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.
You and Faith should have a discussion.
To explain the pre-Cambrian fossils, obviously after creation the earliest fossils would be the short life-span fossils , like bacteria etc.
Unless you consider cell division as the birth of new bacteria, bacteria today are as old as creation, which is a pretty long lifespan.
I understand. Maybe you meant short generation times rather than short lifespans? In either case, it wasn't clear why "obviously" they would have been the earliest fossils after creation? If it's because they would have been the first to die, that's why I mentioned that bacteria don't really have lifespans - they don't die of old age.
Are you calling me a liar because I used the word "suddenly" instead of the phrase "seemingly rapid"?
I think he may be trying to influence you to incorporate the current state of knowledge about the Cambrian Explosion into your arguments. That would include the fact that the Cambrian Explosion wasn't "sudden" or "seemingly rapid." It occurred over a rather long period of time, almost as long as since the dinosaurs.
I'm about a hundred messages behind, but I keep seeing the same incorrect claims over and over again, so I thought I'd reemphasize a few important points that Mindspawn keeps misunderstanding.
Except for fossils of species that went extinct, all fossils are transitional fossils. Transitionals actually exist at all levels of the evolutionary tree. At a relatively fine level of detail the term intermediates might be more appropriate, for example the transition from Australopithicus afarensis to Homo sapiens with Homo erectus as intermediate, while at a much more broad level of detail dinosaurs are transitional between reptiles and birds.
The validity of evolution does not depend upon the completeness of the fossil record in terms of transitionals and intermediates. Evolution became accepted theory while the fossil record was far less complete than it is today, and while each new fossil discovery has the potential to invalidate evolution (e.g., a Cambrian mammal), it never happens. Evolution as an explanation for life's history was accepted even before the mechanisms of heredity (also fully supportive of evolution) were understand.
The nested hierarchy couldn't exist were the fossils not scattered about the geological record in a very particular and specific way, the record of change never violating the hierarchy.
Evolutionary change is toward adaptation and not in any particular direction, such as larger or faster.
All fossils are of "fully formed" species. There has never been a species that wasn't "fully formed."
I think we need to point out that it is adaptation to the environment that existed at a given time and what the record shows is that those critters that were adapted to that particular environment at that particular time were the ones that passed on their DNA to the next generation. And the evidence shows that as the environment changed some traits lead to continuation while other traits led to extinction. The changes are not towards adaptation but rather those critters that happened to be adapted survived.
Yes, environmental change will select among existing adaptations, but that's just selection by itself. Evolution includes not just selection but descent with modification, and those together are what produce new adaptations.
Just so it is clear that the evolution part is NOT towards anything, not towards adaptation...
I understand what you're saying, but I guess I'd disagree with that way of saying it. Evolution isn't towards any specific goal, but it is definitely toward adaptation. Changing environments produce adaptations to the changes. We might not know what the adaptations will be in advance, but we know that in general change will be toward better adaptation.
It's mutations that are random with respect to fitness and are selected for or against. A change caused by mutations is not an adaptation until the change is selected for, and a change that is selected against is not an adaptation at all.
My point was that you were wrong about Gould. Since you more or less admit this, I'd say it wasn't moot, but conceded.
I'm not sure that confusion doesn't still exist in Mike's mind about what we're truly saying. First he should understand what we're not saying. While there exists accepted scientific terminology that can be very helpful for clarity, we're not saying that terms of non-scientific origin are off limits to scientists, and certainly not that mere use of a term indicates some form of acceptance of the associated concepts.
Dr A's original point way way back was that the idea of "hydrological sorting" as the motive force behind creation of most of the geological layers of Earth originated with creationists. Later this was somehow confused with the term "hydraulic" in the context of efficiency of creatures swimming through water. Mike must understand that these are two very different things.
I'm a participant not a moderator in this thread so I can't offer you any kind of relief, but I will try to make a few helpful comments.
First, you do have a tendency towards self-congratulation while in the midst of significant gaffes. Moderators cannot tell people, "Please ignore significant gaffes expressed with conceit." It would be equivalent to asking people to ignore the elephant in the middle of the room. I know Dr A's responses are full of sarcasm and mockery, and I know this must seem like it's against the forum guidelines, and it would be if the gaffes were occasional and then corrected, but they're persistent and frequent and often beyond belief. Dr A shouldn't be treating you this way, but you shouldn't be relentlessly irrational and illogical. When several attempts at explanation all fall victim to misunderstanding and misinterpretation, what is one's next course? Another patient explanation?
Second, I know you can't agree you're being irrational and illogical. After all, how could it be thus after all the effort you've put into understanding logical fallacies and reasoning through the evidence logically? I can't answer that question, but your way of looking at evidence has taken you to some pretty strange and logically inconsistent places.
Lastly I'd suggest just making sure your arguments are always consistent with reality. That won't make all your arguments right, but it will greatly reduce the number and severity of the errors.
Other creationists make different claims, we understand that.
My specific complaint was that Dr A said "hydrological sorting" was referred to by real scientists as, "hydraulic" but Gould and other evolutionists online, seem to also use the term, "hydrological", meaning if your argument is that this means creationists aren't real scientists then your argument is predicated on that term being a solely creationist term.
Yes, you've repeated this many times, but why are you including your incorrect argument about Gould? That makes no sense.
In any case, you continue to miss the important point. It isn't the term that's important, it's the concept. There *is* such a thing as hydraulic sorting (for the creationist slant see Experiments in Stratification over at ICR). I think "hydrological sorting" is probably same thing, but who knows. But whatever you call it, this sorting as an explanation for the order of geological layers and the placement of fossils within them is a creationist idea that lacks real world support. When scientists use one of these terms to refer to this idea they are not likely offering support for it. In all likelihood they are arguing against.