Do creationists try to find and study fossils?

Though curiously enough, as well as being "a tendentious lie from the ToE", it's also a fact discovered before the ToE was even thought of. In the real world, that is, the one with the fossils in it and in which time doesn't run backwards.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Then why do they look different? For example, why did the SAME process produce fossil footprints in some formations but not others? If magic water produces dinosaur footprints in mud, why doesn't it produce similar footprints in all mud? It's the same water and the same magic, is it not?

Apart from the things that don't, but you can pretend they don't exist. Should sedimentary layers being deposited today be regarded as evidence of the Flood?If yes, why?If not, then why should we regard identical sedimentation in the past as being evidence of the Flood? (Note that: "Because I really want to") is not really a reason.) Your evidence does not support your assertion. But Austin's own (claimed) data disprove that. He says there's 1 nautiloid per square meter. But that makes it ecologically impossible for them to represent a single "mass kill": no predator that big can have that population density.

Yeah, if you ignore the differences, they're identical. Consider the Coconino Sandstone and the Muav Limestone. One is sandstone, the other is limestone. They are different colors. One has footprints in it, the other has no footprints in it. One exhibits cross-bedding, the other does not. One contains no marine fossils, the other contains many. They're as different as two sedimentary rocks can be, but apart from that, they're identical. As you know, this is not true. We showed you photographs. It was you who claimed one process. I believe that there were several. Now it appears you are willing to admit at least two: that water covered all the land, and that land animals walked about on it. Did they breathe while they were doing so?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

And this is obviously untrue. Hence the cross-bedding in one and not in the other. A number of them have a bearing on the mode of deposition. For example, marine limestone is invariably deposited underwater, whereas sediments with the footprints of land animals in them are invariably not deposited underwater. No, obviously not. Nor are they identical in the sense that they are identical, this being the usual meaning of the word "identical". This "general appearance" is something that you made up in your head and have continued to lie about even after being exposed to the facts. And what makes this behavior even more ridiculous and disgraceful is that you are reciting this witless lie to people, such as myself, who are perfectly aware that you were mistaken and that you are lying. You recall wrong. But if what you mean is that you, personally, were too blind, too stupid, or too dishonest to see what I waved right in front of your nose, then that is not a criticism of the evidence, but a confession of your blindness, stupidity, or dishonesty.

If you don't know how cross-beds are formed, I suggest you look it up. I mentioned it in my "introduction to geology" thread, y'know. And is common knowledge to anyone remotely interested in geology, which you evidently are not.The fact is that the Coconino sandstone looks exactly like what you see today if you take a cross-section through sand dunes, and like nothing else. It is therefore not "idiotic" to think that the Coconino sandstone was deposited by the only process we know of which deposits things which look exactly like the Coconino sandstone.

What on Earth gave you that idea? I'm guessing magic mushrooms, but I'd also believe peyote ... or creationism, I hear that causes bizarre hallucinations too.