The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

WHy does it seem like I'm saying that?I don't know why you asked about lobsters anyway, so I just pointed out that they occur higher in the geo column than the Pre-Cambrian. What? I don't know what you are saying. Creationists believe the flood deposited everything from the Cambrian up, but I think it had to have deposited all the strata including pre-Cambrian strata. But I have no idea what you are saying or insinuating. What?The only thing I said microevolved is TODAY's creatures, that evolved from pre-Flood creatures. I didn't say anyting about Jurassic creatures microevolving. Like all the rest of the fossils in the entire geo column they all died in the Flood and that's what we see in all the strata -- creatures that died in the Flood.

The last dozen or so posts to me are utterly incomprehensible. I have no idea what anybody is saying. I'm not going to answer each one just to say that and that's all I have to say. None of it makes any sense. Lobsters, nothng.

I didn't get why I was being asked about lobsters at all and I still don't and I'm sorry I answered at all because it's utterly irrelevant to anything I've said as far as I can tell.

That whole article sounds to me like people setting out to catch Austin in some kind of error or lie, the tone is unpleasantly suspicious. It sounds like all the posts here, all creationists are liars etc etc etc.And it's still hard for me to believe that he actually meant he hadn't previously been a creationist or catastrophist before Mt. St. Helens. I would assume he misspoke, and she should have given him a chance to correct it or affirm it.

Where did I say that?. Please give a link. You had said something about Precambrian lobsters and seemed to be equating Precambrian with pre-Flood. All I did was find an article that showed lobsters much higher in the geo column, but ALL Of the geo column is during the Flood. I wouldn't say "later," though perhaps the article did. To me "later" is simply higher in the strata. How on earth could anyone answer such a question? How would anyone know where they were? I guess they were being carried in the water waiting to be buried a few layers above the Precambrian. Sheesh. This whole conversation needs to start over. Dr. A posted a bunch of challenges about fossils that are related to "modern" living creatures but are very different from them as if that fact somehow contradicts the Flood. I said on the contrary it's exactly what we'd expect: that creatures living before the Flood would be different versions of creatures living today, and my explanation is that we expect them to have changed, or microevolved, from whichever of them survived the Flood. It's a perfectly reasonable general statement. Why you are now coming along and demanding that I account for lobsters makes no sense, has nothing to do with my answer to Dr. A. which is that we WOULD expect the pre-Flood creatures to be different from today's living "modern" versions. (Not all, but most: I'm aware there are some living today that look like the fossil versions, but his list was only about the ones that are different.)This has nothing to do with any SPECIFIC creature like the lobster. I showed a picture? Besides I don't recognize a "Jurassic species." All the fossils were living before the Flood, all died in the Flood, the Flood conditions being perfect for fossilization. I'm trying to explain the Flood point of view.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I believe I answered Message 77 adequately. You thought that since there are only "ancient" versions of the creatures you list represented in the Redwall collection of fossils, none of which looks like the "modern" versions thereof, that this can't be accounted for by the Flood.I believe I accounted for it.

You need to try it yet again. I still don't know what you are talking about.

THAT's what you were asking? But that's been asked and answered many times already:I....don't....know.

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. But we have plenty of other arguments that support the Flood so we don't need to have an answer to everything. I already said this more than once on this thread starting with my very first post on the subject. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I wasn't talking about YOU understanding, I was simply saying the mechanics aren't yet understood... by anybody. Your ability to get everything I say completely wrong is truly amazing. Everything you say in that post is bizarrely wrong. Truly remarkable.

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. And I don't recall saying any of it is "all wrong," I believe I said there is merit to all the ideas I've heard. 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. It's preposterous, it's absurd, especially when you realize how fast change occurs within Species, while hundreds of millions of years may be assigned to a given time period. Meanwhile, some lab tests have been done that demonstrate that sediments deposit rapidly in fast-moving water. That's really more than the evo side has of objective evidence. But still it's true that it isn't known what principles explain how different creatures were carried and deposited in the strata. Just that something like that must be what happened. The absurdity of time periods being characterized by different kinds of rock ought in itself to disqualify the prevailing theories, everybody ought to laugh at that idea. Only some kind of mechanical explanation could apply. That is really a pathetic claim. "Floods and water?" Utter nonsense. NOBODY knows how a WORLDWIDE Flood would have behaved. It would be nothing like any local flood. And water washing over land from all directions at once isn't going to be explained by whatever we know about how water behaves on a local scale or even in a single tsunami event. It's like you refuse to try to imagine the actual scale of the thing. What? The supposed order of the fossil record is an illusion, period, not "based on" whether we can understand the Flood in mechanical terms or not. We still want to know if we can how the creatures were transported. Again, the OE explanation for the separate kinds of rock is absurd; the OE explanation for millions of years of evolution is absurd. We don't NEED to know the mechanics of the Flood in order to make those arguments. What? It's NOT "based on" anything I understand or don't understand about the mechanics of the Flood. Where do you get such ideas? Where have I "admitted" any such thing??? No, creationists have constructed many arguments against Evo Theory that have NO dependence whatever on knowing the mechanics of the Flood, and I have certainly done so myself. Where are you getting your nonsensical accusations? I've honestly said we don't understand the mechanical explanations of all these things, and you turn that into some kind of dishonesty? You have a very strange imagination. You seem to take everything I say, even the most innocent possible statement, and try to turn it against me. That seems to be what you do to Percy too, as he is constantly complaining about. Guessing about what? Told you what?

I'd be happy to grant you a point here and there if you all ever granted me even one, let alone the dozen or so I should have had by now.

Good to know. I thought there must be evidence of volcanism somewhere in the UK as the continents broke apart right there. Cross sections of Ireland I've found at Google Image are only partial or identified as "England and Ireland." I suppose that shows similarity of the strata, at least, which would mean they were all laid down before being tectonically deformed just as England's were. In which case, again, it's odd it didn't happen when the rifting occurred. But of course it's quite consistent with the interpretation that the Flood laid them all down and then the tectonic disturbances occurred afterward, not during some mythical "time period" imposed on a section of the strata. How on earth could you possibly determine that the organisms found in higher limestones descended from lower? You have absolutely no way of knowing that, it is merely an assumption based on the ToE that this must be the case. Anywhere in the fossil record variations on the same Kind are found there is complete lack of anything to indicate which evolved from which. Trilobites for instance occur at various levels, and their variations appear to have been segregated just like so much else in the strata, but for all you know the lower could have evolved from the higher, you can't possibly know for sure.Evolution within the Kind is of course the likely explanation for the many different kinds of organisms in the limestones and for the many different kinds of trilobites, but there is no real justification whatever for assuming the higher descended from the lower, it's all based on the seeming order in the fossil record overall.But that order is pure fantasy. Evolution from Kind to Kind is another thing altogether from evolution within the Kind. There is no real basis for putting mammals above reptiles or for any other ordering in that fantastical scheme of supposed faunal succession. I do have the advantage of knowing for sure that mammals and reptiles were created at the same time of course, and the whole collection of fossils in the entire geological column too, whereas you are limited to your fallible imagination. No, I don't know why various creatures got grouped together in the Flood, but I know that they did and that the seeming order is an illusion. I also know from my own argument about population genetics, that developing new varieties or species requires the loss of genetic diversity, mutation contributing nothing to reverse the trend, only to slow it down or muddy it up, that evolution of different varieties and species is limited to the Kind and becomes less and less genetically possible as evolution proceeds, so that the idea of getting a mammal from a reptile even in hundreds of millions of years is physically impossible. There are lots of other reasons why the idea is impossible too, such as the rapidity of evolution which would take every creature to extinction in much less than a million years. And again the silliness of their all being encased in a specific kind of rock. You really should be able to see the silliness of that.Again, we don't know exactly HOW the segregation of the species occurred in the Flood, but we do know that the standard ToE explanation are absurd and impossible, AND the only "evidence" you have for it is sheer imagination, you have no REAL physical evidence for the fossil order. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

SO nice when I agree with the facts isn't it? I surmised this from the volcano icons on Google Earth some time ago. Lots of dead volcanoes along the Atlantic rim. Not millions of years ago, though, just a few thousand. This is a scurrilous tactic of yours that ought to earn you some moderator rebuke. If you are going to claim I'm wrong about something it's your job to prove it.Google, Wikipedia: "The principle of faunal succession, also known as the law of faunal succession, is based on the observation that sedimentary rock strata contain fossilized flora and fauna, and that these fossils succeed each other vertically in a specific, reliable order that can be identified over wide horizontal distances. "Nothing about this that I don't get.

Correction: For "descended from" substitute "evolved later than."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.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.