calling creationists

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Percipient would however be incorrect to say that 'modern' forms are less found with increasing depth.

---

Percipient would be perfectly correct to say it and visit to a natural history museum with a decent fossil collection would confirm out. The deeper the deposition (in general, of course, allowing for disturbances to the stratigraphy) the more unlike modern forms the fossils become. Of course, there are some genera which which fit persistent niches and they can be found in more or less modern form going way back. That is entirely to be expected.
BTW, Percy did not create a circular argument but dates the ages of these forms with radiometric dating. I know you don't trust radiometric dating, but that really is up to you. Percy's argument is perfectly sound, unless radiometric dating is wrong, but that is a different issue on which you have failed to make noticeable progress elsewhere in the forum.[/B][/QUOTE]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ksc:
Of course the fossil record also bears witness to the flood of Noah with the sudden appearance of complex and sophisticated fossils found in the basement cambrian formations with no ancestral linage leading up to them.

---

Where to start? Firstly, the appearance is not quite so sudden as is often made out. Secondly this fantastically efficient "sorting" of organisms by the flood, is quite unbelievable given the complete lack of expected exceptions
and thirdly there is evidence of ancestral lineage. There are clearly homologous structures in a very large number of Cambrian species which indicate common ancestry.[b] [QUOTE]If evolutionwere true then there should be an ancestral linage. The geological record favors the flood. [/b][/QUOTE]The geologic record most certainly does not favour the flood, as was first demonstrated by profoundly Christian geologists many many years ago.