I dunno ... I go on holiday for a week and a discussion on fossil ordering (sans timescale) turns into a 'how old is all this stuff?' hoo-ha
Seriously though ... I wasn't interested in how old the GC is considered to be, but in the idea that the order which has been observed in the fossil record was caused by hydrodynamic sorting + survivability/mobility.
Hydrodynamic sorting, based upon my reading of research papers looking into the effects of flooding on archeology and paleontology suggest to me that the process has far too many variables to be considered deterministic ... that is it cannot explain a consitent ordering, because it is, itself, a near as dash-it, random process.
Mobility/survivability doesn't hold up for me, because there is no logical reason why some elephants would have survived longer than some stegosaurs or apatosaurs or some-such ... nor why survivabity would lead to an ordering which could be interpreted as a progression in time (however long or short).
For fossils to have ALL been laid down after the flood, and the representation in the record due to things like reproductive rate is a new one on me.
Suggesting that mammals tracks and remains wouldn't be in the fossil record cause they breed slower (what about mice and rats?) and don't live on mud flats (but they do have to go to rivers or lakes or whatever to drink ... don't they?) also seems to be an unsupportable assumption.
I might start a co-existence thread based upon ecological considerations like, for example, why would you get pumars (say) and velociraptors in the same environment ... I'm not familiar with a modern environment in which there are two large (relative to man) predatory species co-existing (could be wrong on that though ... absence of knowledge isn't knowledge of absence )
Perhaps the creationists don't want to discuss fossil ordering anymore because they know that all attempts to reconcile the fossil record with a worldwide flood fail miserably. Ecological zoning is really no better than hydrodynamic sorting. Or maybe water lilies outran pine trees in a race to higher ground. Randy
Would a creationist like to explain why mangroves took so long to be buried in the flood? One would think that they are naturals to be buried early and appear at the bottom of the geological column. why isn't this the case?
quote:Oops, you left out the obvious one: the old, creationist paradigm was supplanted by evolutionary theory. So, do you admit that even creationism "can be wrong?"
It could be wrong--but there are two positions left-old earth creationism (progressive creationism) or ID-- intelligent design
And neither has much science going for it. So which do you agree with? By the way, most IDists are also OE as far as I know. In fact, some IDists are also evolutionists. Behe for example. It sounds like we have cleared up the old earth part of the problem for you, anyway.