Fossil Sorting in the Great Flood Part 2

A specific question may get a specific answer. We've already raised probably scores of different possibilities, it is too general. Now take a certain thing, say Mt Rundle, and then we can look at the fossils there, and likely possibles causes of formation, etc. Then I can say something like there are crinoids and braciopods galore in the nearby formations, fragments of things like sea lilies, & starfish once mud, hardened with lime, and perhaps in an area of the world that was upheaved with continental sliding, choc full of water deposited sedimentary rock, and ancient sea rippled rock, fish, etc.
What exactly is the big concern here?
Is it simply that fossils thought older in evo fantasy land are underneath ones though younger?

quote:

---

No fantasy about it. It's a FACT that the fossil record matches evolutionary predictions.

---

The point of the sentence you quoted was that the evo fantasy sees creatures evolving rather than being created, not in the order they were deposited, by the way. As far as the designed theory matching the fossil record fairly well, it is no surprise.
By the way is this "fact" of the matching absolute? In other words, tere are no exceptions? And then, if an exception were found, the whole thing would burst as false?

quote:

---

You will only find grass pollen at or above the first layer that has grass.

---

So then we should surmise what from this what? Could the grass that existed before the pollen you speak of been reproduced some other way?

quote:

---

What we want to know is if the order of the fossils is not a result of evolution, then how did they get ordered.

---

I mentioned I think Rundle formation. Does this count? I proposed it was not evolution that did it. What specifics are we talking about? Sounds kinda like "come on, explain all fossil order in the world right now, no miracles please"

quote:

---

(younger on top, older on bottom (quit laughing)).

---

Sometimes younger on top, sometimes older on top, you should say.

quote:

---

If God put the fossils in that order through some sort of miracle, why did he make the fossil record support evolution?

---

So now God should have been careful in creation, and the flood not to let anything look like some God supplanting deception theory imagined, that men would swallow near the end of their history. I think the better advice is not to believe the lies, even though some truth is mixed in, to make it believable! I mean, that's a little like saying, if God didn't want me punching my neighbor, why did He give me fists?

quote:

---

And next, you must also explain why we can predict DNA similarities between living species based on what we see in the fossil record.

---

Well, seems to me if the critters in the rock were alive around flood time, they wouldn't be all that dissimilar? The perplexing may come if you assign millions of years in age to them, and then wonder why there are similarities?

quote:

---

Perhaps you could actually show some numbers or data that show how a flood is the only possible explanation for the fossil record.

---

That's like saying maybe a palestinian could show some reason why the land is not just for the jews, or some catholic to show a protestant why he should convert. For the believers in evolution, you can't show them another way, because they prefer to believe in their own religion. Why try? All I can hope for, is some one just was taught that stuff, and might start to wonder if he or she was deceived. For the dyed in the wool, you have chosen your way, and I'll look forward greatly to meeting you personally if I can in the battle of Armageddon!

"reef" "growth positions" could this be subject to interpretation? Critters no longer here? So what? Is that supposed to be uncommon? 1600 feet? a drop in the bucket!

quote:

---

Well, maybe we should check on this. Do you think that fossils in rocks under other rocks are older than any in the upper rocks as long as the whole assembly isn't disturbed? Or do you not think so?

---

It may depend on the deposit, and the area. The big picture. 'appear disturbed' we might say in many cases. "older" meaning what? Drowned first? Depends, get more specific.

quote:

---

You suggest that there was some upheaval. Ok. How is it that this upheaval and all the millions of others left the pattern that we see?

---

How is it that they didn't? Seems like billions of crushed, and broken and fragmented former sea creatures (not to mention dead) comprising a large formation fits ok with a catyclysm?
How is it that the burgess shale sits high up on a mountain? Under it could there be fossils evolution presumes younger? Yes I've heard the convoluted, mind bending mental gymnastics explanation attempts by geologists about it. You might as well say granny bacteria backpacked it all up there. Chance? For someone who seems to suggest life evolved by random happenstance, you would do well to avoid the concept of chance. The numbers are just too utterly ridiculous to really consider it!

quote:

---

Once the order of layers has been determined while making sure not to confuse places where they layers have been torn up and turned over (and, while not a geologist, it seems to me to be pretty obvious when that has happened) then no there aren't exception.

---

That leaves a lot of wiggle room.

quote:

---

And you know there aren't since you haven't been able to get any help with this problem from the creationist sites.

---

Thanks for telling me what I "know" and what help you think I havn't been able to find. I didn't know that.

quote:

---

"Could the grass that existed before the pollen you speak of been reproduced some other way?"
So you agree that the "grass" (all sorts of different plants) existed before pollen producing more modern grass? (note just to avoid it again, I'm not saying how much before just before).

---

As almost anyone would have clearly seen, I simply asked a grass question, not made some big evolutionary ageement in principle! Try just answering the question.

quote:

---

You don't even accept the order of the rock layers???

---

I said older ones are sometimes on top. They are. If you mean an evolutionary old age version of worldwide rock layers, involving great time -what do you think?

quote:

---

LOL, so you aren't going to try after all?

---

What do you think I've been doing, chopping liver?

quote:

---

Absolutely false. Evolutionary theory is supported by data,

---

Selective data with absolutely false assumptions.

quote:

---

Are you then admitting that there is no evidence for a global flood other than your personal beliefs?

---

Are you admitting evolution is supported only by your personal beliefs?

quote:

---

If not, show us the data that can only be explained by a global flood.

---

You can cipher it any way you want.

quote:

---

However, through the fossil record, we know that the lineage leading up to the tasmanian wolf was far removed from the lineage that led to the NA wolf.

---

Fossil record and lineage don't neccasarily jive, I don't think
Besides is it impossible that God made several similar creatures that ended up on different continents after the flood? After all many feel the continents were together at one time.

quote:

---

Sometimes younger on top, sometimes older on top, you should say.
Just like anything in life, there are exceptions

---

Yes, there are. And it can be considered also that their arrangement of the evidence and facts are in error, and that there are less subtle reasons-like maybe it isn't really older!

quote:

---

What we want from you is the mechanism, the "how" so to speak, that caused the fossils to be ordered in a way that supports evolution other than slow deposition over billions of years.

---

If you're looking for support for evolution I can't help you. That simply isn't how we got here.

quote:

---

The longer the span of time, the fewer similarities should be present since mutations will accumulate in separate populations/species. This is exactly what they found.

---

Well surprise surprise! By the by, could there be any other conceivable explanation for why few similarities in trees could exist?

quote:

---

If grass was always around it should be in the same layers as dinosaurs. Why isn't it?

---

What if grass never used to be reproduced by pollen? Is this a possibility?

this post seems to be a reply to one of mine. It quotes something I never heard of, and talks about links which I don't think I've used in a coon's age. Must be some mistake.

quote:

---

I am not sure what that is in regards to, but it is the only piece of evidence that you have even hinted at that would support your position. I was hoping you could expand on this

---

Mt Rundle is just a mountain in the Canadian Rockies. The whole Can Rockies is mostly sedimentary. Mountains consist of formations like the Rundle group, which has some branches like the livingstone formation. Rundle rock in one form or another can be found from the grand canyon to the artic. Like other Rockies formations, it is rich in fossils, especially sea life. Crinoids and braciopods for example. I was looking for a specific area to zoom in on, rather than the worldwide scale all encompassing answers Ned seemed to be crying for.

To be honest, I was thinking about the cosmos. Selective data being ignoring the world of evidence and witnesses for supernatural, and spiritual, such as spirits able to go faster than light-and assumptions like nothing can go faster than our light, and it was billions of years in the travelling etc. Also assumptions like if a fossil is in a rock, using the fossil (assuming it eveolved) to give old age to the rock etc.

quote:

---

Fossil record and lineage don't neccasarily jive, I don't think
They do.

---

Well, if many creatures were killed in the flood and fossilized, what would it have to do with their 'lineage'?

quote:

---

There was a supercontinent that included most of the land mass we see today.

---

Thank you. Now fit that within a framework of time only about 6000 years and you get an idea of the type of disaster the flood would have been!

quote:

---

But we can tell if there has been an inversion separate from the fact that the layers display non-conformity with other geologic columns.

---

So what caused the inversion so that the young rock sits atop older rock? You know you need millions of years to come up with a swallable story for that one!

Yes explain it all, one area at a time.

quote:

---

Go into detail. I would love to hear a few arguments that support your position instead criticizing evolution. Even if evolution is shown to be wrong, young earth creationism still has to be supported by the data.

---

'Even if evolution is wrong'. I like those words. OK lets say it is. Now, support the flood by data is the name of the game. First we have to know what the flood was like. Also we need to know what the pre flood world was like. Do you know these things?

quote:

---

If they were all killed in the flood dinosaurs, bunnies, and grass should all be in the same layer of sediment. Why aren't they?

---

How much of the world have we dug up? .0000000975234133 of 1%? I think a lot of surprises may await! Grass, no one seems to answer my question on, so we'll leave that out. Bunnies and dinos. Hmm, have we looked in the dino bellies as well?

quote:

---

People have already done that. The energy released would have been enough to cauterize the earth 2 times over.

---

Perhaps the tectonic theory is wrong as currently understood? Lets look at this foe a moment. What if say, earth were covered with a lot more water than they think? I don't know, say an extra mile high, or two brought in from deep space? Could this cool things down? What if the sun was say obstructed a lot to cool things? What if there were a lot more water under the continent than imagined? What if the fountains of the deep had shot out air and water, and the plates floated like an air hockey table for a short while? (ha ha) In other words, how seriously did we look at other Godly scenarios?

quote:

---

But you have to admit that it is peculiar that as soon as man starts to measure the continents they are moving at a snails pace

---

NOW, yes of course!!! If they were still racing apart, maybe australia would be as far away as uranus!

quote:

---

OK, we'll deal with them if and when they show up. Until then, deal with the evidence that we have.

---

OK let's continue straining at the miniscule less than 1% knat, and ruling out God with that for now.

quote:

---

Irrelevant.

---

Glad you banged the gavel on that one, your honor!

quote:

---

It would heat things up even more, releasing the potential energy difference between that water in outer space and that water at the surface of the Earth (even if the water were at absolute zero when in outer space).

---

So then if freezing water was brought in from space to cover the world, over 40 days, then this is going to heat things up so much as to destroy life? Really, how does that work? What is potential energy difference?

quote:

---

What if there were a lot more water under the continent than imagined?
"Then it would be terrifically hot and would heat things up even more when brought to the surface."

---

Only if the theories about the earth's center etc were accurate.

quote:

---

Then stopping them would release incredible amounts of energy and ... you guessed it ... heat everything up and kill all life. Also, we would see incrediblly large deposits of crumbled rock where they crashed into each other and when they "set down".

---

Again, assuming the theories about the earth's center etc were accurate. Now Walt Brown's theory of this has it that the continents were lifted up, and slid away from each other near the mid atlantic ridge, and glided to their present position, where mountain ranges were pushed up in the process, and great heat was released, such as in the coastal mountains, where much of the sediment was mixed with magma that bubbled and spewed through volcanoes etc. The continents were said to have sat on some of the subteranean water remaining to reduce the friction, and I believe that the current settling in process is what he says are responsible for earthquakes, especially around the pacific.
This is a very different idea than the tectonic approach. other theories have now surfaced I believe to a fast continental split as well. And I guess I should not even mention the hollow earth folks? ha.

quote:

---

You're right of course, that we only have a very small sample of all living things that have ever been. Even your little percentage there may be an overstatement.

---

Ha, I overstated the little we may know!

quote:

---

There is a consistent pattern in the fossil record

---

This pattern, I have heard has nevertheless some 'out of place' fossils at times?!

quote:

---

I presume than you would want church money to go to vastly increasing the amount spent on paleontological digs.

---

Since you brought it up... I would suggest that all churchs be sold and the money be spent right away on something close to the following. 77% on missionaries. 3% on a legal fund to sue and fight the evo pushers on every front. (and those throwing prayer and God out of learning and everywhere) 4% to the poor. 1% to help rent or secure new meeting places, even if it's just on a beach. 2% for radio and tv preaching the gospel.2% for bibles, and gospel material to give to the world. 3% to disaster relief, with the emphasis on preaching at the same time the gospel. 4% to poor christian families around the world. 5% discretionary gospel war chest to be used as needed. 0% to build new buildings. ! {creation science efforts might get a pittance as well)

quote:

---

...fossil record. You have yet to begin to explain it.

---

Your sweeping general statements may impress some. You have yet to say anything about for instance, the billions of flood fossil fragments making up whole formations I brought up! maybe you just like to hear yourself preach, and gloat over imaginary victories?

quote:

---

Please list the exceptions.

---

What for I don't think you would suggest here that there are none.

quote:

---

I agree there are large beds of fossil fragments. These may well have been fragmented due to water action. What you can't explain is why they are restricted to specific parts of the layers and why they are ordered the way they are. These fossil fragments of yours are just one of the many different layers that exist. They are not uniformly spread, why is that?

---

So you admit to large beds of fossil fragments due to 'water action', good. Uniformly spread? Sorry, I don'rt envision one big wave responsible for all things everywhere, does this surprise you? Do you really think all creation believers are daft?

quote:

---

We have a very small percentage of all possible living things available for study

---

Yes, we know, but the main thing is at least, that you, with the very small percentage, make sweeping Anti Christ creation theories with it. It's not like the little percentage goes to waste!

quote:

---

There are no unexplained, out of place fossils that I am aware of. Therefore, for the time being, there are none.

---

I guess poor little ol me must take that as a sort of near geological expert papal edict, and cower in the shadows now? Tell you what, I'll take a look at you little proclamation, and see if it stands up to a small percentage of scrutiny. Night all.