The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

I try to always remember that the audience for my posts is not just the person to whom I am responding but also all of the current and future folk who might stumble across the thread.Sometimes that means repeating what should be bleeding obvious like at any given time the surface of the earth will be areas covered by new soil and new material coming to the surface but also older layers weathering and eroding until they get covered by new soil.

Thanks for reminding me. But, the audience sometimes can be shown that someone could have absolutely stupid, ridiculous ideas.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Fascinating post Dr Adequate. Have any creationists tried to explain a mechanism by which the sorting also seems to affect the stomach content of fossilised animals?Anyway, to my main point. I have just returned from a family holiday where I found myself awestruck by the most amazing example of miraculous sorting that you could imagine. I was camping in the Flinders Ranges of South Australia, part of a geological sequence of mainly marine sedimentary rocks known as the Adelaide Geosyncline. This sedimentary sequence is around 1000km long and several hundred km wide. Imagine a depositional environment similar in size to that part of the Mexican Gulf bordered by Mexico. It was big. Yet within this massive >300,000 square km of largely outcropping sediment you will not find a single fish fossil. Indeed, you will not find a shark fossil, a reptile, amphibian, mammal, ammonite, crab, beetle, gastropod, starfish... The list goes on. The hairs stand erect on the back of my neck just thinking about it.Upon returning from my trip and logging on to EVC forum to discuss this exciting realisation, my first thought was to perhaps try and classify what sorting mechanism might achieve this amazing circumstance. But then on reading a recent post by Faith I had a sudden thought. Perhaps someone, or something, is lying to me?

I don't get your point. You list what ISN'T in the rock. Is this to say there are NO fossils in the rocks? What are you saying and why is it so amazing to you?ABE: Looked it up. So it's Precambrian. Few fossils as is always the case with the Precambrian. Again, what is so amazing about this?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What does the term Precambrian have to do with the flood and sorting models?

You listed a lack of fossils in this particular area which turns out to be Precambrian, in other words the lowest rocks, in which there are normally few fossils, which ought not to be at all amazing to you. What is your point?

It isn't amazing to us because we accept the scientific view. It should be amazing to you that it is the case that the lowest rocks are so short of fossils.However, this particular formation is home to some of the strangest fossils known - the Ediacaran fauna.

I'm well past being amazed by the seeming sorting of fossils.

What do you mean the lowest rocks? They're sitting there right at the surface. I camped on them.300,000 square km of former ocean sediments and no fish, sharks, even 'slow' things like crabs and starfish. It's damn freaky!

You're a very sensitive soul. Exposed Precambrian rocks really get to you.

Ending not with a bang but a whimper...Edited by Boof, : No reason given.

I presume that in your scenario the Precambrian would represent the "bottom" of the Flood?If so, why are there no fossils of modern life-forms before the Flood? If fossilization can occur as rapidly as creationists claim, why weren't any cows, whales, etc. fossilized in the several thousand years before the Flood? Why are there none in the Precambrian?

The lowest layers, which it is. Before the Flood? There shouldn't be ANY fossils from before the Flood. The idea is that the Flood did all the fossilizing. I assume the Precambrian is the lowest strata created by the Flood. No fossils existed before that.

But there ARE fossils in the Precambrian.The question is why aren't there any modern ones? Why couldn't something like a rabbit be fossilized before the Flood?

Faith I explained to you that these rocks aren't particularly 'low' - we climbed St Mary's Peak which is one of the highest points of the state.But assuming these are 'low' strata, why would that prevent them from having the fossils I described? We do have fossil reefs, algal mounds, trilobites and Ediacaran fauna. But the flood that killed and deposited these fossils somehow removed any mackerels and sharks and dolphins and ichthyosaurs and marlin and prawns and seahorses and sea turtles and crocodiles and dugongs and tuna and seals and walruses and plesiosaurs and penguins and nautiloids. From an area >300,000 sq km in size.I think rather than using the argument that "these strata are low", you best revert to your previous explanation of "I don't know".