The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

The sequence and extent of the strata described in that quote support the Flood very nicely. I don't argue with the apparent order of the fossil contents at all, contrary to the views expressed here. I have no knowledge of the work of Price. He's your guy, not mine.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

My opponents have a habit of hallucinating "untruths" in my opinions where there are none. Be that as it may, "strata" are indeed the main subject of the quotation, which would be the case even if the word itself wasn't used, but the fact is that the word IS in the paragraph: Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Going by the quote Thin Air put up Price is not my guy because I agree with the quote which was an argument against some of his claims.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sorry, if you read it differently it's up to you to make your case. All I see is that it affirms extensive strata in a regular order with fossil contents also in order. If you see it otherwise, have at it.

Strange how I just never get used to the misrepresentations and distortions of everything I say, am always surprised by it, never anticipate it, can't really believe it, just walk right into it every time and don't have the smarts to leave a place that does this sort of thing.

I don't know why you feel the need to lecture me on the familiar. I was responding to that one quotation, period. If you have a different reading of it, as Coragyps also claims to have, why not just say it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm not getting whatever you want us to get from your information about stages within periods. I looked through the Wikipedia article on the Norian stage and fail to see what makes it a stage. That is, I don't see any particular order to the fossil creatures characteristic of the time period allotted to them. They appear to be variations of course, but not in any sort of progressive order. Norian - Wikipediaabe: ALSO, I assume each of the fossils representative of a time portion within the stage has been found within a sedimentary rock layer, is this correct? I get that the time scale and the rocks are separate things, nevertheless you don't find fossils except within a layer of sedimentary rock, correct?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's the problem: I see no "precise sorting" here at all, meaning no sorting that suggests evolutionary principles. I do see that that the same fossils always occur at the same level, but what I don't see is the claimed evolutionary sequence from one to another. Same as with the trilobites: the separate varieties or species are kept separate but there is no reason to think those higher in the strata are evolutionarily later than those lower. This lack of fossil sorting seems to be more apparent in the "stages" than in the periods, and in the smaller creatures such as ammonites and trilobites.

I tried to be clear that of course I see that there are different species of creatures that are separately represented in different layers; what I don't see is that these represent evolution from one to another, those higher in the strata being more recently evolved. To me this of course has nothing to do with "different times," all the different varieties or species simply being variations that were buried together at the same time as all the rest (same as if different dog breeds that all coexist at the same time happened to be sorted and buried in different strata by the same catastrophic event. There is certainly nothing in the facts presented to contradict that idea. You can of course object that a worldwide Flood wouldn't do any kind of sorting at all, but you also can't prove that it couldn't or didn't. In any case there is no reason to regard those species that occur higher in the strata as having evolved later than those in lower strata.And in fact you do go on to register that objection that a Flood couldn't sort them. I don't know, but it appears that the Flood did in fact sort them as seen. And couldn't one also wonder why there is as much sorting and grouping of species as is seen, according to Old Earth explanations too? Why should there be any tendency at all for one species to be found together instead of scattered among all the other kinds of fossils that are found at that same level (or "time period?") Why are all the nautiloids bunched together in that layer of the Redwall limestone instead of scattered throughout that "time period" wherever it is represented, which certainly isn't only in the Grand Canyon area. No, clearly there is some kind of sorting. I just don't see that the sorting so clearly represents evolution as is claimed, it merely shows grouping of creatures of the same kind, at the level of the "stages" particularly, although between larger groups such as reptiles versus mammals the claim appears to hold up.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Not exactly. I can't prove anything but there are certainly possibilities that might explain it, simply because water is known to lay down strata, and there are currents and even layers in the oceans that could explain how sediments get sorted, and if sediments then also other objects such as the corpses of creatures. But it's just a rough idea at this time. Not exactly "no mechanism" however, just a sketchy idea as to a mechanism that might eventually be better understood.I'll have to get back to the rest of your post later.

No, I suggested in that paragraph you dismissed how it probably did it. And that suggestion is logically better than the OE nonsense that has slabs of rock representing millions of years of time. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Price no doubt made many useful observations, and as you say probably did inspire Flood geology, but the Flood is so obviously the explanation for the strata and the fossils someone else would have done the work if he hadn't.

Yes, that's what I meant.Lots of currents in ocean water, yes, and there are levels of water in the ocean too, mostly characterized by temperature differences, also of course waves, although how would one know how such things worked in a worldwide Flood anyway? One would expect waves to travel far across the continents as the water got high enough for instance, but water would encroach on the land from all directions too. Nobody has seen a worldwide Flood so all we can do is imagine and guess. Just as that's really all your theory is based on too.The best evidence for the Flood is the simple facts of the strata which are known to be laid down by water, an awful lot of it one would suppose from the great depth of much of the strata, certainly no river deposits those; and the enormous number of fossils. No matter how many objections you can dream up against the Flood, and how much you prefer your own interpretations to ours, you really ought to concede that billions of dead things buried in layers of sediment under conditions ideal for fossilization really is great evidence for a worldwide Flood. You don't have to concede the whole shebang, but fairness really does require this much of you. My guess would be that circumstances did a lot of the sorting too: It's pretty clear that the land animals were caught up in the Flood later, as the water kept rising on the land, while mostly marine creatures were deposited in the earlier stages. But of course there's no way to know any of this. It's the same case with us as it is with you: there's no way to know for sure what happened and no way to prove any guesses. It's all a matter of which interpretation seems most plausible to you.

Please provide a link to Baumgardner's article. I found a video made in 2009 but you said article and that I haven't found.

But the "features" that "show" all this are just the fossilized contents of the rocks, aren't they? Which makes it a big joke if those contents are really only the accidental flotsam of the Flood. The only *real* problem for the Flood is the angle of repose of the grains of the Coconino sandstone which suggests aerial deposition.