Try out this exercise, sitting in front of fossil distribution data

EdgeYou can play semantics if you like.I stand by my statment that evolution reuires vast ghost lineages as displayed in every fossil distribution diagram which has evoltuionary dotted lines drawn in.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
You can play semantics if you like.

​

I stand by my statment that evolution reuires vast ghost lineages as displayed in every fossil distribution diagram which has evoltuionary dotted lines drawn in.

---

Perhaps you are saying that there must be an ancestor under evolutionary tenets? Is this what you mean? If so, then why do you not need ancestors under a creationist scenario? Where did the organisms that have no known ancestors come from? Aren't you even a bit curious?You see? Evolutionary thinking is used to determine or predict such relationships. If not for evolution, we'd have to say, "Oh well, these critters just poofed into existence in the Jurassic..." Not very intellectually appealing to me, but probably pretty comfortable for an absolutist.

TB

quote:

---

Obviously we will have a betrter idea when we gain a consensus on the flood boundaries.

---

When will you understand that this will never happen? It’s impossible to find the boundaries of a mythological event.TB here

quote:

---

I completely agree with you on the proclaimative nature of our model for the fossil record. I will claim it's early days for us. I personally find flood ordeing plausible.

---

TB to wm scott

quote:

---

No it doesn't, the erosion from highlands and depositon into basins happens with each surge. Our surges correspond to the mainstream epeiric seas

---

You may find it plausible that erosion from highlands and deposition into basins would order the fossils in a way that fits with evolution but I really doubt that anyone not desperately clinging to a long discredited ancient myth would agree.Here is one you left hanging beforeSo you are claiming that these "flood surges" sorted ammonites of approximately the same size and shape by the complexity of their shell sutures. How did that work? Were these the same surges that carried trillions of tons of sand hundreds of miles?It’s here.
EvC Forum: Flood sortingYou didn’t do too well here either.http://EvC Forum: Fossil Ordering Re-Visited -->EvC Forum: Fossil Ordering Re-VisitedThe fossil record cannot prove evolution but it is clearly consistent with evolution and totally inconsistent with the myth of the worldwide flood. It is another member of the long list of flood myth falsifications that YECs can't deal with.Randy

EdgeIn our sceanrio the created kinds diversified via microevolutionary processes, presumably before and after the flood. The flood itself gives only a snapshot view of life via the geo-col, not a time series.

RandyI stand by my expectaitons and evidences.I can easily imagine the flood approximately sorting ammonites by fine details and biogeolgraphy. I wont claim any proof though.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-13-2003]

Ammonites, hydrologically sorted by fine details of their sutures that are wholly internal? As in not visible on the outside? Some flood, TB!!

Ammonites, hydrologically sorted by fine details of their sutures that are wholly internal? As in not visible on the outside? Some flood that must have been!Speak to me on the carbon dioxide calculations in the "General Flood Topic" thread, would you please, TB?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
In our sceanrio the created kinds diversified via microevolutionary processes, presumably before and after the flood. The flood itself gives only a snapshot view of life via the geo-col, not a time series.

---

Oh, then you have ghost lineages, too! But yours are short. So where are your transitionals? And why is it then wrong to look at the fossil record as a snapshot?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I can easily imagine the flood approximately sorting ammonites by fine details and biogeolgraphy. I wont claim any proof though.

---

You mean you have 'ghost mechanisms' in addition to ghost lineages?And why do we have to have proof while you need not claim any yourself? Seems like you are kind of stacking the deck here, TB.And we are not talking about approximate sorting here. We are talking 100% precise sorting...

quote:

---

I can easily imagine the flood approximately sorting ammonites by fine details and biogeolgraphy. I wont claim any proof though.

---

How do you sort by biogeography when you require great masses of water washing down sediments from high ground and transport of those sediments in some cases over long distances? When one of your claims falsifies another as here you should realize that your whole thesis is fatally flawed.
Randy

Read my past post Edge where it is fully explained there and should be obvious to you if you thought about our scenario for a second or two.

CoragypsI also mentoned biogeogrpahy I seem to remember.

Randy Our scenario definetely predicts the marine, wet-land, coastal, in-land, highland orderings roughly consistent with the evidence. Sea-floordwelling species will be buried lower than mobile species.

EdgeAll the fossil reocrd shows is that each group starts at one point in the geo-col and ends at another. It is entirely possible that a global flood could do this. We simply don't know for sure and probably never will. Over the years I would certainly expect the creation model to make more precise preictions and I of course would hope that these match the data.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Coragyps

​

I also mentoned biogeogrpahy I seem to remember.

---

You may have, but I didn't. I was commenting that it would by pretty clever of a flood to know how to sort animals that were essentially identical on the outside, and differed only in patterns on the inside of their shells. Possibly even extremely clever.