Do creationists try to find and study fossils?

If that's your criteria nothing from Old Earth geology qualifies either because obviously there is no way to prove the conditions existed that either theory argues for, they being in the unobservable past.I can't PROVE that "conditions were suitable after the Flood," but based on the usual idea that the Flood created the strata in which the fossils are found, we can suppose that the conditions were: wet sediments, which if low enough in the column would have been under great pressure from the weight of sediments above, which ought to be ideal conditions for the formation of fossils. The minerals that are involved can be anything, not necessarily limestone but whatever is in the immediate vicinity. The wetness of the sediments would provide the conditions for filling the cavities of creatures with mineralized water which according to Wikipedia is how "permineralization" occurs.Fossil - Wikipedia Permineralization is how most dinosaurs were fossilized.There is no reason this process would take a particularly long time. The mineralized water was present immediately from the encasing sediments.

Yes, the past left evidence, unique evidence such as the bazillions of fossils in the miles deep stack of sediments that has not occurred on such a scale since and never will. It is open to interpretation in a way evidence formed in the present is not because in the present you have similar events for comparison. That is not the case with the prehistoric past. The evidence remains open to interpretation. The same evidence you take to prove evolution I take to prove the Flood and I think the interpretation of a stack of neatly horizontal sediments as eras in time is stupid in the extreme.

I accept that the quote is not there, sorry if I was not clear. You've all shown that the page I linked didn't prove what it purports to prove.I cannot access the article from Percy's link and yours is now taking forever to load what it calls a "preview." If it ever succeeds in loading I'll see if it actually leads me to the article, but again, I accept that the quote is not there since so many have said it isn't.Page is still trying to load.

I can't access your link to Romer's article. Bernd's did finally come up but moving from page to page takes forever. I was able to bring up Taylor's dinosaur book but only a preview which tells me that pages 25 to 63 are not included. Since the quote is on page 28 I still don't get to see it.BUT I'LL TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT. Apparently the links I posted don't prove much of anything. Too bad. I do believe the basic idea is correct, that fossilization does not take aeons of time, but other sources are clearly needed.Austin and Garner have both been discussed before but I'll try to put up a post sketching out the information next.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't respect you either, Coyote. Seems to me you are rigidly adherent to beliefs about dating that you consider to be gospel truth to such an extent that you can't even process the answer that the Flood wouldn't be found in a "layer" at a certain depth, I mean you absolutely cannot process that thought because you are so r8igidly addicted to what you think science tells you.Yes some interpretations are better than others and the Flood interpretation of the sedimentary column and its fossils is far more reasonable than the Old Earth interpretation of the same phenomena, which as I said is stupid in the extreme.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

In other words you don't have a clue how long it takes either. The idea that it takes millions of years is nothing but an artifact of Old Earth assumptions and evolution theory, you have no actual evidence for it. Even if it takes different amounts of time for different kinds of fossilization to occur, there is NO reason to assume great aeons of time. In the permineralization example that is caused by minerals precipitated out of water, if you have bones compressed within wet sediments and all the water-borne minerals needed to do the work why should it take so long? Give it a few hundred years if you want, I don't think it should take that long, even give it a few thousand, you aren't going to need more than that. More likely 50 years would be more than enough. AT THE VERY LEAST, the time since the Flood is MORE than ample for fossilization of ALL KINDS to have occurred.

This has been answered before over and over. First the idea that what is on the bottom is less "complex" is wrong, but as for the general principle concerning supposed "modern" creatures being on the top, which is already a tendentious lie from the ToE, I don't know and neither do you, but the interpretation of successive ages is stupid from so many other angles the Flood interpretation remains far and away the most reasonable. LAND animals appear to have been sorted to the top, that's the main distinction that continues to make sense.

You are trying to make this thread into an all-purpose Flood debate. All this stuff has been answered elsewhere but if you want to bring it up again start a new thread.The answer to your question is that most of those fossils that don't exist are nevertheless within the same Species or Kind of those that do exist as their close cousins. Microevolution has occurred since the Flood acting on the small portion of the pre-Flood genetic picture that survived the Flood. The fossils show us the enormous variety that existed before the Flood.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Then it was exploited by the ToE, so what. The supposed gradation of complexity is rightly disputed as a subjective misjudgment.

On the contrary, I believe I've made a decent case for it. But like all the numbers, that's one you simply pulled out of a hat. There is no reason why it should take more than a few years for any of the kinds of fossilization, hundreds max. No, as I said, it is nothing but an artifact of the theory, there isn't one shred of actual evidence that demonstrates how long any form of fossilization takes. The Flood explains the vast majority of the facts better than evolution; there will always remain some questions, but even those are usually answerable when discussed in some detail and not just thrown at a creationist in passing during another discussion. Again, NOBODY has that kind of evidence of what happened in the prehistoric past, the best that's possible is reconstructing it imaginatively, and what I described is a very likely reconstruction, far more likely than those fantastic scenarios preferred by evolutionists. YOU have no way of studying how a particular layer formed EITHER, it's all pure speculation, so don't give me this "study and evidence" song and dance.IF the strata were formed by the Flood, THEN what I described is extremely reasonable: ...bones compressed within wet sediments and all the water-borne minerals needed to do the work ...Which examples? At the links? But everybody kiboshed those, NOW you want to accept them?Stack of wet sediments, under pressure from the weight of those above, would have a constant supply of water trickling down from the upper levels and running between the layers until the whole stack dried out, and some underground sources may have remained as well. Where are YOUR studies since you insist on studies? You have none. There is no way to study what happened in the prehistoric past, all you have is conjecture just as I do, and mine is very reasonable, can't say the same for yours.

HIGHLY saturated in minerals is exactly what you would have in the scenario I described, from the water seeping through the stack. Why on earth would it seep UPward? But if it did then the same mineralizing would be present only coming from below. Sheesh.

SO SORRY, the guy's name is Paul GARNER, I don't know why I keep getting that wrong. I read a while back that he's going to be studying the Coconino sandstone layer of the Grand Canyon for the next few years but on a quick look at the Biblical Creation Ministries website I didn't find that information again.Studying the sandstone layer doesn't necessarily mean studying fossils. I think he's interested in how some of the layer above has penetrated into the sandstone as I recall, so that may make it irrelevant to this thread. In any case now I can't find where he said he was going to the Grand Canyon.Yes I think the nautiloid studies by Austin are great proof of the Flood, and all the rest of that talk by Garner on the video I linked, but I think Austin's is the only actual fossil study he discusses there.ABE Garner's interest in the Coconino is mentioned on this page but the trip there is not mentioned. Maybe he cancelled it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, Austin is the one who did the research on the orientation of the nautiloids so who else is he going to reference? This is all covered in the video by Paul Garner.I wouldn't give much weight to an article titled Bibliolatry Revisited myself.

Apply your criticisms to yourself where they fit SO well.

Grand Canyon. One mile deep there up to the Permian, a mile deep of sediments chock full of fossils, and counting the layers in the Grand Staircase to the north as well, which would have also originally covered the Grand Canyon but clearly were washed away from that area, it's at least two miles of sediments chock full of fossils. And I've seen descriptions that claim more miles of depth than that in other parts of the world. You do have a habit of making bald assertions while asking your opponents for evidence you rarely supply yourself. Sorry, the evidence supports the Flood, the evidence being for starters that stack of sediments chock full of those fossils that could only have been laid down in such an event, rather than by the Rube Goldbergish scenarios pictured by evolutionists with risings and fallings of sea levels and landscapes somehow fantasized from table-top-flat layers visible to the naked eye. Again, the master of evidence-less assertion speaketh. I'll refrain from calling you what you deserve to be called for that. Funny, that's what it looks to me like evolutionists do. All fantasy, confirmed not by evidence but by group delusion. I surmise not that the Flood CAUSED them but that they accompanied that event and caused the movement of the continents also in connection with that event. Of course it would have done such things on the scale it had to have occurred. Oddly enough I rarely read creationist websites. As for evidence you don't have any either, what you have is your imagination of long ages that couldn't possibly explain the formation of the neat horizontal strata let alone account for the conditions to preserve so many dead creatures. That's all the ToE has, a group delusional acceptance of a really ridiculous fantasy.