The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

Your evidence for faunal succession is nothing but the imaginative assessment of plausibility, it is NOT real evidence.And I've given lots of evidence for my various claims. REAL evidence. Lots and lots and lots of it.

Hundreds of miles is still close enough to account for the upended strata as a result of the tectonic forces that accompanied the volcanic action at the end of the Flood, and the point I was making was that those forces did not occur at the point in the laying down of the strata that is said to be when Pangaea broke up but after all were in place which is evident from the cross secttion. The volcanic action described in Dr. A's quote as occurring at the point of the rifting, is of a huge enough magnitude to explain effects hundreds of miles away, not to mention that rifting was going on all over the world at the same time, with attendant volcanism and tectonic joltings. I believe this one event with all its cataclysmic effects accounts for ALL the disturbances we see in the strata everywhere, all the twisted strata, all the mountains etc.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Their existence is not a mirage, but the interpreted timing is a mirage.

Except I don't believe there have been any collisions -- except India of course as it collided with Asia, perhaps some other small events like that but no large-scale collisions that formed continents that later broke up. Otherwise just separations, all of which must have occurred during the end phase of the Flood or soon afterward, one major though complex event including both volcanic eruptions and tectonic movement. It started the continents drifting apart, which they continue to do to this day, slowing down over the last four thousand plus years. Can I prove this either? Not directly. Mostly all I can do is try to show the absurdity of the OE interpretations, and the cross section of England is really good evidence for a lack of tectonic activity at any time except after all strata were laid down, volcanic activity too. Eleven, according to WikipediaWould you please explain what evidence you have of igneous events occurring in a particular time period? The Wikipedia article claims such timing for the eleven they list. What is the evidence that any of them occurred at a particular time as identified by the strata associated with the named Time Periods? And what degree of "deformation and erosion" BETWEEN them can you point to? I see no particular disturbance to any particular layer on the cross section of England: one would expect some pretty dramatic "deformation and erosion" that would distinguish such a layer from the stack as a unit and there is no such thing. Fauna within a Kind can change very rapidly, forming new species within decades or a century or two. And whatever evidence you think shows volcanic eruption during a particular Time Period is probably subject to a completely different interpretation that places all such disturbances after all the strata were laid down all over the globe. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Millions of years is just too absurd on the face of it to account for the formation of different species. Evolution that is actually observed occurs fairly rapidly. It depends on variations already programmed into the genome of each creature or Kind that can form new species when new traits are selected and isolated. The amount of trial and error and death that would have to occur in a million years, let alone the hundreds of millions imputed by the ToE just to get from reptiles to mammals is beyond anything that could realistically occur. You put all your trust in radiometric dating. I don't know why it's wrong but it's obviously wrong.

You posted what you thought were demonstrations of tectonism during the deposition of the strata, but the demonstrations were all ambiguous, and in a couple of cases I was able to show that they wre just as easily interpreted from my point of view. The distortions you identify as disturbance within the strata are just as easily explained as having occurred after all were laid down. Layers above simply removed, exposing the layer in qustion, and why should that be anyway? If the distrubance occurred before the rest of the strata were laid down, why is there no evidence of their having been laid down on top of it? THere is no such evidence in your current example either.

If I saw the examples again I might be able to show contradicting evidence, but the point was that your evidence was ambiguous, subject to other interpretations, not that different evidence was needed but that your evidence wasn't conclusive.One thing that might help is thinking about the direction of the tectonic forces and why they might affect one location but not another. Seems to me the main forces are always coming from the same direction, being the forces that keep the continents moving. Are there others? Seems to me that YOU need to explain how a supposed tectonic event disrupted a particular layer in one location but not others that are nearby.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's nice to know all that information is available, as I thought it ought to be, but unfortunately it's not exactly layman-friendly. To make use of it to study the claims of the fossil record would require a lot of translation of terms for starters.

Bogus comparison of course. Besides, unlike the expertise required to fly a 747, one would think the geology professionals would want the average person to have access to such basic data.

Science is regularly presented to the public. No reason whatever that the fossil record wouldn't be also, at least comprehensive digests of the whole panorama of information rather than the bits and pieces we usually get.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm not in the slightest interested in "taking on" the details of all science. I have a few issues that interest me, and in this case it would be very helpful to have a larger overview of the whole range of fossils discovered and their locations and so on than is usually presented to the public. I know you would like to define for me what I SHOULD be interested in but oddly enough I do have an agenda of my own that you apparently don't grasp.

You are requiring of me far more than is expected of a scientist in any particular field.Also you obviously have no idea of my agenda, why I prefer particular arguments over others.

That is an unfair requirement when the point is a very limited point that does not require extensive knowledge of a whole field. But of course unnecessary and extravagant requirements serve the goal of defeating the creationist by hook or by crook.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I would like to be able to see how the claim of the fossil order holds up across all the evidence, not particularly for the sake of my own arguments, however. I'm glad to know the information is out there, but I don't think I'll be able to sort through it to answer my questions.

I wouldn't expect to find anything obviously out of order, but perhaps some gray areas where interpretation makes something fit into the order that's questionable, or perhaps just seeing it all laid out I'd find the whole concept of the order to be iffy. It's all a subjective thing anyway, you know.To be noticed by anyone other than a creationist a fossil or group of fossils would have to be quite dramatically out of the established order, and the tendency would always be to fit in an ambiguity rather than consider it as out. Just how likely do you think it is that anyone committed to the established way of looking at these things would want to find something that might overthrow the whole idea of evolution anyway?This idea that they'd be eager to find such a thing doesn't really fly. In the hard sciences, yes, there would definitely be rewards for overthrowing an established theory, but not in an interpretive science like evolutionism and Old Earthism. abe: And that's because most anomalies and contradictions can be rationalized away. Even the supposed falsification of finding a rabbit in Precambrian rock would just be rationalized away, not allowed to be the falsification everyone claims it would be.Over and over in the debate here it's just one interpretation against another, because that's what this science is made of, interpretation. There is rarely the definiteness of the sort of find you get in the hard sciences. You can't fudge the shape of the DNA molecule for instance, you can't fudge its chemical components, but you CAN fudge the meaning of mutations because of their variety of effects and lack of consistency. You CAN get away with supposing a whole era of time from the fossil contents of a slab of rock because there is really no way to prove it one way or the other.I can knock myself out trying to show the absurdity of the interpretation, which I think is eyepoppingly obvious, but I have no way of proving it: you either see it or you don't, and committed evos have no motivation to see it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.