quote:
Proph:
Linearity in the fossil record, from simpler organisms on the bottom to more advanced forms on top. For instance.
The fossil record is explained here, basically the record is made of 95% Marine specimens, AiG explains why land animals are found at the top providing evidence for evolution, but this isn't evidence, heres the link:
Where Are All the Human Fossils?
| Answers in Genesis
Scroll down, look at The Nature of the Fossil Record.
Proph, first of all, Creationists have not provided any evidence whatsoever that the Flood occurred. There is absolutely nothing physical in the geologic record to suggest such a thing. I would suggest you take note of that fact first.
Now as for the fossil record:
1. Marine fossils are more common simply because for the entire history of this planet, water has covered more of the Earth's surface area than land. Today, ~80% of the Earth's surface is covered by water. In addition to this, marine habitat is much more conducive for fossil preservation - especially in the shallow marine environment. I am not positive, but I believe a greater percentage of marine life live in the shallow marine environment, mainly because there is more oxygen and light. Additionally, the shallow marine environment is energetic with crashing waves, strong currents, more susceptible to storms, all of which increase the chances of quickly burying lifeless or immobile organisms.
Marine life occurring in this shallow marine environment are dominated by shelly organisms or ones that contain other hard parts (e.g., teeth, and bone), which also, interestingly enough, happen to be the most common fossils in the entire fossil record. These organisms are crustaceans, clams, brachiopods, corals, sponges, etc., and even you must surely understand how easy these types of things can be preserved - especially in that environment.
Now, can you understand why marine life makes up most of the fossil record? And why this is not detrimental to the quality of the fossil record? Snelling is intentionally confusing you about the fossil record. Making it sound worse than it, in fact, is.
As for land fossils, dead organisms are at the mercy of scavengers, the weather, etc. The higher the organism lives in altitude, the more difficult the preservation process, since anything above sea level is generally subjected to weathering and erosion — NOT deposition, which is required for forming fossils. This is why catastrophic events, such as floods, are often responsible for forming great fossil assemblages. Animals can drown, fall into holes (karst terrains) or tar pits, and they can be covered by fast-moving bodies of sand, as well. And in this context, doesn't the paucity of land vertebrate fossils make sense to you?
2. According to AiG, marine fossils would have been among the
first destroyed by the fountains of the great deep breaking open, with the erosional runoff from the land due to the torrential rainfall concurrently burying them. So in effect, we should find marine organisms buried by huge continentally-derived sediments. Not only sand a gravel type sediments, but rocks and boulders! However, I have yet to come across any geological evidence presented by even creationists that shows this. Nowhere in the fossil record is this seen - at least not at the scale required by a global flood.
If this is true, why isn’t it being presented by Creationists? Why didn't Snelling snap a picture of this and place it in the article you linked? Because it’s not there, Proph.
Also according to AiG, mammals are found higher in the fossil/geologic record because they would have been able to move up into the higher elevations to escape the flood. However, we do not ALWAYS find mammal fossils on tops of mountains. In fact, some of the highest mountains in the world, Mt. Everest for one, only contain marine fossils. And those are not even found loosely on the surface as one would expect, but within the rock. Now surely, any mammals living in the vicinity of Mt. Everest would have climbed up those sides to what would have been the most promising place on the planet to escape a flood!
Fact is, most vertebrate fossils found today are in deeply eroded valleys, not on top of mountains. Same goes for human remains! The only human remains found on mountain tops are the occasional hiker, hunter, or murdered ice man. Not the hundred or thousands of people you would expect to find fleeing the flood of the millenium.
3. As for Snelling’s analysis of why there are no human fossils in the flood deposits, it’s just plain hogwash. What about all those other humanoid-looking fossils that have been found? Humans are organic-based animals same as monkeys, fish, and dinosaurs, our bodies decompose the same as other mammals. If you are fiding mammal fossils, you should find humans, too.
[This message has been edited by roxrkool, 08-21-2003]
™ Version 4.2