quote:
In fact I hope readers would not read your quote-mine as evidence of me being in a "world" I have created.
Well, let us see.
quote:
The member, "Wibble" was asking us to provide a dog in the triassic as proof of creation. At EFF forum the variations of the "bunny in the Cambrian" canard are repeated ad-nauseam but evolutionists do so without understanding where we are coming from in terms of the hypothetics of a flood model.
That already seems to be a significant misstatement, as can be seen in the quote provided by Tangle.
quote:
wibble, an atheist writes:
The evidence from the fossil record is compelling. You never find modern mammals (such as dogs) in the Triassic, you never find flowering plants (such as bananas) in the Carboniferous and you never find ray finned fish (such as salmon, which include 99% of all existing fish species) in the Cambrian. Etc. etc. etc. You have no sensible answers for these facts that fly in the face of your faith.
The order of the fossil record is indeed compelling evidence against Flood geology and there is no sensible answer.
quote:
That is all that was about, Wibble REFUSES to acknowledge that a creationist person starts with different starting-assumptions to evolutionists pertaining to the rock-record, so then if we found a certain organism in the triassic such as a particular dinosaur species, that still has a mammal in it's stomach for example, to a creationist that might represent a situation where geographical provincialism, and ecological zonation dictates that animals in the pre-flood world were in a certain area contemporaneously at that time. So then the REQUEST to find a bunny living with them is a complete red-herring because as creationists we are not saying that bunnies or dogs lived with dinosaurs in that geographical location when it was flooded and a small portion were preserved as fossils. ( a small percentage)
The fact that creationists do not consider the geological periods to be eras is implicit in the question. It is the reason why we should expect to see bunnies in the Cambrian and the like. So the idea of differing assumptions is right there.
The obvious question arises of how these presumed ecological zones become an order. How do we end up with a coherent assemblage of ecological zones labelled Cambrian, succeeded by another such assemblage called Ordovician etc.? Without an answer to this you have not answered the issue at all.
Not to mention the question of how these ecological zones manage to exclude common and greatly diverse groups.
Let us also note that you are rather selective in your use of silence
quote:
CLUE: In the past the "silence" of certain organisms was argued by evolutionists whereby they assumed that silence meant they did not exist, only later on they were found in earlier layers, such as grass being now found with dinosaurs.
So am I in my own world for suggesting that it is a poor argument to argue that silence in the record means absence of that form when for that period of time when later they have went on to find earlier forms?
But you argue the opposite, in for instance, the case of bats, where you state that the absence of transitional fossils should be taken as evidence of absence.
Obviously there is a balance here. Bat ancestors are a relatively small group, unlikely to fossilise well. Yet bats are a subset of the far more diverse modern mammals. Surely the absence of modern mammals in so much of the geological record - and the fact that they are only found in the later stages - must be considered the more significant of the two. Yet that is only one of the examples given by wibble in the quote and there are many more he could have given.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
