The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

Against my better judgement, ... .In the past you have proclaimed that where an organism was buried has nothing at all to do when it existed. That defies all possible logic. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It's like the completely idiotic creationist argument that since Niagara Falls is only 9000 to 11,000 years old, then that limits the maximum age of the earth, much as the fact that our family dog is 18 years old limits the maximum age of the earth to 18 years.Please explain your logic, because it is not shared by any other sentient being in existence ... except perhaps for other creationists, but then the consideration of sentience then becomes moot.Please consider these basic questions.If layer A lies atop layer B, is it not reasonable to assume that layer B was laid down before layer A? Regardless of how much time had transpired between the two depositations. If you disagree, then please state your objections.We observe layers A, B, C, and D. A lies atop B, which lies atop C, which lies atop D. Can we not assume that that is the sequence in which they were deposited? If not, then do explain why not.If we find the fossil of an organism within layer B, can we not assume that that organism must have been present when layer B was deposited? If not, then do explain why not.In other words, it does make complete sense that the organisms whose remains are found in the various layers were indeed around when those layers were deposited. It does not matter what absolute time period that happened. Layer A was deposited after B which was deposited after C which was deposited after D. Regardless of any absolute dating of the layers, we know full well what the relative dating of those layers are. So if something was buried in layer D, then that had to have happened when D was being deposited. So when we find something deposited in C, we know that it was buried after that something in D was buried. Relative dating!So then, yes Faith, the presence of a fossil within a given layer does indeed have everything to do with when it existed. Ages do indeed correspond with layers. You may not agree with the ages assigned to a given layer, but you cannot possibly disagree that the age of something buried within a given layer must agree with the age of that given layer.If you disagree, then please explain yourself. Claiming adherence to an inflexible dogma is not an acceptable explanation. Especially considering that that is the explanation for your own untenable position.

Just about any university library. Public universities would be better, since a Bible college would be likely to censor such information.Here's a account by Merle Hertzler, one of the first and only honest creationists I have encountered in three decades. While every other creationist on CompuServe in the late 1980's just regurgitated the creationist crap they had fed on and resorted to highly dishonest actions to avoid discussing their own claims (obviously because they did not understand them themselves), Merle was the shining exception. He engaged in discussion to the best of his ability. And, unlike the transparent lies of his creationist brethren, when he said that he would research something, he did research it.Honest creationists are rare and do not last long. Within a year, he had learned that YEC was false and found himself on the other side.He tells that story at Did We Evolve? in which a visit to the university library and the research there opened his eyes:

quote:

---

Years ago I was fighting the good fight of creation on the Internet. I argued that evolution was impossible, for it required that the genetic code had to be changed to make new kinds of animals. It did not seem feasible to me that evolution could do this. I argued in the CompuServe debate forum, basing my arguments on Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crises. My favorite illustration was the difference between mammals and reptiles. The differences between living mammals and reptiles are substantial. Mammals all have hair, mammary glands, a four-chambered heart, and the distinct mammalian ear, with three little bones inside. These features are found in no living reptiles. I argued that this is because there is no viable intermediate between the two, that an animal could have either the reptile genetic code or the mammal code but could not be in the middle.

​

An evolutionist disagreed with me. He told me that in the past there had been many intermediates. He said that there were animals that, for instance, had jaw and ear bones that were intermediate between reptiles and mammals. How did he know this? He gave a reference to an essay in Stephen Gould's Ten Little Piggies . I wrote back that since the local library had a large collection of children's book, I should be able to find that book. (I thought I was so funny). I borrowed the book, and found an interesting account of how bones in the reptile jaw evolved and changed through millions of years to become the mammals' ear. That sounded like such a clever tale. How could Gould believe it? Perhaps he made it up. But there was one little footnote, a footnote that would change my life. It said simply, "Allin, E. F. 1975. Evolution of the Mammalian Middle Ear. Journal of Morphology 147:403-38." That's it. That's all it said. But it was soon to have a huge impact on me. You see, I had developed this habit of looking things up, and had been making regular trips to the University of Pennsylvania library. I was getting involved in some serious discussions on the Internet, and was finding the scientific journals to be a reliable source of information. Well, I couldn't believe that a real scientific journal would take such a tale seriously, but, before I would declare victory, I needed to check it out.

​

On my next trip to the university, I found my way to the biomedical library and located the journal archives. I retrieved the specified journal, and started to read. I could not believe my eyes. There were detailed descriptions of many intermediate fossils. The article described in detail how the bones evolved from reptiles to mammals through a long series of mammal-like reptiles. I paged through the volume in my hand. There were hundreds of pages, all loaded with information. I looked at other journals. I found page after page describing transitional fossils. More significantly, there were all of those troublesome dates. If one arranged the fossils according to date, he could see how the bones changed with time. Each fossil species was dated at a specific time range. It all fit together. I didn't know what to think. Could all of these fossil drawings be fakes? Could all of these dates be pulled out of a hat? Did these articles consist of thousands of lies? All seemed to indicate that life evolved over many millions of years. Were all of these thousands of "facts" actually guesses? I looked around me. The room was filled with many bookshelves; each was filled with hundreds of bound journals. Were all of these journals drenched with lies? Several medical students were doing research there. Perhaps some day they would need to operate on my heart or fight some disease. Was I to believe that these medical students were in this room filled with misinformation, and that they were diligently sorting out the evolutionist lies while learning medical knowledge? How could so much error have entered this room? It made no sense.

​

. . .

​

The impact of that day in the library was truly stunning. I didn't know what to say. I could not argue against the overwhelming evidence for mammal evolution. But neither could I imagine believing it. Something had happened to me. My mind had begun to think. And it was not about to be stopped. Oh no. There is no stopping the mind set free. I went to the library and borrowed a few books on evolution and creation--diligently studying both sides of the argument. I started to read the evolutionist books with amazement. I had thought that evolutionists taught that floating cows had somehow turned into whales; that hopeful monsters had suddenly evolved without transitions; that one must have blind faith since transitional fossils did not exist; that one must simply guess at the dates for the fossils; and that one must ignore all of the evidence for young-earth creation. I was surprised to learn what these scientist actually knew about the Creationist teachings of flood geology, of the proposed young-earth proofs, and of the reported problems of evolution. And I was surprised at the answers that they had for these Creationist arguments. And I was surprised to see all the clear, logical arguments for evolution. I read with enthusiasm. I learned about isochrons, intermediate fossils, the geologic column, and much more.

​

I would never see the world in the same light. Several weeks later I found myself staring at the fossil of a large dinosaur in a museum. I stared with amazement. I looked at the details of every bone in the back. And I wondered if a design so marvelous could really have evolved. But I knew that someone could show me another animal that had lived earlier and was a likely predecessor of this dinosaur that I was observing. And I knew that one could trace bones back through the fossil record to illustrate the path through which this creature had evolved. I stared and I pondered. And then I pondered some more.

​

Within days, I had lost interest in fighting evolution. I began to read more and speak less. When I did debate, I confined my arguments to the origin of life issue. But I could no longer ignore what I had learned. Several months later I first sent out an email with probing questions to a Creationist who had arrived on the scene. He never responded. I have not stopped questioning.

---

That is but a small part of that page and an even smaller part of his site.The information is all there in the university libraries. All state universities are required to comply with ADA requirements. Or you could hire a "service monkey", a student, preferably majoring in paleontology or geology, to go do the researching for you.It is all there in the libraries. Nothing is being kept secret. You just need to look.

Yeah, well, you can't really trust anything that Dr. Steve Austin, PhD Geology, says, because first and foremost he is a creationist.As a PhD Geology, he knows about radiometric dating and what indications to watch out for that would indicate conditions that would through a particular dating method off. So he has deliberately used that knowledge to seek out samples that he knew would yield false dates.As a post-graduate student, he was hired by professional creationists (eg, the ICR) to earn his doctorate in geology and then come work for them so that they could claim to have a PhD in Geology on their staff. While working on his doctorate, he wrote several geology articles for his benefactors which were published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly under his pseudonym, Stuart Nevins. I have read a number of those articles. In those articles, he made many false statements and gross misrepresentations about geology, statements that any second-year geology undergraduate would know for a fact were false. He did that while a post-graduate student, so there is no way that he could not have known that what he was saying was completely false. He could not defend those articles by pleading ignorance, nor idiocy nor incompetence, since the extremely heavy intellectual and work demands that a real PhD program places on its candidates will weed out the idiots and the incompetents very quickly.What we're left with is that he must be incredibly dishonest.

Faith, didn't you even begin to bother to read what I had written? The information is there in the libraries. What part of "in the university libraries" are you incapable of understanding? If you cannot or will not go yourself, then hire a student to do your researching. A graduate student in that field should be a good candidate. I'm sure that if you were to call the geology or paleontology department that they could recommend one of their students. Of course, that would require you to speak with an actual geologist and I remember the series of screaming hysterics you flew into the last time I suggested that, so please refrain this time. Who said anything about your god or your theology's ideas about the Bible? Creation science discussions are based on the creationists fundamental lie that they have scientific evidence to support their claims. As such, scientific sources are referenced and "scientific sources" are cited (though more often than not creationists will cite other creationists (or more commonly use other creationists as their sources while citing those other creationists' "scientific citations" and lie that those are their own sources) or science popularizations (eg, Popular Science, Reader's Digest) or out-dated sources since superceded by new discoveries. But first and foremost in "creation science", the creationist must do everything he can to hide the fact that there is nothing scientific about his claims, but rather it's all based on his narrowly sectarian religious beliefs -- the game of "Hide the Bible" is the very basis of "creation science" and is the reason why it was created in the first place as a deliberate deception whose purpose was to fool the post-Epperson courts.Thus, in "creation science" discussions the creationist is normally intent on covering up the lies behind his claims, so his role demands dishonesty as well as a steadfast refusal to research any claims, whether they be his own or his opponent's. But sometimes there comes along a creationist who is honest and is willing to do the research into the claims that is needed. And when he does not that research, then he will learn the truth behind those claims. He will find himself facing reality.Did you even bother to read that excerpt? Did you even bother to follow that link? Of course not. You want to avoid having to face reality.Make that call and hire that student.

Speaking of limestone, it consists of the shells of microscopic marine animals. I understand that the shape of the shells differ from era to era as those animals evolved.That should raise two questions:
1. Do we see patterns of faunal succession in limestone's component animals?2. How could the Flood explain such perfect segregation of such different microscopic animals into such incredibly high concentrations to form layers of such thickness, and do so for successive layers interspersed by other kinds of sediment?Just using your post as the springboard for this question. Anyone sufficiently familiar with limestone geology is welcome to jump in.

George McCready Price (Wikipedia) was a Canadian creationist and the True Father of Flood Geology -- Henry Morris stole that baby from its crib and claimed the credit. A Seventh-Day Adventist, he wrote about his ideas about geology 1906 to 1923. His degrees were awarded to him by Seventh-Day Adventists schools based mainly on his writings and hence were honorary. He used them to teach in a number of Seventh-Day Adventist colleges.The article notes:

quote:

---

While Price claimed that his book-selling travels gave him invaluable "firsthand knowledge of field geology", his "familiarity with the outside world" remained rudimentary, with even his own students noting that he could "barely tell one fossil from another" on a field trip shortly before he retired.

---

Le plus a change, le plus la mme chose.Faith, he is your guy through and through. Your ignorance of creationism is no excuse.