Fossilisation is rare, so ....

I know what Peter is getting at. he's trying to say that since fossilization is rare we shouldn't have so many fossils. The reason that isn't necessarily true is that in the flood model we do expect to get a lot of fossilization - it was rapidly buried by definition. In the gradualism case that isn't so but then they've got time on their side. So both groups have mechanism for fossil formation but IMO the flood model is far better and explains why we get fossil graveyards, fossils of animals giving birth, ofssils of animals devouring other animals and fossils of trees passing through hundreds of strata.------------------
You are go for TLI

Mark: the lower levels of the GC are marine. Not many trees expected there! I guess you're talking terrestial beds? Tell me about them.------------------
You are go for TLI

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-19-2002]

Edge I recently saw on TV one of the worlds most eminent dinosaur paleontologists (Horner?) saying that the dinosaur graveyards were undoubtedly huge flood events. And I'm not saying that proves Noah, it's just suggestive.We think that the view of dinosaurs on huge desert plains is wrong - becasue most dinaosaur fossils found in our opinions are on deluged escape routes not habitats. Same reason why not many eggs are found where the fossils are found etc.We actually do have a point you know. Our model does explain some things very neatly although I am yet to see an evolutionist admit it.------------------
You are go for TLI

Those are good points Joe (on bettles/bones) that the flood geologists have to answer.------------------
You are go for TLI

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-19-2002]

I saw this about a month ago on Australian TV and these were not miscellaneous bones. It was 'complete sauropods on top of complete T-Rex (like) skeltons' etc. We'll see, but a I'm sure sure you know that many of the worlds best fossil sites are graveyards with completely preserved (intact) skeletons. In our model we know what happened.------------------
You are go for TLI

In any case, MP, many fossil graveyards record complete (ordered) skeletons. I still find it hard to believe Horner was talking about 'random bones' but if you say he was I'll take your word for it.I've certainly heard many times of all types of dinoasurs (herbivore/carnivore) on top of each other but intact. With that in mind, you can imagine rivers, I'll imagine flood channels - both fluvial.------------------
You are go for TLI

Fair enough MP.

Mark, all I can tell you is that we have a documented mechanism for creating 'generations' of fossilized forests. If you don't want to consider it possible becasue of 'the details' that's fine with me. I am not an expert on those details and I find the very rapid dismisals of creationist ideas (rather than OK - it could be possible) evidence of your biases.If you guys can't even imagine soils being washed into a forest deposit then I think you (not necessarily you Mark) are obviously not willing to understand the other viewpoint. I have no problem with you pointing out miriad problems but if they were prefaced with 'it's not completely impossible but' it would lead to more sensible debate.Most beds around the world are marine so statistically they will end up on the bottom more often. And catastrophic inundations of the land by sea will deposit the terrestial beds in one place and the rest is obviouly going to be marine until a deper surge comes. Hence alternate arine/non-marine beds.And why should we get a 'jumbled mess of tees' in our model? Austin showed that the trees sink vertically and insert in mud and will stay vertical especially under catastrophic circumstances of non-stop deposition.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-21-2002]

There's little evidence to demonstrate that, in some beds at the very least, one might not even get every vertebrate creature fossilised in a catastrophic situation. Why not (in some beds at least)? What are these 'special conditions' other than burial? Teach me.In the field, in many beds we can see ripple marks in every every square foot of every layer! You think we wouldn't be able to find evidence a fish was rapidly buried there if it was? I think you're just finding it hard to