The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

No. You would know this if you'd read my book. Do read my book sometime. It's the rocks themselves that show it. The highly ordered accidental flotsam of the Flood. No, that's just the only thing you can think of. There are lots of other non-marine strata, Faith.Even the Coconino sandstone has other indications of being aeolian. Such as the pinstripe laminae, and the footprints ...

Many non-marine sediments are deposited by water, i.e. sediments deposited in rivers and lakes.Many sedimentary layers do not have flat bottoms, because they were deposited on top of a non-flat surface.Some of them do not have flat tops: for example, the foreset beds of a delta lie on a slope.Volcanic ash lies more or less flat because it is evenly distributed, there is no reason why it should pile up more in one place than some directly adjacent spot.Lava flows lie flat because lava when liquid is self-leveling.The mechanics of sand dunes and their lithification has been explained to you at some length and with references.If you would like to ask me about any particular stratum, go for it; otherwise I suggest that you read my textbook until you understand the mechanisms of erosion and deposition described in it.

Yes it does. Of course it does. Specifically, it explains how sediments are deposited so as to look exactly like the sedimentary rocks that we see in the geological record.Which is something that you cannot do. You recall wrong. It was based on the usual direct observation.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, presumably she means that I was talking about real processes, whereas she attributes the strata to imaginary processes.Nonetheless, this is hardly an objection she can reasonably make to my post, since she asked me how real processes would produce the strata. I supplied what she requested, so either she needs to say that they wouldn't do what they manifestly do, or to thank me and shut up.

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 is so patently true that I am at a loss to know why you would mention it. The order is both objective and obvious.Your argument, insofar as it is coherent, seems to be that there are other orders that would also be consistent with evolution. That is true: but in the first place the one we have is consistent with evolution, in the second place, there are many more things we could conceivably find in the fossil record that would not be consistent with evolution; and in the third place, and most germane to this thread, it is completely inconsistent with Flood Geology. Which is why the thread is called The Great Creationist Fossil Failure.

Last I checked this "positive evidence" was:(1) Many of the sediments in sedimentary rocks were laid down with original horizontality, just like we can see real processes doing today without a magical impossible Flood.(2) The geological record shows that in the past some parts of the planet were covered with water, just as is the case today without a magical impossible Flood.I think I can see my way to explaining those things without invoking a magical impossible Flood, but if you have any other points you'd like to adduce which you think would give me more difficulty, please feel free to start a thread. On this one, perhaps you could try to explain the order in the fossil record.

Wildly inaccurate cartoons produced by halfwits are not a problem with the Old Earth scenario, since there is nothing in the Old Earth scenario that predicts that halfwits will not be able to draw cartoons.

You mean like dinosaurs are "imaginary constructs" that I "impose" on the dinosaur bones and footprints?(Or perhaps like the mountains, rivers, trees, canyons, etc. that I think exist today are imaginary constructs I impose on my sense-data?) Really? Usually you claim that there was some sort of flood.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, explain it to me. What's very wrong?You mention rivers. I can in fact see some rivers that were present in the Jurassic which are still here doing their thing. However, other ancient rivers have dried up, and when that is the case I would not expect to see the actual river, would I? What I would expect to see is the sediment it deposited, which will stay there after the water is gone. And I do in fact see geological formations that look just like that.Since there are old rivers, there are also old canyons: but again, if the forces that erode a canyon have been absent for millions of years, I would expect to see the canyon filled in with sediment. And I do in fact see geological formations that look just like that.If a tree grew a million years ago then I don't expect to see it still growing: but under the right conditions I might see it fossilized. And I do in fact see fossils that look just like fossils of trees.Mountains usually last for millions of years, so I can in fact see mountains that were there in the Jurassic Period. The Appalachians, for example, have been there ever since the Ordovician, and though of course they're smaller now, they're still there, Faith; and even you would have some difficulty in describing the Appalachian Mountains as "a flattish rock surface with some markings on it, and NOTHING ELSE".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

On the top. That would be the surface. Er ... you can walk on sediment. Look, I have pictures: See, they're walking on the sediment which lies on top of the other sediment and rocks and so constitutes the surface of the Earth. No. That's why we find their footprints in the strata.Sometimes I have no idea what is going through your head.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

They could have eaten the stuff which grows in the sediment. YOu know, plants. You ust have heard of them. No. Let me show you a picture of the Appalachian Mountains. You see how they haven't been "flattened down to slabs of rock"? No, of course not.This has been explained to you.Repeatedly. Yeah. Specifically, the cars.

That depends on which bits of the Western U.S. Some of it was certainly covered with a shallow sea, and has no dinosaurs. Other bits weren't. For example, let us consider the Morrison Formation: See, it turns out that savannas and floodplains are in fact habitable. Who'd have thought it? Then it's kinda bizarre that we find evidence of mountains, rivers, trees, and canyons. I think you'll find that the geological texts do mention such things as the Morrison Formation, 'cos geological texts are not written by people who are totally ignorant of geology and (apparently) unable to use google. Or common sense. Sheesh, Faith, the Jurassic is famous for its dinosaurs. Where the fuck did you think paleontologists find Jurassic dinosaurs? [Hint: not in marine deposits left by shallow seas.]Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.