TC, I applaud your brave attempts to rationalize your mythology with the geologic record. Heve you ever seen the Monty Python skit with the knight who gets his limbs hacked off, yet still taunts his opponent?
At every point, you are so woefully underequipped in the knowledge department, you don't have any idea how badly you have missed the mark. Sometimes you seem to realize this..
quote:
--I think I'd like to ask a relevant question, what exactly is it that the scientists are looking at to determin when angiosperms entered the fossil record? I'd like to start here, where I should have started earlier.
There are many questions you
should have asked before going off half-cocked with the standard Creationist "model". But take heart, it is still possible to learn... just keep asking those questions. Ignorance is easily corrected.
If I may, I would like to help you out. You and your friends here have been roaming all over the landscape with ideas from every part of the evo/creto debate. It might help to step back and think about things a little more systematically. It's a bit daunting at first... to really get a handle on this discussion, you really need to know a fair amount from several fields of science - geology, biology, physics, chemistry, etc.
To help you get started on a sound footing, maybe you should start learning about geology. This field includes most of the evidence we refer to, and understanding the principles involved will keep your head above water in most discussions of the Flood. There are many points in this discussion where your lack of knowledge has made your argument ridiculous, or left you incapable of even understanding that you had a problem.
The Green River evaporites is a good example. Someone pointed out how these evaporites couldn't have formed in a flood, yet your response indicated you didn't even know the rocks are named for the Green River which flows nearby... and that the river had absolutely nothing to do with the formation of the evaporites.
Your latest comments about trilobites being far slower than lobsters and horseshoe crabs is another good example. Did you know that trilobites are always found lower than corals, barnacles, and clams? These are completely immobile. They cannot move.
Think about wood. It floats - sometimes for years. Yet massive beds of coal are found halfway down the geologic column... formed mostly out of wood, leaves, bark, etc. These are overlain by sandstones, gravels, clay, silt, etc. How do heavy stones and rocks and sand float longer in the Flood than all that wood?
In a way, its not fair. The other posters in this discussion have geology degrees. That doesn't make them automatically right and you wrong, but they are asking you to explain a theory that you don't understand, and for which you do not have evidence to support it. You are not even aware of the existance of much of what is being discussed here. Only a large dose of education will correct your deficiencies. Unfortunately, most Creationist sources are intentionally vague in the details and specifics, so you won't (and haven't) learn much there. I'm afraid you will just have to hold your nose and wade into the regular geology literature. If I could make you read and understand one resource on the web, it would be this one:
Creation Science and Earth History
If you really want to learn a major part of what geology has to say about the Creation "models", this site will show you much of what you have been missing at the Creationists sites. Please read through each of the articles. Use the recommended reading list to check out a few books at the library, and use them to help you understand the terminology and processes involved.
Good luck,
and be happy...
™ Version 4.2