The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

Good, good. Now if you could just convince the other creationists that it's drivel. I was there already, I'm not arguing. Creationists. Even when they're right, they're still wrong.

It's great to hear that you're not insecure in your beliefs. Good for you. Now, do you have any sort of explanation for the order manifest in the fossil record, or would you like to keep on with the dreary personal attacks and the futile diversionary tactics?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, yes, when one attributes any even slightly detailed ideas to creationists one is talking about the activists. Behind them lurk a great lumpen mass who just think creationism is true because someone (their pastor, their parents) told them so, and think it has some sort of evidential and scientific support for the same reason.I don't think either mike or Faith actually said they don't subscribe to this stuff: Mike in particular is going to extraordinary lengths not to mention the topic.Still, to the extent that "Flood geology" is a body of thought at all, it consists of the sort of thing outlined in my O.P.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Sure. I'm not quite sure activists is the right word, looking back, but I mean those people who have tried to rationalize their beliefs. And yeah, most creationists haven't, they just assume it's been done somewhere else by someone else. Which would be a perfectly acceptable approach to the question if they weren't wrong.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

So do you yourself have your own distinctive explanation for the order in the fossil record distinct from that supplied by mainstream "Flood geology", or do you just want to keep on aimlessly wittering about nothing in particular?

Well, that was gibberish. If you must make a fool of yourself, could you try to do so by attempting to explain the order in the fossil record? Thanks. They've also invented their own "evidence", while ignoring actual evidence. However, they are not necessarily liars. Most of them are probably just fools.

To say that someone is lying implies that they know that what they're saying is untrue; and creationists generally don't know the first thing about the subjects they discuss so freely.Following the distinction between immoral and amoral, one might say that creationists are not so much insincere as asincere.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

There are probably dictionaries online too. I'd guess.

I'm puzzled now, Faith, because didn't you ask for a list of ALL THE FOSSILS?

That's an interesting daydream. Still, even if it was true and not the insane fantasy of a bewildered mind, just think how pleased your fellow-creationists would be if you managed to find one. Good luck. Go for it. You made that up, Faith. It isn't remotely true. You can fudge these things 'cos of your vast ignorance of the facts and the scientific method. Scientists would find it much harder.

Perhaps you could relate that to the topic by explaining why the sequence of the strata does not exhibit hydraulic sorting. Do you have any way of explaining it?*cough * topic *cough *

But this is just a longwinded way of saying Flooddidit. We know that this is your position. How did Flooddoit?

I must have missed it. Try again. That's based on observable processes and confirmed by all the evidence. You can't specify the processes, and your model has not been confirmed by any evidence because you don't have a fucking model.

They are found scattered throughout that time period. Did you think they were only found in the Redwall Limestone? Where did you get that idea?What is more, as you would know if you had been paying attention, there are lots of other fossils in the Redwall, so the nautiloids in the Redwall are indeed "scattered among all the other kinds of fossils that are found at that same level (or "time period?")". No it doesn't.This kind of proves the contention in my OP: creationists aren't trying to explain what the fossil record looks like; they're trying to explain what they fantasize the fossil record looks like.Not that you're doing particularly well at that, either.

So your theory is that the water of the Flood was responsible, rather than the bees of the Flood or the marmalade of the Flood or the unicycling clowns of the Flood. Great, now we've got much more detail in your hypothesis, that really fleshed it out. No, real geology is based on processes we can watch. You remember how you keep claiming to have read my textbook? You really should read it some day. Where do the strata which are known not to be laid down by water fit into this?And how are strata laid down by water meant to be evidence of a worldwide flood? Are eggs laid by chickens evidence that the Earth was once entirely covered by chickens? No. Evidence that some of the Earth has at some times been covered with water is simply not evidence that all of the Earth has been covered with water at the same time. It should not be necessary to explain this to a grown-up. But that isn't what the fossil record looks like, as I pointed out in the OP. Once again you are providing an explanation for what you imagine the fossil record looks like. Not for what it actually looks like. There's an old saying to the effect that the thief thinks that everyone steals.No, not everyone is in the same case as you. For example, geologists know what the fossil record looks like.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.