Reading evc forum is somewhat like living in a permanent state of deja vu. I had exactly the same debate with Faith some time ago:
That's exactly the question I have been asking you Faith. You introduced the term 'geological column'. I am unfamiliar with the term so I asked you to describe it for me. Why has it been so hard? So now we can confirm - the geological column is any rocks we see in layers correct?
and (to PaulK in the same thread):
As a geologist the term "geological column" is not a phrase I use - I have used the geological time scale, and I might produce a local stratigraphic column in preparing my maps. But not "geological column", and I certainly have never found any reference to am ENTIRE geological column that Faith refers to.
This inability to absorb information and retain it is one of the reasons I haven't debated here for some time.
PS - sorry, forgot how to link to posts in old threads...
Fascinating post Dr Adequate. Have any creationists tried to explain a mechanism by which the sorting also seems to affect the stomach content of fossilised animals?
Anyway, to my main point. I have just returned from a family holiday where I found myself awestruck by the most amazing example of miraculous sorting that you could imagine. I was camping in the Flinders Ranges of South Australia, part of a geological sequence of mainly marine sedimentary rocks known as the Adelaide Geosyncline. This sedimentary sequence is around 1000km long and several hundred km wide. Imagine a depositional environment similar in size to that part of the Mexican Gulf bordered by Mexico. It was big. Yet within this massive >300,000 square km of largely outcropping sediment you will not find a single fish fossil. Indeed, you will not find a shark fossil, a reptile, amphibian, mammal, ammonite, crab, beetle, gastropod, starfish... The list goes on. The hairs stand erect on the back of my neck just thinking about it.
Upon returning from my trip and logging on to EVC forum to discuss this exciting realisation, my first thought was to perhaps try and classify what sorting mechanism might achieve this amazing circumstance. But then on reading a recent post by Faith I had a sudden thought. Perhaps someone, or something, is lying to me?
Faith I explained to you that these rocks aren't particularly 'low' - we climbed St Mary's Peak which is one of the highest points of the state.
But assuming these are 'low' strata, why would that prevent them from having the fossils I described? We do have fossil reefs, algal mounds, trilobites and Ediacaran fauna. But the flood that killed and deposited these fossils somehow removed any mackerels and sharks and dolphins and ichthyosaurs and marlin and prawns and seahorses and sea turtles and crocodiles and dugongs and tuna and seals and walruses and plesiosaurs and penguins and nautiloids. From an area >300,000 sq km in size.
I think rather than using the argument that "these strata are low", you best revert to your previous explanation of "I don't know".
Yes but you are avoiding the question, which is the point of this whole thread. Why don't those fossils appear in this strata? The 'evolutionary' answer is quite straightforward. The flood-related answer is non-existant.