Fish on the Ark?

quote:

---

I should point out (though it may be off topic) that the common creationsit model uses runaway subduction and catastrophic plate tectonics, as well as an enormous amounts of volcanic activity as the primary (next to God) cause of the flood.

---

In reply it should be pointed out that while this may be - generously - called a theoretical possiiblity - there is a lack of evidence that it actually occurred.

quote:

---

Even by evolutionry standards the fossil record seems to indicate that the deep sea creatures where buried first, followed by the shallow water creatures, then the larger land animals.

---

This isn't really true either. The most that can be said is that in the earliest fossil-bearing deposits we only find aquatic life. We go on finding aquatic life throughout the fossil record. The life we find changes, of course, but that changes don't seem to be based on habitat or anything else that would fit with a flood explanation.I didn't have time to do a detailed check on your list of out-of-place fossils, but one example mentions reworking in the title of the original paper ! Reworking is where existing fossils have been eroded out of the strata where they were originally formed and ended up in a newer stratum. As I understand it there is usually evidence that this has occurred - which would represent another difficulty for a Flood explanation.And I'll add that the criteriafor a "living fossil" are looser than you seem to think. The living coelacanths are not known at all from the fossil record. They're not even in the same genus as known fossils. So how can they be said to be "unchanged" ?

quote:

---

Not true there is plenty of evidence, but off topic.

---

Well it must be pretty new because last I heard there was none at all. When I first came here the creationist focussing on it - and he was better informed than most creationists - was sticking to evidence for ordinary plate tectonics - which, of course, doesn't support the catastrophic element at all.

quote:

---

Hince an obsevation that seems to support a global flood, that even when we find land animals they are generally buried with water borne creatures.

---

No more than is expected, based on the fact that water is pretty good at burying things.

quote:

---

The evidence for both sides is the same only the starting presuppositions are different.

---

Except for the evidence that the creationists have to ignore. Or misrepresent.

quote:

---

. Evolutionist claim that the geological column was greated over hundreds of millions of years, however there is a large amount of observational data that indicates otherwise, but I don't see evolutionists throwing out their theories just because some of the evidence doesn't fit.

---

I've had this discussion before. One side - the old earth view (which some creationists - such as Hugh Ross - accept) has the bulk of the evidence except for rare anomalies, mostly unreliable. The other side seems to only have rare anomalies - there is no "large amount of observational data" supporting a young earth. Or is this something else so new that almost nobody has heard of it ?

quote:

---

Yes well it is an old list if you didn't notice. It was compiled in 1984 I believe and needs to be revised, I'm fairly certain some more OOP fossils have been found to add to the list to take the place of any that have been relagated to 'reworking'.

---

I didn't say that an example was "lost". I said that the reference given in the list itself attributed the fossils to reworking. It's not a case of new information turning up - it's information that was used to compile the list in the first place !

quote:

---

as for you asertions on Coelacanth: coelacanth has remained unchanged for millions of years but in fact the living species and even genus are unknown from the fossil record.

---

So how do you know they've remained unchanged for millions of years ?

quote:

---

You are speaking of specication not genus

---

No, AFAIK they're not even classified as being in the same family.

quote:

---

as my earlier post pointed out evolutionary ideas concerning genus/phyla/family are faulty and is at best a smokescreen for trying to provide proof of evolution

---

You mean biologist's ideas - going back to Linnaeus.

quote:

---

The history of the earth as outlined in the Bible agrees with both conclusions. IOW c. both a. and b. a. being Eve, and b. being Noah's wife and the wives of Noah's children.

---

Even your 'b' option proposes an implausibly low population - and you've only got 2000 years to get any significant variation between the 4 women you mention. We should be seeing signs of a severe genetic bottleneck if you were correct.

quote:

---

Until believers in uniformitarianism can provide evidence of their previous state of physics, there is no reason to assume that the uniformitarian principle is true.

---

Astronomy provides pretty good evidence. Indeed the fact that we don't find more inexplicable data in geology is good evidence too. And the idea that the laws of physics just happened to be different in a way that made a global flood look like hundreds of millions of years (or more !) of ordinary geology is not exactly likely.

quote:

---

And DrAdiquate down there has just demonstrated the tendancy for evolutionists to arbitrarily discount anything that a creationist says by attempting to deny that we have observable evidence in place of made-up nonsense. However in so doing he has just refuted PaulK concerning water being good at buring things, and natural selection and speciation.

---

I don't know how you drag natural selection and speciation in here. Even on water we basically agree that there is no excess of water-related fossils - and you aren't providing any reason to think that there is.

quote:

---

PS to PaulK for a general introduction to Catastrophic Plate Techtonics please see Dr. Baumgardner's articles for the CPT forum

---

Much of them is arguing for plate tectonics. There doesn't seem to be much arguing for catastrophic plate tectonics and what I can see that does try doesn't seem that convincing. Further discussion is off-topic but I see no reason to change my assessment.