief. {nitpick}I believe it hasn't been discussed in the therads that WSimple has participated in.{/nitpick}[This message has been edited by JonF, 02-07-2004]

Yes, if you want ot make claims about the fossil record and geology, or if you want to participate in meaningful discussuions about them, you are going to have to learn something first.Of course, it's not at all obvious that you want to engage in meaningful discussion.

Exactly how much is "a few waves" in feet or meters of rock?

Yes. Mammals only appear in the top 5% or thereabouts of the fossil record. The various "explanations" proposed by creationists for this fact are not supported by any evidence and are contradicted by much evidence. The mainstream explanation, that life has existed for much longer than mammals have, is consistent with that fact and a host of others; explains much; and is not contradicted by any known evidence. Therefore, the mainstream view is the bet theory we have.

Do you believe everything that you hear?Do you think that your vague recollection of having heard something is evedience, or even relevant to the discussion? People pay money to psychics. There's no evidence that they are getting any talent in return. A common urban legend, one that is fostered by purported psychics. But no psychic has ever provided significant aid in a police case. You want to claim otherwise, let's see your evidence. Ah, so you will fall for anything.

Then why did you write, in Message 237:

quote:

---

It is far easier to believe Noah’s eye witness account ...

---

Please don't make up new definitions for standard terms. From the Merrriam-Webster dictionary:

quote:

---

A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.

---

{emphasis added}Genesis is a myth. Note that myth does not mean completely false.

Still seems pretty strange to me. Exactly how does "laid down within a year or so, and really jiggled up" produce the observed ordering of the fossil record? Especially moss, ferns, grasses, flowering plants, trees, and pollen?

Message 258 and the pages referenced therein.

Drop the "what ifs" and talk about things for which there is evidence.

I'm going to propose a thread ...This message has been edited by JonF, 06-24-2004 09:28 PM