The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

I would make a minor correction. Simpler organisms do not disappear from the record. There is an upward trend in the maximum complexity, but I suspect that the minimum complexity has been far slower to increase - except, perhaps, at the very earliest times.I should, however, also make a further point. The order in the fossil record has been known for 200 years - 200 years of - literally - worldwide scientific investigation. It is an established fact, far beyond any reasonable doubt.

So Faith, are you suggesting that "mechanical sorting" would separate the creatures that lived in both Africa and South America from those who only lived on one of those two continents ? If not, what are you suggesting ?

quote:

---

I don't think Faith has brought that up at this time.

---

In the immediately preceding message:

quote:

---

She seems to suggest that the split between African animals and South American animals is just because that is where they happened to live.

---

I wasn't challenging that at all. The issue to be addressed is the order in the fossil record. Why are the exclusively South American and the exclusively African large animals in the upper strata while groups common to both continents are found in lower strata ?

That raises another question. Given that fact that you have no idea how the Flood could produce the fossil record isn't it at least a little dishonest to claim that the fossil record is evidence of the Flood ?

quote:

---

But from the Flood point of view there can only be mechanical reasons for the supposed order, the order can only be an illusion of some sort, and until the mechanical explanations are better understood there is nothing to say about it

---

Except that mechanical sorting can't explain the order, and what does it even mean to say that the order is an "illusion" ?So, again, you have no idea how the Flood could produce the fossil record as it actually exists. Assuming that there must be an explanation - especially when it seems so very, very unlikely - is not the same as actually having one.

quote:

---

I'd say we make more or less educated guesses about what happened, which anti-Floodists are incapable of doing because they follow their prejudices and are always looking for some way to debunk the idea.

---

I guess that you could describe honesty as a prejudice, but doing so says more about you than about your opponents. There is a difference between making educated guesses and desperately making up nonsense to hide from the truth.

quote:

---

We KNOW the reasons for the fossil order have to do with mechanics and not evolution from one to another, which is preposterous no matter how plausible the order seems

---

If you have actually paid attention to this discussion then you would know - truly know - that mechanics cannot be the answer. It has no merit but a superficial plausibility which vanishes in the face of the facts.Honestly seeking the truth requires that you accept these facts instead of sneering at them, secure in the worship of your anti-Christian cult.

Why should you have had a dozen points by now ? Can you even give three that we really should have granted - and did not.

If you are aware that faunal succession does not involve descent, please explain why your apparent objection to faunal succession began: And might I also suggest that someone who is so keen on throwing unjustified accusations should be a little less sensitive when others make quite reasonable inferences.

quote:

---

Correction: For "descended from" substitute "evolved later than."

---

Then you still don't understand faunal succession. Your own quote tells us it is simply the order in the rocks.

quote:

---

abe: However, perhaps you recall the discussion about how the mammalian ear evolved from the reptilian. Descent is implied from reptile to mammal. That's what evolution means, you know, descent with modification. It doesn't have to be direct descent but it IS descent and the claim about the form of the ear shows that evos think it is.

---

The issue isn't evolution but the observation of faunal succession in the limestone. If you choose to raise irrelevant objections to the observation it shows that you do not understand what you are objecting to.But thank you for proving Dr. Adequate right. Perhaps you should learn to think before typing. And that is honest advice - you do yourself no good by posting obvious falsehoods.

Let me make a simple point Mike.If the only examples of your expectations are rare outliers, then your expectations are based on error. You've implicitly admitted this to be true. That hardly supports your position.

quote:

---

What did I, "admit"? Can you flesh our your argument Paul? Perhaps it was a tacit admission you think you uncovered? But I doubt it, I'm just too smart to be sloppy.

---

That's just empty boasting, Mike. And if you were that smart you could work it out quite easily.But to make it clear, you claim that the Wollemi Pine is exactly what you expect, a modern species found in "deeper" layers. But that is a very rare occurrence - even most "living fossils" are simply members of larger taxonomic groupings which have otherwise disappeared. The modern species is not found in the "lower" rocks. That is the case with the coelacanths, for instance.Given all the references to modern species in the early chapters of Genesis, this is strange indeed - if your views are true.

quote:

---

That's the problem: I see no "precise sorting" here at all, meaning no sorting that suggests evolutionary principles

---

Then the problem is yours. There is no assertion that the order follows your idea of "evolutionary principles" only that the ammonite species occur in a definite order.So how about addressing that fact ?

quote:

---

I tried to be clear that of course I see that there are different species of creatures that are separately represented in different layers; what I don't see is that these represent evolution from one to another, those higher in the strata being more recently evolved

---

Yes, we understand that you are trying to argue against something that nobody has claimed.When are you going to deal with the fact that the order itself is strong evidence against the Flood, the actual argument here ? How could the Flood produce this sorting ? No fact-free speculations here, please. Deal with the actual fossils.

Your suggestion was vague - too vague to be called a serious attempt at an explanation -and almost certainly impossible. How it can rationally be considered better than a perfectly reasonable explanation that does fit the facts, I have no idea.

quote:

---

.,,but the Flood is so obviously the explanation for the strata and the fossils someone else would have done the work if he hadn't

---

Except that the Flood is obviously not a valid explanation for the fossils and the strata. That is why Flood geology was invented by an apologist for a YEC denomination, and is rejected by science. Honest searchers for the truth rejected the Flood, because the evidence was very solidly against it.