The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

And it appears that they did so. Most of us don't like to be lied to.Maybe it's different for YECs. If there is an alternative, we'd love to see it.Sorry, but it takes too many leaps of logic to make that case. Just average, run of the mill students don't write articles for ICR. Unless he intended to deceive. If you read his article, you'd see that he rings all the YEC bells long before he became a YEC. Well, he could have cleared things up right there on the spot.And no, a PhD in Geology should not misspeak about such things. Are you saying that he is incompetent?

It is incumbent as long as Faith says the scientists are wrong, yes.The insurmountable problem that Faith has is that, to her, all fossils were deposited in one year, and as such, they are all the same age. That is an undeniable presupposition on her part. She only has so much time to work with, so accepting various ad hoc explanations is the only alternative.When those explanations conflict, all we can get is a shrug out of Faith. It literally doesn't matter. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Limestone has become a highly specialized field of stratigraphy. There are multiple classification systems that I cannot even begin to describe.However, limestones are said to make up 10% of the stratigraphic record (this probably seems low to us because we only see the continental deposits), and they do record the evolution of marine life. Just think of the evolution of corals, foraminifera, brachiopods, crinoids, etc. In fact, most of the fossil record depends up on the organic origin of calcium carbonate shells and skeletons and would be expected to occur in limestone. Even the Chalk is considered to be a type of limestone, and (in reference to the break-up of Pangea) it is even turned to marble in Ireland where volcanism related the rifting of the Atlantic indicates a high heat flow as rifting started.Many limestones are so fine-grained that organic remains are not visible. This is due to the ease with which calcite recrystallizes under geological conditions. It also dissolves and reprecipitates locally, destroying original textures.And there are some limestones that are simple chemical precipitates, such as travertine.And you might look up the word 'coquina' as a special type of limestone with macroscopic fossil shells and corals, etc.So, the answer is yes, we do see faunal succession in limestone. I will later present some photos of limestone with Triassic crinoid discs and brachipods that I collected some years ago.The answer to your second question is posed for any YECs willing to tackle the problem. I'm pretty sure that won't happen.ETA: You are not the originator of the "Incompetent Design Theory", are you?Edited by edge, : No reason given.Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Except for the tiny fact that your previous section by Smith was hundreds of miles away from this disturbance. In fact, it's a very different setting. Not really. Pre-Devonian rocks were deformed by the Caledonian Orogeny. That's what we actually see as one goes northwest from southern GB.This map show the extent of the Caledonian Orogeny: Caledonian orogeny - WikipediaThis accounts for a lot of the deformation in Ireland and Scotland, as well as some of the less intense folding near Wales on your section.The section you referred to does not show much effect from that event. This is the same problem that you had with the Grand Canyon argument last year where you disregarded what was going on in the rest of the world and focused on one small region of the earth. Remember when you said that there was no tectonism going on while the GC sediments were being deposited? That also was demonstrably false.In late Cretaceous to Paleogene time, the yellow region above was sundered between the continental land masses with coastlines shown in light gray. As you can see it is nowhere near London.The largest igneous event of the region was the North Atlantic Large Igneous Province about 60my ago. It's effects are shown in this diagram: Again you see minimal effects reaching southern Great Britain. Actually, there was igneous activity during rifting as shown above and there were older events attending the Caledonian orogeny and others. Actually, not at all. All of these events show that passage of time during which organisms, including corals evolved. Some became extinct and others appeared. The Cretaceous Chalk is from a very different fossil community than the Triassic limestones that I am familiar with, and the Paleozoic limestones that cover much of North America.

So, the observation that there were no dinosaur fossils in the Devonian System, then they flourished in the Mesozoic, and then gone again by the Paleogene is just a mirage?

But that upending occurred before the Chalk. And, in fact, the parting of the North American and Eurasian plates occurred well after the Chalk. What effects are you talking about. All we see is uniformly, gently dipping beds. Where are the folds, the volcanoes, the igneous plutons that we see in orogenic belts? Not really. There was convergence elsewhere, subduction, volcanism and accretion.There had to be. You don't just move plates around without consequences.

quote:

---

.. with attendant volcanism and tectonic joltings.

---

Divergent boundaries generally have isolated effect, because, face it, these are extensional environments and rocks simply do not have the strength to transmit stresses. This was a passive margin where limestones and other continental shelf environment would form after a brief bout with volcanism. From that time on it's continental shelf sedimentation that gives us biological environment such as the Bahamas Banks or the Great Barrier Reef. These are future limestones, whether you allow it or not. Not even possible. We see disturbances throughout the geological record, from the Archean on, including today. This drives evolution and the superposition of various environments that show faunal succession. It may contribute to sudden radiation of some taxa and to the extinction of others.

Geological processes normally take time. If Faith can show us how continents can collide, then separate again within a year, that would go a long way toward supporting her argument.I'm not sure how many igneous events there are in the British Isles, but there are at least three main events dating from the Silurian to Paleogene and there is deformation and erosion between all of them. And after, if you count today.If fauna are changing also, it's kind of hard to deny that there is plenty of time for evolution.

Well, then, show us your contradicting evidence.

Since we are off topic, I won't take this any farther in this thread other than to say that you are wrong in more ways than you can imagine. Your Bible is not a geology text. It is apparent that you consider lack of evdence to be better than actual data.

Well, it looks like no one is willing to support the yexplanations as presented in the opening post.

Well, yes, Woody is correct ... partially. Do you know why?Because there have been multiple erosional events in the stratigraphic record, removing much of it.So how does that happen in the middle of a global flood?This is really a red herring and Woody knows it. He's just making it to make you feel like you are making a scientific argument. And, basically, he doesn't have to hang around here and defend his statement. He leaves that up to you.Anyway, the stratigraphic record and its incompleteness is not a surprise to anyone trained in the science. I know of NO geologist who ever expects the record to be continuous and complete at any given location. If it is, then fine, but it is not important to the argument. I expect there to be gaps. This is due to erosion and the presence of land masses causing sedimentary types to vary laterally just as they do today.Woody continues: Okay, sure. Please find us ANY reputable geologist who says that the geological record must be intact anywhere.And what about Precambrian sediments?And what 'ten Phanerozoic periods" is he talking about?

Actually, I find it to be quite apt. No YEC has ever explained the fossil record and even Faith admits this. What Dr. A has done is laid out the main YEXplanations and summarily destroyed them, just as has been done in the past, but in a single post. Sure, then you just have to show us how all of the geological processes that we see in the record were able to happen in one year.It's that easy.Show us how mountain ranges rose up and eroded away in a year.Show us how dinosaurs were able to procreate and make nests in one year while under water.Easy. I need a translation of this paragraph. It appears to be as jumbled as your understanding of geological history.

I/we do?I think you are confusing the geological time scale with the stratigraphic column.At least since the Devonian, we have seen both marine and terrestrial fossils.Maybe you could explain your statement better. It also shows how fast they can erode away.

I'm not sure what Woody's logic is on this point. Is he saying that 'this is what the geologic column should like like if old ages were true'?Does that somehow refute the actual measured columns and that the rocks are not all that old?It almost sounds like he is saying that since my column does not exist, then yours does not either.

Twice now, I've tried to read the whole article and failed because I was so distracted by the errors in virtually every sentence.I thought maybe we could wait to see exactly what Mick wants to discuss.There's just too much goofiness in the article.