Fossil Sorting in the Great Flood Part 2

quote:

---

You must back up your statments. You must show evidence and logic if you wish to be taken seriously at all. You have nothing so far.

---

Come to think of it ol boy, what have you provided so far? Perhaps you think it was something? I must have missed it, except for the ol mantra of how high and mighty and big and infallable your geo masters are! Then of course, you gave us your edict. Sweet.

quote:

---

It is very clear that some creation believers are daft. Perhaps even a large fraction of them.

---

Glad you use your own words at times.

quote:

---

We, with a HUGE number of samples draw well supported logical conclusions about the nature of the geology of Earth.

---

Granted there is a pattern, but I don't give granny bacteria credit for it as you do. Omitting way over, as you admit yourself, 99% of the evidence, and then issuing your edict about 'no exceptions' -basing it almost all on evolving from granny bacteria, throwing out the bible with the flood water, and calling 'nearly all' of your opponents "daft" you have made your bed, so lie in it.

Linking to a page full of unsupported assertions is worse than your previous habit of unsupported assertions.I note that the author of that page has no scientific credentials or experience. Lubenow's pretty ignorant; he thinks that species must succeed each other with no overlap, and if Home Erectus survived until relatively recently that means that Homo Erectus cannot be ancestral to our species. Hogwash, of course; ancestral species can, and often do, survive to be contemporaneous with descendant species. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/lubenow_cg.html for more discussionof Lubenow.But the Kow Swamp fossils are not Home Erectus. See Creationist Arguments: Anomalous Fossils and Kow Swamp: is it Homo erectus?. Good old Henry and his fantasies! That's why we brought up grass. Does grass live only at high elevations? Did grass run faster than dinosaurs? Where do rabbits live?I'll just respond to one of your "Gish Gallop" spray of unsupported claims: References, please? The Grand Canyon claim of Burdick (who was too sloppy and dishonest for even most creationists to stnad) was contamination; see Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that... and Re: How many creationist geologists.

The facts have all ready been referenced by others who are more expert than I. I suggest that you have a look at Bill's contribution. Message 258You have managed to read that very wrongly haven't you? The 99% of the evidence isn't omitted. It isn't evidence yet because it hasn't been found. What you are trying so hard to ignore is the huge amount of evidence that is there. (pointed out again above).Once again, you have brought up things which no one else has done yet. The granny bacteria are not part of this discussion. We are simply asking you to show how the flood produced the order we find. We are not saying anything (yet) about evolution.

Your suggestion to look at Bill's post---I looked up the biostratigraphy
"The application of plant and animal fossils to date and correlate strata in order to elucidate Earth history, combining the principles of paleontology and stratigraphy. In the petroleum industry, biostratigraphy often denotes the use of terrestrial (pollen and spores) and marine (diatoms, foraminifera, nannofossils) microfossils to determine the absolute or relative age and depositional environment of a particular formation, source rock or reservoir of interest. "
Oh, wow. What a sick joke this is! Use of assumed evo'd plants and animals to date the world!!!!!!!!!!!Ha--- You gotta be kidding..no one brought up granny, you say? Nonscense.

quote:

---

The 99% of the evidence isn't omitted. It isn't evidence yet because it hasn't been found.

---

Yes, couldn't you figure it out, this was what I was refering to. In other words, of the entire crime scene of the world, a small fraction of a percent has been looked at, and from this totalitarian conclusions etched in stone. Conclusions based on good old assumptions on those plants and animals as to age. So far, you got nothing. Only statements of faith.

quote:

---

Does grass live only at high elevations? Did grass run faster than dinosaurs? Where do rabbits live?

---

Speaking of grass, is it a possibility at all, that grass pre flood did not use pollen as a reproduction method?
The post here was to use creation science sources to show there is doubt that there are no exceptions to the fossil record. We could go deeper, but many really seem to feel it is not a perfect sacrosanc order as Ned's edict procalaimed.

If I understand you, the Flood destroyed all of the Land Life but not the Marine life? Is that correct?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Far as I know, yes

Ok.Then the record left that you and I were discussing regarding the Marine Species must be due to something other than the alleged great wetting that never happened.And there we find that the layers are as predicted by the TOE. We find marine dinosaurs with marine dinosuars but we never find marine mammals in the same layers. Never. Not once. Never, Nyet, No How, No Way.So despite all your dreams of the great wetting that never happened, the records show the same thing whether we are looking at marine mammals, land mammals, marine dinosuars, land dinosuars.If you want to continue believing in the fiction of the flood, then fine. It hurts no one but you.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

We find marine dinosaurs with marine dinosuars but we never find marine mammals in the same layers

---

So then, in the little we dug up so far, then, it seems the pattern would be that the dinos (you say are marine) hung together, and tended to get buried and fossilized together. As did the marine mammals. Is this supposed to be real shocking or something?
I had a funny little thought. If the vibes were going out through the world that the creator had to destoy dry land life (and a good portion of the sea life that got caught in it's phases, mudslides, etc) maybe instinct kicked in, and creatures had an urge to be together!!!! This would tend to give us a pettern of these creatures buried together, no? Instinct is a wonderful and powerful thing! Creatures come equipped with amazing complicated programs that kick in as needed. Certainly didn't evolve with such a nice program package included! Wonderful!
By the way, granny bacteria believers, how is it that woman was supposedly made? Did man have to wait millions of years, using his hand for more than plowing? Or was it a woman granny provided us with first, and she had a virgin birth?

quote:

---

So then, in the little we dug up so far, then, it seems the pattern would be that the dinos (you say are marine) hung together, and tended to get buried and fossilized together. As did the marine mammals. Is this supposed to be real shocking or something?

---

Then you will have to explain to us why we find marine mammals with marine fish and shellfish, etc. in the same environment today but not in the past...

quote:

---

I had a funny little thought.

---

Congratulations. However, most of your thoughts seem kind of funny. The question is can you back them up?

quote:

---

If the vibes were going out through the world ...

---

'Vibes?' Please explain the biblical reference to 'vibes'.

quote:

---

...that the creator had to destoy dry land life (and a good portion of the sea life that got caught in it's phases, mudslides, etc) maybe instinct kicked in, and creatures had an urge to be together!!!!

---

That explains everything: you are a sixties throwback. How about a little chorus of Kum-Bah-Yah?

quote:

---

This would tend to give us a pettern of these creatures buried together, no?

---

All you need is love, er, I mean evidence!

quote:

---

Instinct is a wonderful and powerful thing! Creatures come equipped with amazing complicated programs that kick in as needed. Certainly didn't evolve with such a nice program package included! Wonderful!

---

Interesting assertion. What is your supporting evidence?

quote:

---

By the way, granny bacteria believers, how is it that woman was supposedly made? Did man have to wait millions of years, using his hand for more than plowing? Or was it a woman granny provided us with first, and she had a virgin birth?

---

Is this another funny thought of yours? It certainly has no grounds in evolution. No one here ever said that woman 'was made,' except for you, that is. Please clarify.

Some of us aren't sixities throwbacks. A few of us were actually there on that June 16, 17 & 18th.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, as they say, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". You're attempt at humour, because you don't know enough about the subject at hand only makes you look foolish. However, we aren't talking about the dating yet are we? So why don't you calm down and try to learn a bit before making very silly statments. A "tiny fraction" you keep repeating. However, you don't seem to grasp the totally huge amount of data this is. Just because the total number of all living things that have every lived is a truly astronomical number we will always only have a very small percentage of that number to study. However, that still gives us a very, very large number of individual pieces of evidence. That is what the current understanding is based on.What evidence do you have? Nothing that you've produced so far. Nothing at all. If you found 1,000 items that appeared "out of place" you'd still only have a tiny, tiny fraction of all the available evidence on your side. My goodness you have a very short memory don't you. We haven't talked about absolute age yet have we? What we are talking about is relative order of the laying down of the layers and the fossils in them.We'll get to age another time. You've not been able to handle what we've been talking about already. You'll have a heck of a time with the absolute age measurements when we get to that. If we ever do. You don't seem to be making any progress at all.You have yet to word the issue in your own words so that we can see if you understand what it is you are supposed to explain if you really want to support the idea that a flood did it. So far all indications are that you don't have a clue.Where exactly are the statments of faith? If you're going to make assertions like that you will have to produce them.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-27-2004 12:24 AMThis message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-27-2004 12:26 AM

And one of those links given to you was a creation science source showing that the pollen finds were wrong.Got anything else?We could go deeper? Ok, let's then. What do you have?Maybe you should also summarize what you've given so far in case we missed anything.

Where "woman" came from is NOT part of the topic of this thread. There will be NO red herrings dragged across the path.nice try though, Ark

quote:

---

No one here ever said that woman 'was made,' except for you, that is. Please clarify.

---

Woman is here then, unmade if you wish. How did man and woman (says evo) come to be appearing together-at the same time? I assume you'd have to say the both evolved at the same time.

quote:

---

Then you will have to explain to us why we find marine mammals with marine fish and shellfish, etc. in the same environment today but not in the past...

---

Do you find many fossilized?

quote:

---

The question is can you back them up?

---

Instinct is not theory, we know about this. It works 4 million ways from sunday. You can provide no reason it was not at play in the deluge.

quote:

---

'Vibes?' Please explain the biblical reference to 'vibes'.

---

Who said the word came from the bible? Why are you concerned with a book who's account of the flood echoed in Jesus own mouth you utterly reject?

quote:

---

That explains everything: you are a sixties throwback. How about a little chorus of Kum-Bah-Yah?

---

Thank you I only meant it to help explain one little mystery that perplexed you confused granny oriented folks. Maybe they sang "whoopee, we're all gonna die" ?

quote:

---

All you need is love

---

Amen, God is love.

quote:

---

What is your supporting evidence?

---

Evidence for instincts in animal world? Come on now, get serious, you aren't really doubting that, unless you are retarded.