Do creationists try to find and study fossils?

A perfect example of how actual experience of such things doesn't give you any understanding of them. You cannot look at an archaeological dig or anything else and conclude that it's 8000 years old or any particular age, that's not something one can observe, it's all theory you impose on what you are looking at. And of course like all delusional OE evolutionists you have no idea what sort of evidence THE Flood would have produced and you stupidly think it could be compared to local floods. But you haven't said one thing about any actual evidence, and what you might have seen in the field you saw through theory-colored glasses so your conclusion is rubbish.

The whole stack is chock full of fossils even if some don't contain fossils, what a joke. And the EVIDENCE to an HONEST observer is that they ALL had to have been produced by the same process, which happens to be well accounted for by a worldwide Flood. The idea of different processes is that Rube Goldbergish idiocy I was referring to which is what your idiotic thread about the Grand Canyon was all about. An HONEST observer who can actually SEE REALITY would see that.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This is not something one would actually find in reality a few yards apart. As usual you are making stuff up rather than giving actual evidence, you the master complainer about others not giving evidnece. You're always the worst offender. In fact I don't think you even know what evidence is. Even if such a situation did occur -- show me one -- the idea that one could see from it "different processes happening over time" is absolutely without warrant. Where are you getting such idiotic ideas? Oh master of unsupported assertions. Good grief jar that's ALL you do assert assert assert. Where's your evidence? PS: IF PERCY WANTS THIS THREAD TO STOP BEING ABOUT THE FLOOD HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO CALL OFF THE ANTI-CREATIONIST DOGS.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

How odd, I'm sure I did but I'll have to check later. It doesn't, the volcano beneath the canyon did that in conjunction with the enormous weight of the stack of wet sediments above which at that point was at least two miles in depth or height. Again, the volcano beneath the canyon did that. By transporting and deposting bazillions of sea creatures, coccoliths for instance, or crinoids, in a layer which is then pressed down by the weight of other layers that accumulate over it as the Flood progresses. Presumably by some hydraulic principle that has nothing to do with the "type" as understood by evolutionists. The same way rivers do. Oh no it's not and it never was, I do have answers and I gave them above, and not only now but many times in the past.

Oh I see, bait and switch, or do you still beat your wife?

Perhaps you are correct about the most proper form, but he referenced his own book because that's where he discussed the research he did to show the directional orientation of the nautiloids. Referencing books is standard scholarly procedure as I've always understood it. Most likely his space was limited in the article.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's funny how creationists are so often given the ad hominem treatment here, finding fault with something, anything at all, about them personally or how their work was presented, instead of any attempt to deal with the argument itself. Surely Austin described his conclusions from the nautiloid orientations in the article and if they demonstrate what he claims for them why not address that? Because you can't stand it if a creationist is ever right about something, you have to hope to find out that he's wrong and that's all you care about?

I have a different theory from yours, jar, you don't like it but that's the way it is. I've argued for the formation of the granite and the igneous intrustions and the schist as well by the volcanic eruption beneath the canyon, for which all that is evidence, but also the fact that the whole area is raised in a mound is further evidence for it. I also believe that eruption caused the breaking up and washing away of the upper strata above the current Permian rim, the scouring effects of the chunks of strata being what carved out the canyon to such a prodigious width and depth.It's my analysis of what I see on the diagrams. I can just as well say that establishment geology "makes up ...." as you can of my theory, and with better justification.How did the Flood sort the sediments at all is what you are asking? I don't know. How does the ocean lay down sand grains to make beaches? I figure the sorting done by the Flood must have a lot to do with the fact that ocean water is naturally sorted into layers, and also currents and also wave action. The Coconino sandstone extends almost all the way across the North American continent from west to east, suggesting it was deposited by waves, or one great wave. Other layers show a similar if not quite as extensive formation.As you point out, rivers don't produce layers in just one event, and Neither would the Flood have produced layers in just one event. Even one layer may be laid down by a succession of waves, but certainly the different sediments are carried on successive waves. The Flood would have had many stages, and the deposition of the fossil-laden sediments was probably in the end stage.I believe I've come to my theory honestly, from reading up on various aspects of geology and studying diagrams of the Grand Canyon among other thingsl.

The orientation of the nautiloids was only one factor discussed to demonstrate the catastrophic nature of their deposition. The fact that every size and age of nautiloid is represented is another piece of evidence, showing that the whole population of nautiloids died at the same time, not just the aged or whatever would have occurred randomly and normally. Also the huge number of them, in a limestone layer spread over thousands of square miles in the canyon and out to Nevada and California, is evidence for catastrophic burial.No evidence for catastrophic burial or a mass kill? He must be joking.All this is covered in that video by Paul Garner I linked back a ways.

All the layers were produced by the SAME process and not different processes, and as for separated layers of the same sediment recurring in a given stack, why not? The Flood waters picked up whatever from wherever, limestone makings here, sandstone makings there, shale makings somewhere else, then more limestone makings from another source and so on and so forth.

Back later today to answer all my "fans." Want to watch the Garner video first too. Cheers.

The usual idea is that they became extinct not long after the Flood because they couldn't survive in the changed environment.But T Rex specifically is understood to have been a variety. There's no reason to think T Rex was on the ark, merely members of that Kind who all share the same genome. Before the Flood bottleneck there was obviously a lot more variation possible within a Kind.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Austin is well known among creationists for his study of the nautioloids. I don't know anything about why his work isn't in the regular journals, and I'm not really into defending anything about the thesis of this thread anyway. But I'll review the video and get back to the thread from there.

They only "look different" in the sense that the alphabet blocks in the collection have different letters and there's a stain on one and the dog's tooth marks on another, but otherwise they are identical.The sedimentary layers are all originally horizontal, remarkably flat-topped, remarkably without the sort of erosion one finds on surface land, and so on and so forth, showing their having been produced by the same processes having roughly the same history.The usual explanation for the footprints is that there was a time gap between the laying down of the separate layers and some creatures were still alive.Or it's a hoax.And your ridiculous remark that the water would have produced such phenomena really is beneath you or ought to be========================================================.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I guess you haven't read a thing I've written on this subject. I've discussed the Great Unconformity many times and of course I disagree with the explanation you've given. It's off topic in this thread but I'll be happy to spell it out for you again on another thread.