The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

This point is completely irrelevant to the validity old ages and faunal succession. I'm not sure how it got started other than by some YEC saying that there is no complete geologic column except in textbooks, or something to that effect.The correct response would have been to say 'so what?' Unfortunately, Glenn Morton decided to take them on with facts. Now it's been blown way out of proportion with idiotic responses like Woody's, where he virtually denies erosion and non-deposition (well, he had to make a vague exception with angular unconformities).

That seems to be the case with most YECs willing to post. In a way, I really don't blame them for asymmetric warfare. It's all they've got.

Sure. That is why we are here.To discuss. Hear of them??? I see them every day, posed by evidence-challenged YECs. Do you have a point, other than the fact that you cannot address the opening post? Did someone say that?Dr. A demolished the yexplantions for the fossil record. Do you have a response? Just one of them. I was giving you a choice.It should be easy for you. Heh, heh...YECs never do that, do they? So, you admit that you will not address any of the issues brought up in the OP,Duly noted. Actually, no. I was criticizing your post. The paragraph in question was not clear. Yeah. It's a pretty straightforward comment. Please rewrite the paragraph. This is coming from a guy who just complained about ad hominem arguments ... And we do. So, your point is? But there is a conspicuous presence of evidence. What are you talking about? Or you might just not be very clear in your posts ...So, what kinds of Cambrian animals are identical to modern kinds? But how do they look? Sorry, I am not a baraminologist. Where is that? You seem to be rambling. Yes, you have avoided addressing the OP.

Actually, we distinguish between the time periods and the rocks in them. For instance: the 'Cambrian Period' and the 'Cambrian System'. In shorthand, the "period" or "system" may be omitted. In general, we say that both do.

You do understand that logical fallacies are not always fallacious, do you not?They can all be used as rhetorical tools. Just as we use opinions for support, though they are not, strictly speaking, evidence. Hmmmm, must have missed that. Nonsense. It is necessary for you to ignore a ream of facts on an ad hoc basis, in order to maintain your YEC scenario. Do you want to discuss some of them?

Okay, I understand. Then, please find for us the trilobite zone that is the same age (or month) as the dinosaur zone.Should'a been done by now, I would guess. I beg your pardon ...How many years have you studied the fossil record? Please document. This sounds interesting. Did this discovery overturn all of paleontology when it happened? Well, that would be preferential preservation due to the environment. Wouldn't you expect marine invertebrates to be buried by sediment more readily? Actually, we have studied them and found them lacking. The fact that you (all) continue bringing them up shouldn't require us to go back and do the work all over again. Actually, I exist to learn about the world around me. I don't expect to have knowledge revealed to me. Well, Caffeine hardly knows you ... yet.

Well, I'd like to suggest to Mike that there's a ton of antecedents that haven't been found in Cambrian rocks.Get to work, man!!

Heh, heh ...Good point.For a guy who is so hung up on our logical fallacies, he seems awfully prone to making a large number of them himself.

I suppose that's one way of putting it.

Please explain. What do you mean by a 'neurotic agreement'? Do you think that geomorphology is not studied by geologists?Do you think that geology is not instrumental in geomorphology? Words, Mike.Please show that you understand the words and are not just regurgitating words here.

I suppose in a relative sense, Pressie is a PhD compared to most YECs.Maybe even the ones with official PhDs. Once again, a logical fallacy is not necessarily fallacious. Taken in the context of all of the available data, YEC explanations ARE nonsensical. (You will notice that I refer to YEC posts rather than YEC persons.) While it may be nauseous, this is not an argumentum ad nauseum. It's shorthand for, 'yeah we've heard it all before and it's still wrong.' But what if it's true? Actually, we are just exasperated at the tedium of answering the same old arguments again and again. It's only natural to wonder at the cognitive abilities of the YEC participant. The only thing I think they should do is read our posts and understand that some kind of rebuttal would be useful. Actually, it's more basic than that. We are simply weary of hearing the same old arguments warmed over some hellfire, with no acknowledgement of our refuting posts.Actually, I'm a very forgiving guy. Ah, well ...A point we agree upon, but what unearthly version of evolution is that? Then why do you completely disregard our posts? Not very civil, wouldn't you say? I think it's pretty clear: you should address our actual points and not attack what your version of evolution seems to be.

Sometimes, I use the analogy of the geological time scale being a tape recording and geological events such as deposition, mountain building and fossil communities being the actual recording. The tape continues indefinitely, but when there is erosion it's like the tape has been erased.I'm not sure that YECs understand this.

The difference being that we know erosion occurs. In fact, we live on an unconformity that is presently removing huge parts of the geological record. Actually, there is plenty of evidence for erosion in the geological record. Geologists are trained in such a way as to recognize erosional surfaces and the products of erosion. Except for the fact that it does occur in many places.And the very fact that we can see it (on land) confirms that erosion is happening as we speak.It would seem to me that the neurosis is manifest by those who live in denial of these facts.

I am open to the possibility that most YECs are simply ignorant and dogmatic at the same time.In a way, it is impossible for them to lie because they actually believe the stuff they preach. I have always believed that intent is an important property of a lie.Honestly, if you put them on a lie detector, it wouldn't register. I see this phenomena in children and some disabled people. In a weird way, I feel sorry for them.Now, there are militant YECs who are definitely to be despised. Many of them know better, but see this as a meal ticket. I don't think they are dumb enough to hang around here for very long and we have had a few examples on this and other boards where the 'big guns' were requested to join in, but didn't last very long.They know. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This is a good question. I think there is a combination of reasons. First, I'm not sure that all of them are aware of the professional creationist sources. They only hear what their friends say in their small circles, possibly second-hand stuff from the professionals, all garbled in translation. For certain, they don't understand it.But mainly, I've always thought that the foot soldiers of YEC are forced to make stuff up because the big guns of YEC don't give them any support. The leaders are actually too smart to spend much time in forums like this, because they know that they will be outclassed by the educated participants. So, people like Faith and Mike end up floundering with no guidance. They have no armor. Or, they can go to forums like Fred Williams' and nod in agreement with each other.And since it appears to be so acceptable in YECland to just make things up ... well, what do you expect? Looking high and low for years now and it seems true that there is nothing new under the YEC sun. The professional YECs have failed their believers. Obviously, someone contributes to the coffers of creationist groups. But I think you are right, the crew (let's say the ones that are more militant) that we have on boards such at this seem to be self-selected for absolute stubbornness.