Even as a creationist, I agree with you that there would be fossils before the flood. I place the flood at the PT boundary which is where the flooding evidence exists. All fossils before the PT boundary are pre-flood fossils.
To explain the pre-Cambrian fossils, obviously after creation the earliest fossils would be the short life-span fossils , like bacteria etc. Then during the Cambrian Explosion we have the first fossilization of the longer lifespan creatures like trilobites etc.
Sorry if I didn't explain that clearly enough, I was referring to the existence of fossils of bacteria, and explaining why those fossils preceded those of the Cambrian explosion. The sequence of events in the fossil record fits in with the sequence one would expect from creation.
You make a good point about the exoskeleton being cast off, I didn't think about that But regarding the order of fossils, surely it's obvious that if bacteria and trilobites are created at the same time in numbers, dead cells of bacteria would exist before the first trilobite casts off it's exoskeleton? So the obvious order of fossilisation between these two life-forms would be firstly dead cells of bacteria, then trilobites. This is consistent with the order one would expect from creation week. It appears that most major present phyla did appear in the Cambrian Explosion, also consistent with creation week.
I know Wikipedia isn't always the best place to gather evidence, but I see no reason to dispute this comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion Many of the PRESENT PHYLA appeared during this period, with the exception of Bryozoa, which made its earliest known appearance in the Lower Ordovician.
Wikipedia references: 11) Budd, G.E. (2003). "The Cambrian Fossil Record and the Origin of the Phyla". Integrative and Comparative Biology. 43 (1): 157–165. doi:10.1093/icb/43.1.157. PMID 21680420. 12) Jump up ^ Taylor, P.D.; Berning, B.; Wilson, M.A. (2013). "Reinterpretation of the Cambrian 'bryozoan' Pywackia as an octocoral". Journal of Paleontology. 87 (6): 984–990. doi:10.1666/13-029.
Well this isn't the thread to discuss the flaws of radiometric dating. I'm merely referring to the ordering of the fossils. Which are pretty consistent with what one would expect from creation. Obviously the dead cells of bacteria would accumulate first and therefore be vulnerable to fossilization in numbers before the first trilobite exoskeletons are fossilized in numbers.
Good point. But there are pre-flood archosaurs. Precursor to dinosaurs and modern crocodiles. And most current phyla are represented in the Cambrian Explosion. I do believe in rapid adaptation, relating to changes in allele frequencies. ie we have nearly unchanging DNA structures over time, but some adaptation expressed in the physiology. And so we don't always see the modern breeds/forms expressed in the original fossil record.
But Creationism does predict that increasingly modern kinds will be found fossilised in ancient strata, and occasionally vice versa (as per the coelecanth).
In addition our modern terrestrial environment was not a prevalent ecosystem in pre-flood times. ie generally the more prevalent terrestrial conditions before the PT boundary were of a cold wet, low lying nature. These low-lying regions were susceptible to marine transgressions, not the place for burgeoning human settlements. One would expect human settlements to have being in the less vulnerable regions with eco-systems similar to ones where mammals currently thrive ie where angiosperms are a prevalent part of the eco-system.
Stromatolites still make my point. It's the correct order.
You say:" I don't know why you think that. Especially as you claim that the order of the fossil record indicates deaths rather than creation"
Obviously the order of fossilisation relates to death. There would be dead bacteria cells accumulating within hours of creation, and yet the first exoskeleton of a trilobite some time later. Generally creatures are more likely to fall to the ground and get covered by sediment when dead. Generally a live creature would squirm out of falling sediment, less likely to be buried and fossilised.
There have been many ooparts. Out of place artifacts, signs of early humans before the PT boundary. Scientists tend to steer clear of studying these because their careers are normally based on the status quo and they would be belittled and their academic status undermined if they give support to radical theories which undermine the status quo.
Human footprints have been found before the PT boundary. A bell was found in Carboniferous coal. The Narmer tablets record dinosaurs with humans in early Egyptian society. as do Sumerian seals. Anyone is able to discover this information in the internet, I wont even bother posting the links here because you guys obviously will not accept those OOPARTS (out of place artifacts) as scientific evidence.
But my main point is that vast areas of earth have not been studied for early mammals, including humans. The environment where mammals would be would be similar to today, because these rare pre-flood creatures now dominate in a world of angiosperms, So the pre-flood region we should be studying should be one where angiosperms existed before the PT boundary.
Its not surrender, its obvious that kinds can adapt rapidly by changing allele frequencies. Even the original wolf-like kind has developed into a number of breeds like bears, wolves, huskies, poodles etc. This is an obvious fact accepted by many creationists. This diversity is proven, but does not involve major changes to the DNA structure as per evolutionary theory.
You say: "But Creationism does predict that increasingly modern kinds will be found fossilized in ancient strata ."
Creationism claims that creatures are relatively unchanged since creation. So logically we would expect to find more and more modern creatures reflected in the fossil record. something that is happening.
Regarding lobsters, it's possible that the prevailing environment during the Cambrian was too sulfuric or too anoxic for them. Its hard to find fossils from niche environments, easier from common environments. Who knows , maybe one day we will find a Cambrian fossil haven of lobsters. Or even modern trilobites currently living in a niche sulfuric or anoxic environment. Niche environments can become common. common environments can become niche. Crustaceans like Canadaspis and Perspicaris do exist in the Cambrian so with my view of rapid adaptation maybe there was significant adaptation. Unfortunately we do not have the DNA to prove biological relationships from the Cambrian.
After the flood, there were only 8 humans. with massive life-spans. Unless you can find Noah's grave you are unlikely to find any human fossils for a long period after the flood. So your view that creationists should be showing human fossils throughout the layers is incorrect. Before the flood humans were in a niche environment. After the flood humans were scarce. Until we find that niche environment suitable for mammals and dig down there, we will not find those human cities. After the flood there would be no graves for a long period. But one would expect to find an area in Turkey where both original mammal breeds and humans show an early dispersion. We do find this, firstly there is the early temple of Gobleki Tepi which appears to be some shrine to animals. Then there is a recent discovery of early eocene mammals in Turkey.
Noah's Ark explains this find, scientists do not explain it: https://news.ku.edu/...ocuses-pivotal-eocene-interval-turkey ""we found an ancient community of fossil mammals that is utterly unique for two reasons. First, many of the fossil species are completely unlike any other fossil mammals we’ve ever seen. Second, even in cases where the Turkish fossils are somewhat familiar, they occur alongside other types of mammals they’ve never been found with before.""
Even haplogroup evidence points to this human dispersion from the Middle East.
I clearly explained the reason. Legitimate scientists are invested in their career, and so are not open to lending credibility to views that contradict everything they believe and upon which their careers are based.
Regarding creationists finding pre-flood cities and human settlements, like I said earlier humans would not have settled in the low lying areas susceptible to marine flooding. The time before the PT boundary had a flat topography and was susceptible to marine flooding/transgressions so not a good place to live. I could be wrong, but the only vast highland I can find before the PT boundary that has signs of a modern environment is the Siberian highlands. Also one has to look for an environment where the eco-system was similar to modern times, when mammals currently dominate. The way to recognise such an eco-sytem is through the presence of angiosperms. Siberia is again the only such place before the PT boundary with a flora environment similar to that found in the modern mammal dominant world.
The problem with finding human cities there, is the entire region has been covered by lava during the Siberian traps, the trigger event for the end-Permian extinction. I could be mistaken but as far as I know this is the greatest volcanic event ever recorded in the geologic record. A vast area of the Siberian highlands is covered by this end Permian rock.
I'm wondering what I should retract. I did admit that those OOPARTS are not accepted in scientific circles. I had that covered when I first mentioned it. The Narmer Tablets are not an OOPART though. They are accepted historical artifacts. You must admit that the Narmer Tablets are fascinating Here is a link:
You didn't show the haplogroup map, which is what I am referring to.
Can you give any scientific evidence why they point the arrows up from Africa, instead of down from the Middle East? Logically the area which shows the greatest variety of the world's DNA is where the roots of the world's population come from. The haplogroup maps always show the greatest variety occurring in the Turkey/Iraq areas.
Yes its true that human settlements are found in low lying coastal regions today. But we do not have the marine transgressions today that occurred before the PT boundary. So the situations are different.