The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

A classic example of ad hoc explanation(s).

Are you trying to hijack the thread?At least we agree that YEC has no explanation for the fossil record. Thank you for going that far.

An excellent treatment of the topic. Thank you for taking the time to put this together.

I think that part of the issue for YECs is that they do not understand the time element involved in the depositional order of fossils. To them, all fossils were deposited in one year, therefor they are all of the same age.This is kind of the pre-scientific view of fossils where they were thought to be just randomly scattered through the rocks, and possibly, not even the remains of living organisms.This all came to a crashing halt over 200 years ago when William Smith started mapping the distribution of fossils and recognized their confinement to certain ages of rocks. Before that, no one realized that you could sort a collection of fossils into the exact order that they occur in rock layers ion the field.

Thank you for making my point. Again, you make my point. However, I might quibble over whether the original fossil collectors were 'creationists' or not. They were certainly neptunists and they had their own interpretation of the Bible. Thank you for admitting that your version of the fossil record is miraculous in nature. That's exactly what I was saying.As to the rest of this statement, it is totally, demonstrably wrong to any reasonable person. The 'apparent order of the fossils' works pretty well, though. It is explanatory and predictive (successfully so, I might add).But I'm glad you admit there isn't enough water for a fludde. But YECs are so easy to bait.Hard to resist...

And I didn't say that it was. Well, they thought that their ideas were biblical ... just as you do. Is there some reason that a rock layer MUST be deformed? Everywhere? Well, if you were getting buried, yes, you'd see that as catastrophic.The point is that fossils are being buried all the time, even now (well, they're not fossils yet, but they are on the way).And, just why are the sorted in the way that they are? Why no Cambrian rabbits or Mesozoic kangaroos?I mean if it was catastrophic, why are they not jumbled all together? Yes, the strata are real.The point being? Problem is that the mainstream science explanation explains it even better, particularly when you get away from this section and look at other parts of the world.You are committing exactly what we described earlier as an ad hoc explanation. It may work in the south of Great Britain (though certainly not in detail), but not everywhehre such as a Siccar Point.Well, it's not inherently necessary at any given point on earth. However, it is true elsewhere. Please explain to us why every point on the earth should show the same degree of deformation. Perhaps you have some references, not of your own making, that show this to be the case.By the way, here is a little more detailed section of the south of Great Britain that shows unconformities and differential deformation according to age.

No, but you stray off-topic. No, and no.In fact, there is no Atlantic Trench. I'm sure you are more clever than all of them.Shall we get back on topic? Actually not. The more detailed section shows more erosion and deformation in the lower layers.And no, the section is not located on the continental 'split'. You've only left out all of Ireland in your analysis.Do you want to talk about Ireland? I know the geology there a little bit better...Now, to the extent that stratigraphy and paleontology are kind of hard to separate, I suppose we might be considered on topic, but I'd like an opinion from a moderator before we continue this discussion.

Then you will notice that the dip of the Chalk (on the right) is less than the dip of the Red Sandstone (on the left).The scale exaggeration actually accents this difference.Also, you should look at the more detailed cross-section that I presented, which also shows the Great Unconformity along with some lesser unconformities.And the question still remains, what about the progression of fossils from left to right on either section. How do you explain the definitive differences? Smith made a point, but all you do is ignore it.

If anyone is interested, Google 'passive margin' and see what turns up.It will explain Faith's confusion on this issue. It turns out that the west edge of the European tectonic plate is a passive margin. In fact, it was so passive that the great Chalk could be deposited during the Cretaceous Period, trillions of tiny coccoliths raining down on a quiet sea floor for millions of years. Impossible, of course, according to YEC dogma.But it is the nature of passive margins to have a minimal amount of deformation compared to other types of plate boundaries.Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This is an interesting topic. Over the last few years, I've been toying with the idea that rifting events have some effect on the rate of evolution. Certainly it would cause isolation as you suggest, allowing evolution to take different directions on separated land masses.But I'm wondering if there isn't something else. Just look at where humans came into existence on earth: the East African Rift area, an area of incipient continental rifting.Then there's the evolution of dinosaurs during the Permo-Triassic when North America started to pull away from Africa (though they were probably still connected, just as Africa is still in one piece today).My contention is that it is not a coincidence that we name the major eras, such as Cenozoic, Mesozoic, Proterozoic, etc., based on the dominant types of life present at the time. This practice goes back to the 1800s as geology was just developing as a science ... no absolute ages available, just raw paleontological data. It was that obvious. Could it have something to do withe the development of geotectonics and its various effects?So, the effect of geological events or processes on the biology of earth seem undeniable. I wonder what Faith's interpretation of this evidence is.Probably simple denial.

There is another ruinous part to the Stuart Nevins story. Steve Austin has claimed that the aftermath of the Mount Saint Helens eruption is what converted him to Young Earth Creationism. However, the fact is that he had published creationist articles as Stuart Nevins long prior to the eruption. Draw you own conclusion...

Here is a report from Karen Bartlett in 1998, on a trip to the ICR creation museum led by Steve Austin.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-visit/bartelt1.html Here is an article published by Stuart Nevins M.S.:On the Origin of Coal | The Institute for Creation Research There is no date on this article, but note the "M.S." after the author's name, so we can infer that it was before Austin received his PhD in 1979.Mt. Saint Helens erupted in 1980.Note that the article is written for the ICR which does not publish non-creationists and that Nevins hits all of the talking points on coal as though he is thoroughly steeped in them.There is more that I've heard from verbal communication with some of his contemporaries, but that would be hearsay at this point.Basically, the record shows that Steve Austin plays loose and fast with the facts. He is not to be trusted in any legitimate forum.

Okay so, from which antedeluvian (Precambrian?) animal did the lobster micro-evolve from?I mean, if they all lived together, or at least at the same time, why not find some lobster-like creature in the Precambrian?And I haven't even started on dinosaurs or mammals yet. So then, the precursors should be pretty easy to find, eh? Okay, so trace that lineage back to the antedeluvian world. Some YEC researcher must have done that by now. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

It seems like you are saying that lobster-like creatures evolved during the fludde.Or are you saying that there are not rocks that are pre-fludde so that you don't have to provide evidence for your statement?Well, it turns out that we do have marine fossils older than the Jurassic, so where are the precursors from which the Jurassic creatures micro-evolved?

Because you said that they came along later than the antedeluvial creatures. So, where were they when the Precambrian deposits occurred? And I'm asking what pre-flood creature did the lobster micro-evolve from? The picture you showed was from a Jurassic species.It wasn't pre-flood. Or creatures that just died in any body of water. Edited by edge, : No reason given.