The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

I fail to see how any of the strata, which are so uniform to the naked eye, as to general form, could have had completely different sources of deposition. Yes I know if you peer at the details you can come up with these differences, but deposits in rivers and lakes just can't look the same as the strata all look. Yes but there aren't many of these in the Geo Column. No doubt, but there are no strata such as in the GC that could have been deposited in a delta. True but you'd have to show me a layer of ash that looks like the strata I'm talking about. Same answer as above for ash. If you don't show me where this explanation was given I have no reason to take you seriously when you keep saying stuff like this. No matter how you explain it I remain unconvinced that dunes could ever be compressed into a slab of rock like the Coconino sandstone with its flat top and bottom. Lithified yes, but shaped like a layer of sandstone among other layers of the geo column, no.

Sweeping generalizations detector has kicked in...Amongst other things: Gee, how did those Hawaiian islands form?Moose

Wrong. Stop making stuff up.Look, here's a picture of river sediment. Even you would not think it has the same "general form" as a lake. There are in fact quite a lot. Stop making stuff up. There are in fact quite a lot. Stop making stuff up.They are of particular interest to oil geologists, because they make great oil traps. And example is discussed here. I don't know what you're talking about, but I'm talking about the geological record, which has layers of volcanic ash in it. And here's some basalt lava flows. The strata are not "compressed into a slab of rock", Faith. This has been explained to you. Repeatedly.We discussed the lithification of aeolian sand. Read from here to where you stop being stupid about it.

A bit at a time.

But Faith, now you explain. How did the Flood produce such perfectly level flat strata as we see in these photographs? Do tell. Oh, wait, they're not all that level and flat are they? So when you're done explaining why the Flood must produce level strata with flat tops and bottoms, you can then start thinking up excuses for why it didn't.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This one really, really was funny Duh. Those hundreds of thousands of living geologists from all over the world are not all as stupid as you pretend they are, Faith.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

You've actually outdone yourself here, actually transcended your usual level of rank misrepresentation. The reference to flat strata of course refers to their condition when deposited, not their condition after being deformed by tectonic forces. This is one of those posts of yours where I really don't know if you are just determined to be as obnoxiously difficult as possible, twisting the obvious meaning of at least my posts and perhaps others, or you really think you are responding honestly. Which strikes me as too absurd to take seriously but anyway...Just to give my explanation of these tectonically deformed strata, most of them are angular unconformities which you know I interpret as occurring after the entire stack of strata was in place, so that where you see only a layer or two across the buckled or tilted lower section that would represent what is left from what originally was a very deep stack of strata above them. In these pictures the upper layers tend to sag, but that would be due to their not having been completely hardened into rock at the time of the tectonic disturbance. I figure the remaining layers got sort of stuck to the buckled section by the friction caused by the movement between the levels, plus the effect of the weight above that had compacted them some as well, and the strata that had been above them were broken up by the tectonic movement and washed away in the receding Flood waters, or whatever standing water might have remained after the Flood.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Except you have never provided a model, method, mechanism, process, procedure or thingamabob to explain how that is even possible.But a bigger issue is that even if it were true it is irrelevant to this topic and just another attempt to avoid addressing the insurmountable problem of there not being any flood model, method, mechanism, process, procedure or thingamabob to explain how your asserted flood sorted the fossils in the order found in the world of reality.

While I personally find the geology discussion fascinating, the topic is fossil sorting. Can we turn the discussion around to the fossils found in these formations and how they are sorted?

I had not responded to this post earlier as we got off on the stratigraphy topic for a while, but maybe to revive the conversation I might comment. But there are clearly marine creatures in late 'flood' sediments. Why are they different from the earlier representatives? Why did pelecypods occur later than trilobites? Well, there is such a thing as evidence. One piece of evidence is the lack of flowering plants in the lower part of the record and yet some other plants were common in the early part of the Paleozoic Era. Well, we can't 'prove' it to you, of course, but most reasonable people would go with what the evidence shows. Here is some data. If you have anything to add, like mammals in the Cambrian rocks, please feel free to present your data. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

You know, I think if the order of, say, the amphibians and reptiles were reversed, or the mammals and birds changed places, or ferns and flowering plants, you'd explain that order as proving the same point, because it's all a subjective classification system. The substitutions would still suggest the same evolutionary order. You'd probably explain the order as increasing complexity or whatnot. Because although amphibians would seem to follow fishes and precede reptiles, it's because that IS the order that leads to that conclusion, but there's nothing really obvious about that, you could just say something like, "amphibians are obviously more complex than reptiles."That one might not be as obvious though, but there's nothing obviously more complex about birds over mammals, and you could emphasize the seeming relationship between reptiles and birds if they occurred in the fossil record between reptiles and mammals, the way you do dinosaurs and birds.And it seems to me flowering plants could easily be seen as more primitive than ferns, if that was the actual order instead of the one we have.I can't prove it, but I suspect it. There's simply nothing objectively obvious about the order you all make so much of as proving evolution up the chart. Not just any substitution could be made of course, because there is something plausible about the order after all, but I do think that's really all it is, it's just a plausible mental arrangement that has no real objective reality.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The Flood was not necessarily "raging" though it may have been at times in some places. In any case I have no idea why radiolarians and diatoms are where they are in the fossil record, is there some obvious accepted explanation for it? Or could they possibly be reversed and you'd find the same meaning in THAT order too?

Possibly because diatoms "often live deeper?" Or, though they live "in similar sea environments", possibly at different locations that determined where they got buried in the strata? Or, they may be similarly sized but perhaps their shape has an influence in how they are carried in the water? In other words, how should I know? If the order happened to have been reversed, however, you could still use them to date rocks. The Flood sorted things, it didn't jumble them as "one would expect." No idea what the implications of this is suppposed to be. Not going to take the time to check out the Deccan traps but it seems easy enough to assume that the iridium was transported around the world on the water that laid down the Cretaceous fossils, probably because the meteor hit at that point in the Flood.

The order itself is not subjective, so that is one obvious lie. Really, Faith you need to actually find an honest way of dealing with truths you don't like.Second the fact of the order is enough to kill the Flood, so speculating about how we would handle different orders is pretty much irrelevant. Obviously different orders would have an explanation that differed in some ways.

quote:

---

Because although amphibians would seem to follow fishes and precede reptiles, it's because that IS the order that leads to that conclusion, but there's nothing really obvious about that, you could just say something like, "amphibians are obviously more complex than reptiles."

---

It's not based on complexity, it's based on comparative anatomy. This is the second time in this thread that you've let your misconceptions about evolution drive your arguments into irrelevance. All you are doing is displaying your ignorance, and we all know how you hate that (although you will doubtless try to blame others, as usual)

Comparative anatomy is also an exercise in subjectivity. I'd say the same thing about that.As for killing the Flood, hardly. Not being able to explain the fossil record is nothing compared to all the positive evidence we can muster to show that only the Flood could account for the facts while the OE stuff is just silly.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.