The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

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

I'm amazed that even a Creationist could look at that drawing without falling down laughing at whomever created it. That bees dumber than a Chick Tract.Edited by jar, : appalin grammre

From one of my favorite Chick Tracts: Perhaps Faith was joking...

Jurassic Period | Climate, Plants, Animals, & Facts | Britannica: This is just western North America and this is just the Jurassic Period. Remember that you can find lots of statements about the great extent of the strata across continents for every time period. I've many times referred to the illustrations HBD once posted of the great extent of the strata all across North America with few gaps. In this case western North America is said to have been covered by a vast sand sea in the early Jurassic; in the middle to late Jurassic it was covered repeatedly by advancing and retreating shallow seaways; then in the late Jurassic we get strata bearing dinosaur fossils.Where in all that sedimentary coverage was there an actual earth surface for dinosaurs to roam around on? The actual evidence is of sedimentary layers, not landscape that could support the dinosaurs. The Jurassic layers are flat like all the sedimentary layers; they cover a very large area where presumably the flora and fauna found within them lived on the earth. Except there is no room for them on the earth because all there is is the vast sand sea and the advancing and retreating shallow seas and the strata with the fossilized dinosaurs.Some strata do span entire continents. Of course many of them are marine and left behind marine fossils so there is no need for earth surface for them to roam around on . The record of their presence is the flat slabs of rock of the strata in which they are buried. Slabs with flattish surfaces, justifying the cartoon's depiction of a featureless landscape. But exactly the same situation occurs in the time periods where supposedly land creatures thrived: strata and more strata, no landscape.The Jurassic strata cover western North America but they are certainly not lacking in the rest of the world. Do the dinosaurs roam around only wherever the strata weren't forming? But that would be odd since their fossilized remains are IN the strata and the usual idea is that the strata represent the areas they roamed on. Besides which, the strata are continuous, there are few gaps. The core holes mentioned earlier all over the Midwest show continuous strata in a particular order, flat strata covering a very large area in the middle of North America, one on top of another. Covering the surface of the earth for hundreds of millions of years according to the Geo Timetable. Where did the dinosaurs actually roam in those time periods?Again, the actual surface of the earth in each time period, judging by the strata of the geo column, was the strata themselves. The scenarios that are believed to have existed in their place had no room to exist; the actual surface was strata, not those scenarios, which are purely imaginary constructs based on qualities in the strata and their fossil contents. You can find lots of illustrations of what life was supposed to have been like in such and such a period, drawings of the particular life forms contained in the strata that represent the period, conveniently forgetting that the strata is all there is to represent the period.I hope I'll be able to get back to answering some of the posts attempting to deny this reality. Edited by Faith, : 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.

Did you not read the quote ? The actual surface was there (of course). What do you think the rivers flowed through ? What do you think the desert was ?And - of course - this is just an attempt to bury the real topic.

The rivers that flow through the strata did not flow through it during the period attributed to the strata. As I've argued over and over, all the features we see on the surface of the earth only formed after all the strata were in place. After they were all in place then the Grand Canyon was cut, the Grand Staircase was formed, etc etc. Mountains were pushed up, composed in many cases of the strata etc etc.You keep accusing me of trying to derail the topic, but I've said all I have to say on the topic. I guess the topic of the featureless time periods could be moved somewhere else.

Iif the dinosaurs roamed on the top of the sediment, which spanned huge distances and was flat and featureless, they would have had nothing to eat.If there had been features such as exist on the surface of the earth now, they would have had to have been flattened down to the slabs of rocks which we find in the geo column. Is that the idea then? That there were mountains and rivers and vegetation for the fossilized animalia to roam in, but then a shallow sea came and flattened it all into featureless rockness? Which of course would have killed all the roaming animalia.Your last picture particularly shows features that did not exist in any of the former time periods, as evidenced by the flattish surfaces of all the strata, and the cores that demonstrate their extent and order, spanning many thousands of square miles.

In a sense, yes. The bones and footprints certainly evidence dinosaurs, but those dinosaurs could not have been living in the time period called the "Jurassic" because all there was during that time period, in the western US for example, was the vast sand sea and the advancing and retreating shallow seas which left behind their sediments on top of the sand. That's what the available EVIDENCE says. The landscapes so often assumed for the dinosaurs to live in, or the creatures supposed to have existed in any other "time period," are belied by those sedimentary rocks which are the ACTUAL environment of that time period. All that DOES exist today, that's what the first panel of the cartoon says. It didn't exist in any of the former time periods, however, all of which are actually physically represented only by the rock strata, and all of which are described in geological texts in terms of vast sedimentary deposits by advancing and retreating seas and that sort of thing, which hardly constitute an environment hospitable to land creatures such as dinosaurs. The Flood is my interpretation of what is actually there, just as the imaginary landscape is your interpretation of it. But what was actually there during the "time period" called the Jurassic, or any "time period," is a vast flatness of sedimentary deposits.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : 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.

The time periods are represented by flat rock strata, in which there is no room for the mountains and valleys of your picture. None of that existed in any former time period, it all exists only on the surface of the Earth NOW.

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.

And by mountains and valleys. So you say. Geologists say different. The evidence agrees with them.

That the OE theory conjures landscapes out of the flat rocks of the strata, but the actual "landscape" of any "time period" represented by those rocks is the rocks themselves or the processes that laid them down as sediments. You conjure the landscapes out of qualities of the rock and its contents, but those landscapes did not exist during the time of the laying down of the sediments that formed that rock. All that existed during that time period was the sediments that became the rock. The evidence is clear. It's in every discussion of the formation of the strata, it's in every illustration of the strata linked to the time periods, it's in the cores from the holes drilled to look for oil. ALL THERE WAS on the surface of the earth wherever the strata exist, in any of those "time periods," was the sediments that became the rock strata. But there is NO evidence of those supposed rivers in the actual evidence available of the time period itself. You "see" rivers that you impute to that time period, but there is no evidence of them in the only evidence we have of the time period, the rock slabs that represent it. They are more or less flat on top and bottom like all the rock slabs of the strata. Perhaps you are seeing rivers that are flowing through the strata of some "time periods" and impute them to those time periods although in reality the river didn't exist until it began to flow in recent time through the rocks that are associated with those time periods. The river doesn't belong to those time periods, it simply cuts through the rocks associated with them, but it cut through them after they were all laid down. A dried up river bed should show up as a gully in the rock strata if it existed during the time period supposedly encapsulated in that rock. An ordinary river isn't going to deposit enough sediment to cover the vast regions covered by the strata. What you are "seeing" isn't the sedimentary strata, whatever else it might be. What you see is gouges in strata that were filled in by subsequently deposited sediments, and you see them deep in the earth by those seismic methods. They were never canyons on the surface of the earth. Buried in flat slabs of rock with no trees growing on its surface because it's covered by another flat slab of rock. At the very top of a stack of strata you will find trees growing, because that's the surface of the earth and no such surface existed ever on any of the slabs of rock beneath. You see mountains you believe were there in the Jurassic Period but you do not see them represented in the actual evidence OF the Jurassic Period which is the slabs of rock formed out of that "vast sea of sand" and the advancing and retreating shallow seas and all the rest of it. But you don't see the Appalachians in the slabs of rock that represent the Ordovician on up. What you see is strata IN the Appalachians from the Ordovician on up, that have become deformed into the shape of mountains, a product of RECENT time, which is how we get today's surface of the earth, which didn't exist in any time period when all there was was the flat deposition of the sediments that became the rocks that got twisted into mountains after they had all been laid down. In their original state during their assigned time period they formed a vast featureless "landscape" with no mountains. But they weren't there when the Ordovician sediments were first laid down in the Ordovician "time period." No, that describes the sedimentary rocks that BECAME the Appalachians, not the Appalachians themselves, which formed FROM those rocks AFTER the entire Geo Column was laid down.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Right. So aeolian processes imply a desert; riparian processes imply a river; lacustrine processes imply a lake ... There are the sedimentary rocks which look exactly like what you'd get if you lithified the sediments deposited by a river. Being sane, I take this as being evidence of a river rather than of a magical impossible flood that didn't happen. Rivers have sediment on their beds, usually. It is this sediment that I expect to survive the removal of the river. A river will deposit sediment in its bed, at its delta, and on its floodplain. So you say: geologists say differently. Their ideas make more sense, because of fitting the evidence, which the thing you have made up does not. So you say: geologists say differently. Their ideas make more sense, because of fitting the evidence, which the thing you have made up does not.When we find what looks like trees, with what look like roots embedded in what looks like paleosol, then a normal person would say that this is evidence that trees once grew in what once was soil. If you have ideas as to how the same phenomenon could be produced by Flooddoingit, this thread is actually meant to be devoted to creationist excuses for the fossil record. That's an interesting thing you've made up, but it appears to be supported only by your vehement assertion, and experience tells me that such things are invariably false.