The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

Faith, although there is a definite order, the topic is not about that order of fossils per se, or whether they are more/less complex with time.The question is 'why is there an order at all?'

Actually, no. You can ignore all of those 'superficial' data if you want. But every one of them tells you something about the source, transport and deposition of that rock or stratum.For instance, the very fact that you have sandstone indicates that erosion is going on someplace and sand is being transported to the site.So, the extensive sandstone deposits of the Jurassic on the Colorado Plateau had to come from someplace and mineralogical/geochemical studies show them to have been eroded from the Appalachians to the east. The Appalachians were being eroded in the Jurassic, just as Precambrian rocks were being eroded to form the Tapeats Sandstone.I have shown you evidence for this in the past.And we don't 'draw some dinosaur footprints' in a rock just so that we can call them Mesozoic. You are either being flippant or completely ignorant on this. Dinosaurs were land animals the lived during your global flood, in fact, they lived toward the end of your flood.How did that happen?We have an answer: evolution.Maybe you could say that the carcasses of dinosaurs were simply deposited late somehow, but what about footprints? How did dead dinosaurs make footprints in Jurassic and Cretaceous rocks?Sorting by time (evolution) explains it.That 'superficial flotsam' (including fossils), provides the clue.

All imaginary, of course.Just 'flotsam'.Superficial.Oh, and remember, YECs use the same data, just a different interpretation. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This is the most egregious straw man argument that I have ever seen defacing this forum.Truly, where do you get this stuff?

Is Faith just talking about terrestrial animals? What about all the marine animals that simply settle to the bottom of the ocean? They still occur in a strict and logical, non-repeating pattern.

What's puzzling me here is why you are using marine strata to describe terrestrial environments.I thought that you understood Walther's Law.

Actually, quite wrong.Here is a strat column for on location at the Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument: It clearly depicts at least one stream deposit, some ash flows and several unconformities.However, more importantly, you still do not understand the concept of 'the' geological column. You still think of the geological time scale as a geological column. As Pressie tried to express before, there are stratigraphic columns (plural) and a geological time scale. A 'geologic column' is more of a general term that can mean several things. YEC have, of course, exploited this by redefining it as a stratigraphic column. And, in fact, every location on earth has a different stratigraphic column. I'd say you are 'flat' wrong; but this statement makes no sense at all so I can't even tell what you are saying. It sounds like you think that such features manifest in the column, but actually exist somewhere else. Are you talking about a hologram?But, at any rate, if you have a better explanation for river rocks in a channel-like pattern within the geological section, I'd love to hear about it.ETA:
I also get the impression that you do not know what 'strata' means. Here is a definition from dictionary.com: You will note that there is nothing regarding the thickness, flatness nor lateral extent of those layers or beds.Here is a cross-section of the Cretaceous rocks near where I live. It is created from a number of stratigraphic columns along the length of the section.Note the lack of lateral continuity of the rock formations, they are hardly of continental scale considering that the area is just eastern Colorado. So, are they made up of "strata"? I would say yes, thousands of them. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This one of the implications of what Faith thinks. Essentially, the flood buried a pre-existing topography with animals, people, topography and artifacts, and then nothing until the end of the flood where, suddenly, we get people, animals artifacts and topography again.All in one year.Think about it. She does not believe in unconformities, magmatism, or erosion, or deformation until the end of geology (after the flood).So, the fossil record, as we see it is mystery, but still not significant because the fossils are all of the same age (the year of the flood). All of the things we see in the geological record simply do not exist and biblical revelation trumps evidence.ETA: Frankly, I have found this discussion so surreal that I really don't know what to say. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

That's weird.How do you think these corals got into the Pennsylvanian fossil record? Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Cnidaria
Class: Anthozoa
Order: Tabulata
Family: Pachyporidae
Genus: Thamnoporella (Thamnoporella - Wikipedia)The tabulate corals, forming the order Tabulata, are an extinct form of coral. ... Like rugose corals, they lived entirely during the Paleozoic, being found from the Ordovician to the Permian. (Thamnoporella - Wikipedia)Seems kind of strange that you could have and entire order of corals generated during a flood that deposited the entire Phanerozoic section in one year.Well, maybe the Bethany Falls Limestone (where these coral specimens came from) is not a stratum, eh?But wait. It's within the Pennsylvanian System. That would be in the middle of the fludde when strata were being deposited.What happened?

Just one more ironic statement from Faith: So what happened?Did someone move them?

I though maybe Noah was unloading river rock ballast as the ark sank lower and lower in the water.It must have been difficult to produce the imbricated cobble texture. Oh, wait ... That's just insignificant flotsam.

Okay, so let's look at some strata. Here is a statement regarding the Williamsburg Member of the Lawrence Formation in Kansas: So, if we look at the local stratigraphic column for the Pennsylvanian of that area, we have this: Yes, there it is again, a geological column showing stream deposits that have eroded down through underlying sediments, including the Sibley Coal (a common occurrence called a 'cut-out'). And it's right in the middle of the fludde, where only extensive strata are being deposited. I wll admit that there is extensive vertical exaggeration in this image, so it isn't all that extreme, but surely the lower beds are eroded by streams which left behind sand and gravel channels.And what's this? Fossilized tree stumps? That's weird, especially since this is not a liveable landscape.How did that happen?Edited by edge, : No reason given.

No. Nothing obvious about it. Please explain how you erode a channel underground, after all sediments have been deposited, and don't affect the strata overlying the channel. Certainly. Those channels were filled with sand and gravel first. Please explain. How do you cut down through sediments and leave them fully intact? And I suppose you can give us a modern example of such a river flowing through a coal-bearing sequence. Okay, then, where did it come from? And how did such trees coincidentally become deposited only in sediments of certain ages? I will repeat an earlier question: why are you using marine deposits, such as the Grand Canyon sequence, as your model for terrestrial sedimentation?

Okay, so then root systems and paleosoils are just imaginary.More insignificant flotsam...But please tell us why these trees are only deposited in certain strata. That is the topic here, after all, and you haven't touched on it. And the place of origin is where?And then maybe you could tell us how entire coral reefs were transported intact to their locations.Sorry, but none of this is passing the giggle test.

Once again, you are talking about marine sediments, that are completely different from terrestrial sediments within which landscapes would be formed by erosion. That is because you are talking about marine sediments where organisms lived in the water. However, there were still creatures living on the bottom of the ocean at the time as we can infer from these Cambrian trilobite tracks: So, were the tracks also transported to the Cambrian location? If so, you have a truly wondrous fludde. Edited by edge, : No reason given.