Do creationists try to find and study fossils?

Did you read the attached link before you discounted it? They talk about more than just land creatures.Silly me, of course you didn't read it. Not enough time between postings.You really aren't helping your cause, if you are trying to change the minds of lurkers.

I skimmed the article just now and I don't see where he mentions sea creatures in his discussion of the vertebrates in the Karoo so I still have my question.He goes on later to discuss the abundance of crinoids in limestone formations but then he argues that their abundance on land would not leave room for the vertebrates in the Karoo. Which is strange since they wouldn't have been on the land before the Flood but living in the sea.

He discusses several different geologic formations. Seriously, reading comprehension is important."The Mission Canyon formation in the northwestern United States is part of a truly remarkable deposit."The Mission Canyon formation in the NW US is NOT the Karroo formation found in Africa. But thanks for bringing up the crinoids. Yet another nail in the coffin for flood geology.

"The supergroup consists of a sequence of units, mostly of nonmarine origin, deposited between the Late Carboniferous and Early Jurassic, a period of about 120 million years."
Karoo Supergroup - WikipediaSeriously, a 10 second google search and I found that quote. At least try to make accurate statements. It won't hurt you.

Yes he discusses the crinoids from many locations, but what seems strange is his thinking of them as "covering the earth" before the Flood. Wouldn't they have been in the ocean? They are sea creatures, right?

I'd read about the Karoo some time ago and had the impression it was a deposit of mostly reptilian sea creatures and was going on my memory. So I was wrong.

You seem to be wrong about everything, Faith.That series of reptiles to mammal-like reptiles to mammals were land animals. You know, the fossils of those land reptiles are found in the lower beds and as you go up higher in the stratigraphy you find that series of mammal-like land reptiles which become more mammal- like the higher you go in the stratigraphy then to land mammals in the higher parts of the stratigraphy.Also bear in mind that the stratigraphy of the Karoo Sequence is relatively easy to figure out; those outcrops have been extensively mapped (most areas on a 1:50 000 scale) and there's very little (southern areas) to no (central to northern areas) folding involved. And 60 000 cores of boreholes. We know exactly which bed is above and below which bed.....Again, why do you find those fossils, but no fossils of rhinos or elephants or rats or cattle or sheep or horsies or puppy dogs or house cats or humans in the Karoo Supergroup? Did the fantacy Fluddy miss all those modern animals?Keep in mind that the Karoo Supergroup is in Southern Africa....Again, do creationists ever find, study or publish about their fossils?

I already answered you, you can stop lying now.

quote:

---

Yes he discusses the crinoids from many locations, but what seems strange is his thinking of them as "covering the earth" before the Flood. Wouldn't they have been in the ocean? They are sea creatures, right?

---

If you read in context then it isn't so hard to understand: The point is that the AMOUNT of crinoid fossils found - in this one formation (there are others as the article points out) - are ENOUGH to cover the Earth. There is no suggestion that they actually did cover the Earth (and if they did how could they be gathered into this one formation - and where did the crinoids from the other formations mentioned come from ? Your reading makes no sense).The fact that they could not cover the Earth because they only live underwater only adds to the problem you face.

I was taking into account his further comments which added up to the total that would have "covered the earth," not merely the one limestone formation he first mentioned that would cover the land to a depth of a quarter inch. I certainly knew that he wasn't saying they DID cover the earth.And the point is still that if he is trying to demonstrate that such a huge amount of crinoids could not possibly have been the result of the Flood he can't make the point by picturing them on land (where he pictures that one formation as being enough to take up the room needed by the Karoo vertebrates), because they would not have been on the land but in the oceans where their abundance would not have been a problem. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I was taking into account his further comments which added up to the total that would have "covered the earth," not merely the one limestone formation he first mentioned that would cover the land to a depth of a quarter inch. I certainly knew that he wasn't saying they DID cover the earth.

---

Then what is the point of arguing that they couldn't cover the Earth because crinoids don't live on land ?

quote:

---

And the point is still that if he is trying to demonstrate that such a huge amount of crinoids could not possibly have been the result of the Flood he can't make the point by picturing them on land (where he pictures that one formation as being enough to take up the room needed by the Karoo vertebrates), because they would not have been on the land but in the oceans where their abundance would not have been a problem.

---

Because he's including the seas AS WELL. The entire planet. Really it's not that hard to understand.

Including the VOLUME of the seas? Not as I read it.

quote:

---

Including the VOLUME of the seas? Not as I read it.

---

The typical fossil crinoid lived attached to the seabed. Surface area is rather more important than volume.

Please point out exactly where I lied. Everything I said can be backed up by evidence.

That's a lie; you just made that up. You don't know anything about fluid dynamics.It is pure fantasy that The Flood just so happened to provide the exact right conditions so that the dinosaurs would be fossilized but the more recent creatures would not. Time remains a component, but the conditions will affect how much time it takes. Oh, okay. We've got an anecdote from freakin' 1889. And what is the claim?:

quote:

---

The dripping waters are used for the purposes of petrifying anything sent to be hung up in the drip of the water ledge, which flows over, as it were, the eaves of the cave. This ledge of limestone rock is augmented unceasingly by the action of the waters which flow over it. This cascade has an endless variety of objects hung up by short lengths of wire to be petrified by the water trickling over them,

---

So all the dinosaurs were in caves and strung up by wires to hang in a stream and that's how they fossilized so quickly!?No really: