Which view makes sense of the fossil record ?

Faith claims - for reasons yet unstated - that the explanations offered by mainstream science for the fossil record are "weird" and "ridiculous".The purpose of this thread is to investigate the question of which is "weirder" and more "ridiculous" - Faith's explanations or those offered by science.As an opening point I want to consider the order of the fossil record.Faith has to sweep this under the carpet because it is so damning. Yet it is a pervasive feature of the fossil record as a whole and any explanation which ignores it or cannot reasonably account for it must be considered seriously deficient. It is not just crabs and trilobites, it is sauropods and hippopotami, dolphins and icthyosaurs, confucisornis and ravens and doves. And so many more.Even without considering evolution (which further helps explain the order) the view that the order in the fossil record is explained by change over time in the species inhabiting the Earth (i.e. different species at different times). There is nothing obviously unreasonable about this and further evidence only supports it.What alternative can Young Earth Creationism offer that is anything like as sensible ?

Thread copied here from the Which view makes sense of the fossil record ? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Yea, the interesting thing is that this sequence of progression was largely worked out before Charles Darwin conceived of his theory. Lyell published Principals of Geology in 1830 - 33 and Darwin published On the Origin... in 1859. Contrary to typical creationists accusations, Darwin's ideas were influenced by Lyell's observations, not the other way around. The sequence of fossil progression was not developed based on the assumption of evolution. I think that is pretty compelling support.However, YECs have to assume that all those creatures lived contemporaneously (which creates another set of problems). But to them, fossils are only dead things that are stuck in a piece of rock, not a progression through time. So the order which they are stuck there only gives the illusion of progression. What is unfortunate is they feel the need to explain the entire fossil record as being caused by one single cataclysmic event in a naturalistic, non-miraculous way. Of course you know what some of the standard arguments are; hydrodynamic sorting, some creatures could swim, some could run to higher ground etc. So they can mix and match whatever suits the particular whim at the time. There is just no objective explanation for the fossil order from a YEC point of view and don't expect one to be forthcoming. They require ambiguity to maintain their position. Not true. She has stated her reasons many, many times.In all fairness though, I sometimes have trouble visualizing millions and millions of years. It is hard to imagine a world so different from ours going on and on for hundreds of millions of years. It is just kinda mind boggling. But it certainly makes more sense than all that activity happening in 6,000 years. If YEC claims were more like "the earth is young, closer to a million years old rather than 4.6 billion", I might be more inclined to lend it some credence, but it's harder to wrap my head around 6,000 years than it is an old, old earth.HBD

It can be shown and proved by deduction alone that an "order" especially a generally established order, because it is fixed means that logically it is not possible to alter the arrangement, NO MATTER WHAT THE ARRANGEMENT MEANS.So if you create a meaning that is posteriori, I can't refute your model. Example, let's say that I say that the fossil-order represents creatures that existed, and none-found ones, did not exist. (Argument from silence).Yet the coelecanth and whales exist today, but are not fossilized together. Indeed, sometimes organisms will be found in eras they were thought not to exist in, (failed predictions/failed models).Because the, "order" is already established, I can't refute ANY theory that incorporates the order, logically. (read the blog entry for more details)Creation and evolution views: The Fossil OrderSo the order itself, can't be conflated with a particular explanation of that order, as though the order represents the explanation.The fossil "order" represents the fossil order. Association with the order, like "guilt by association" is NOT "success by association" EITHER.I think part of the problem with people at a forum like this is they tend to concentrate on the one creationist that is present on the forum and perhaps not read the latest items of interest and news given by official Creation-scientists such as the PHDs at Creation.com that have covered these issues quite in depth. So then the one outnumbered creationist, perhaps not able on their own to cover every issue, is deemed to represent ALL creationists. But that's not fair, we can't expect Faith to represent the official scientific explanation given by Creation scientists. The scientists at places like creation.com, have given extensive answers. But it's hard to get evolutionists to read those answers given they don't value anything we say, and have already concluded we are wrong about everything we say.what tends to happen is people at forums like these will take the representative creationist argument by the one creationist member, as the "best" argument from creationists. That way, politically, the evolutionists guarantee themselves a victory by omission. They might do this innocently, unwittingly, or on purpose, but it is so.Faith is just one member, not the official, relevant PHD expounder of Flood-models. If you want to know more (readers), go to creation.com they have over 8,000 articles, in depth, many of them covering these issues completely.These are my views, I won't take Faith's position, to be honest I prefer to give my views at forums like this, and then let people decide for themselves. I'm sure you will enjoy the last word, if that pleases you.All the best.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

That's a way out-of-date view that amazes me. Haven't you heard of the Pre-flood and Post-flood boundaries? Scientists at CMI have been giving their views about the boundaries for YEARS. I can't believe you are this mis-informed about what we believe!Read my blog-entry link in my previous post. Indeed the fossil record was known, that's the point!!!!Defining the Flood/post-Flood boundary in sedimentary rocks - creation.comObviously as Oard mentions, our own ignorance is at play.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Have you ever read any of Faith's posts?

As for the various creation websites, I have read almost everything they have posted concerning radiocarbon dating.Those sites can't even agree among themselves, let alone come up with any coherent explanation of why the method is inaccurate.The reason they can't agree among themselves is that they are doing apologetics, and no evidence is required. Their explanations just have to sound good enough to fool their flocks. And each other.

That didn't make sense. I'm not sure what that means either.But you could easily refute the model by finding a rabbit in the Precambrian. That's even become a cliche. But you can: Just find a fossilized modern organism in an ancient fossil bed. That page is unavailable. What do they say? I don't believe that at all. I have no political affiliations, but I can and do refute creationist arguments. I don't come here to just go to other place. I come here to talk to people.So what are those best arguments? What do the creationists have to say about the fossil record?

I had an encounter with Faith. I can't vouch for what Faith says, only what I have read Creationist-Scientists say and I say. i have read some of her posts but they were not to me.I don't want to judge or misrepresent Faith here, or make ad hominem comments about Faith, but if you read my thread about "Help with Probability" I had an encounter with Faith maybe three pages from the last page. I would be very grateful if you could read my comments as we were debating each other in that thread, so perhaps you should judge for yourself.We have made friends now, but obviously creationists can disagree and there is a level of education that exists, that must be observed. The PHDs at creation.com, I treat as the official creationist arguments of the day, personally, rather than seeing particular members we come across, as THE standard by which we are all judged.For example I've learnt a lot from the likes of Jonathan Sarfati PHD and Chess-master, a brilliant chemist that has an extensive knowledge of a variety of subjects.I myself try not to "play the scientist". I can only comment about things I have knowledge about.

quote:

---

It can be shown and proved by deduction alone that an "order" especially a generally established order, because it is fixed means that logically it is not possible to alter the arrangement, NO MATTER WHAT THE ARRANGEMENT MEANS.

---

I'm really not sure what that is intended to mean. It seems to say that it is logically impossible to shuffle a deck of cards. But I very much doubt that that is what is intended.

quote:

---

So if you create a meaning that is posteriori, I can't refute your model. Example, let's say that I say that the fossil-order represents creatures that existed, and none that are not found, existed. (Argument from silence).

---

This is more confused rambling.

quote:

---

Yet the coelecanth and whales exist today, but are not fossilized together. Indeed, sometimes organisms will be found in eras they were thought not to exist in, (failed predictions/failed models).

---

Which would be relevant if we were dealing with theoretical predictions rather than provisional conclusions based on the available evidence - which are quite properly revised as more evidence comes in.

quote:

---

Because the, "order" is already established, I can't refute ANY theory that incorporates the order, logically. (read the blog entry for more details)

---

This seems absurd. It is of course possible to refute theories that incorporate facts. Even if the theory successfully accounts for those facts it does not follow that it can even account for all the known facts within it's scope, let alone those that will be known in the future, nor does it mean that there is no theory that better accounts for the known facts.

quote:

---

Creation and evolution views: The Fossil Order

​

So the order itself, can't be conflated with a particular explanation of that order, as though the order represents the explanation.

---

Of course it is quite clear that this is just a silly strawman.If the theory is the best explanation available for the facts, then those facts are evidence for the theory. Simple, easy. and no conflation involved.

quote:

---

The fossil "order" represents the fossil order. Association with the order, like "guilt by association" is NOT "success by association" EITHER

---

That would depend on the nature of the association.

quote:

---

The scientists at places like creation.com, have given extensive answers. But it's hard to get evolutionists to read those answers given they don't value anything we say, and have already concluded we are wrong about everything we say.

---

Mikey, nobody is stopping you or Faith from using them as resources. But going out and arguing with random websites is hardly a good use of this forum. It's about discussion - and claims made on this forum are much more likely to lead to discussion than claims made on the web page of somebody who probably never comes here.

quote:

---

what tends to happen is people at forums like these will take the representative creationist argument by the one creationist member, as the "best" argument from creationists. That way, politically, the evolutionists guarantee themselves a victory by omission. They might do this innocently, unwittingly, or on purpose, but it is so.

---

And Mikey offers yet another strawman.

quote:

---

Faith is just one member, not the official, relevant PHD expounder of Flood-models. If you want to know more (readers), go to creation.com they have over 8,000 articles, in depth, many of them covering these issues completely.

---

Faith is responsible for supporting her own claims. Nothing you say changes that. You are quite free to make your own arguments using the articles you claim to have knowledge of as support - and so is Faith. And nothing you say changes that. So really your objections are both dishonest and improper.

Okay. Pollen. Cockroaches.Again, you haven't read my blog-entry, so you are offering me a Red-Herring. The only reason you can make that request is because of a sleight-of-hand. But you won't understand the sleight of hand until you read the blog-entry I gave Paul K a link to.Fossils wrong place - creation.comFossil pollen in Grand Canyon overturns plant evolution - creation.com I'm sure you do, but the term, "creationist" can mean Jane that has never opened a book before, or a fully qualified scientist. I suspect Faith would admit she is not a fully qualified Creation scientist. Fair enough, but at least hear me out please. The blog-entry shows why the request to find a human in the Cambrian is a Red-Herring because the fossil record have never belonged to Charles Darwin. Because certain animals are found in certain places, it's a rigged game, you already know that I don't have the ability.I drawn a diagram in that blog entry to show the trick you are playing, whether wittingly or unwittingly. But you will have to use your considerable thought-power to understand my points.

quote:

---

That's a way out-of-date view that amazes me.

---

But it is Faith's view.

Your first link has nothing about out-of-place fossils, and reveals a misunderstanding of "living fossils".The "fossil" pollen was collected by the spectacularly incompetent Burdick and has been long debunked. E.g. CC341: Out-of-place pollen asa: Precambrian Pollen. PRATTs are boring. It does no such thing. A rabbit in the Cambrian would be a major problem for evolution.Since you know so much about the fludde, what is the consensus of all these creationist PhDs on where the pre-fludde and post-fludde boundaries are?

That wasn't my argument, so this is a genuine strawman. Seems you've read too quickly. My point was that once you attach your theory to something that can't be refuted, it is easy to then conflate the theory with the facts themselves.It is quite common for evolutionists to use the fossil record as evidence for evolutionary-order, by matching it to the fossil "order". But the fossil order has nothing to do with evolution.For example, Darwin was not going to argue that humans are the ultimate ancestor of all lifeforms, or vertebrate fish. That would contradict the fossil-order. The evolution theory has to match up with the fossil order. so I am very far from confused or rambling. I think it is dishonest and improper for you to suggest I am, given I am far from it. This is an assertion, a bald one. Simple, yes. I agree it is a simple statement.Evolution isn't the best explanation of the facts, and evidence doesn't belong to any theory, if a number of theories will fit the evidence. It's circular. Even if evidence is for the theory as you state, this is of no relevance because of affirmation of the consequent.Even if it was the best explanation, this doesn't mean it is the correct one. You only STATED that it is "quite clear", you didn't prove it, you just asserted it baldly. You really seem to think just stating things ad nauseam proves a great deal don't you? I think it proves you have no answers to the information I presented. Well, since moral-relativity collapses under it's own premises and your worldview shows that morality only exists between your ears, then "dishonesty" and "improper" things can be regarded as giving me some sort of evolutionary advantage, and since having an evolutionary advantage is MY set of moral values, it is illogical for you to believe that these two sins you mention should have value to me, since my values do not incorporate honesty and improperness, as a naked-ape, just trying to survive and pass on my genes. Why should I deem dishonesty and improperness, YOUR morals, as MY morals? If morals are relative, then YOU should incorporate MY morals.On a serious mikey-note, since I am not answerable to you morally, I will not defend myself regarding the "dishonesty" and "improper" statements. You have to prove it is dishonest to request we are not all judged by Faith's standard of posts.But if a defend myself, that will mean I am answering to you, morally, I will dignify your statements by giving a defense, and since I don't see you as righteous, I feel no need to defend myself to a mere sinful man.

That's fine. Faith is also not up to date then, but a lot of creationists such as I and the folk at CMI, incorporate a flood-boundary as a conjectural part of our model. It seems very much as though the evolutionists here didn't even know this, otherwise the blanket-statement would never have been mentioned because it's effectively to shoot ones self in the foot.From your posts you seem to think I am defending Faith. I am not.You forget that I too am a bible-believing Christian that accepts creation, and I reject evolution and at least disbelieve in the millions and billions of years that oxygenates it.