Is Evolutionist Disparagement of Creationism Justified?

You would expect that, of course.So why aren't they everywhere in the fossil record? Why do we only find grasses - and grass pollen, for that matter, which should be even more universal - in the upper layers of the fossil record? You've hit it on the head - the "running for high ground" might, as long as you don't think about it, explain the patterns of fossil dispersion for animals that can run, but how does it explain the equally sorted record of plant evolution?

Dinosaurs were the evolutionary ancestors of modern birds. Modern birds and dinosaurs were not contemporaries. That is why you never find modern birds and dinosaurs in the same geographical layer.What we do find in the dinosaur layers are bird ancestors or relatives of bird ancestors (hard to now which for sure) such as archeopteryx. Had modern birds existed at the time of the dinosaurs then they would be found in the same layers with them. But they're not, and that's because modern birds did not exist back then.You're looking for an explanation for fossil ordering, the increasing differences from modern forms with increasing depth of geological layers. The explanation that those best able to flee the encroaching waters would be found at the highest levels is not supported by the evidence. Many slow animals are found in the highest layers, while many fleet footed animals are found in the lowest layers. The sorting isn't by slow versus fast. It also isn't by large versus small, because both large and small animals are found in many different layers. And it isn't by general shape, because carnivores and herbivores and tree dwellers and prarie dwellers are also found in many different layers.Even if it turned out that the sorting precisely matched the Creationist vision with fleet footed and intelligent creatures in the top layers and slow and dumb creatures in the bottom layers with a slow transition in the layers between, there would still be no possible scenario whereby a global flood could accomplish this. You can see this by figuring out what would have had to have happened in order to end up with this type of sorting. The slow and dumb creatures would be overtaken first and buried by the flood. Now they're covered by sediment and the sediment is covered by water. Now it's the turn of the slightly less slow and slightly less dumb creatures to be overtaken. But this area is already covered in water. There is no land left for these slighter better creatures to be running around on and be overtaken by water. The water has already overtaken this region. In order for the slightly less slow and slightly less dumb creatures to be buried in the layer above the slow and dumb creatures, the water must recede, the sediments must dry, the slightly less dumb and less slow creatures must return, and then the region must be flooded once again. And this has to happen over and over and over again in order to correspond to the hundred or so significant layers in the geologic column.Such a scenario doesn't seem reasonable or even possible to scientists, but even if it did it wouldn't matter because as I was careful to point out, fossils aren't ordered by fleetness and intelligence versus slowness and dumbness. What the fossil ordering appears to be telling us is that the longer ago a creature lived, the more unlike modern creatures it was. This is an ordering that flood waters would be unable to achieve.--Percy

Let me understand here. You are the on who says that all of evolution is built upon fancy and speculation? You mean other than the fact that the dinosaurs died in a stream flood is the fact that they are buried in stream sediments? You and Randy should really get together and see what other wildly fanciful scenarios you can come up with. This is great entertainment.

The strata are not time periods to a Floodist. I'm saying the entire "geological column" preserved the evidence of the pre-Flood world, ALL the fossils in ALL the strata, all pre-Flood flora and fauna. That includes the upper layers known as the Tertiary and Quaternary of course.

Since I don't think in terms of "earlier" or "later" I missed the fact that there are no doubt many "later" examples of this same wrist joint. Just wondering which critters all have it in common.

Quite frankly faith, you've descended into the ludicrous with these sorts of arguments.Let me get this straight. Birds are in geologic layers above layers containing dinosaurs because birds were perching directly on the dinosaurs when they were hit by the flood waters?So ALL dinosaurs move to high ground before the flood, and ALL birds perch on dinosaurs as the flood begins. When hit by the massive flood, ALL dinosaurs remain upright as they drown, are washed about, and sink into the sediment. Throughout ALL of this ALL of the birds hold a death grip on the highest point of the dinosaurs, so that they ALL settle into the sediment on top of the dinosaurs. If you really are not kidding about this line of speculation you've just lost some of my respect for your thoughtfulness.You should rethink this idea. It is anything but reasonable, and if these are the ridiculous speculations you must undertake to defend creationism, then perhaps the "disparagement" of the thread title is justified.

I think what Charles is saying is that you are a troll and that the final (premature) giveaway was this quote : The trouble is it can be very difficult to differentiate between the wind-ups of a troll and the mental gymnastics that Creationists/Biblical Literalists regularly seem to perform to try and defend their ideas.

---

Confused ? You will be...

I think I'm making a perfectly reasonable point, showing a fault in evolutionistic thinking and a better explanation of the same facts in creationist thinking. The idea that it violates a particular methodology just doesn't mean much to me. It's either true or false, it's either a better explanation or it isn't. That's all. I really haven't been aware that this is such a big reason for the debates. I know there is a political challenge going on in some parts of the country but for me this is a matter for debate simply because it's a question of truth, it's not political. Maybe it wasn't the best quote to use as far as the evolutionism-creationism dispute goes. It was simply meant to emphasize my view that far from supporting teaching creationism in the schools I believe that Christians should not use the public schools at all, and that's for many reasons, but it certainly includes the teaching of evolutionism.As far as the Constitutional issues go, it isn't right to force creationism on the children of people who don't want them taught it, just as the reverse is not right. This point was brought up in the second link I posted. The only solution is for Christians to leave the public schools. I'd say that just proves it was not a good quote for my purposes. To my mind it includes everything that challenges Christian teaching, which includes evolutionism. It didn't even occur to me that it could be insulting. Please don't take it that way. It is simply a prediction that public schooling would become hostile to Christianity over time, and there's plenty of evidence that this has happened overall, not just in particular ways, particular curricula, but through a whole worldview that is conveyed.

Imo, these similarities found in different species simply imply a common creator....nothing else. What works for one, sometimes works fine for another with some adjustments to suit. Our counterparts have so precious little to work with that they must grasp at things like this for their alleged evidence.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

Yes, it was an unfinished thought, needing to connect the birds with the dinosaurs on the high ground, which is what led me to the next statement that they'd have been attracted to the height of the dinosaurs since everything was seeking high ground. Silly perhaps but actually quite logical. The point of coruse was to explain why they appeared with the dinosaurs on grounds other than order in the fossil record. You think order of appearance in time, I think groupings, place in the strata.IN general, the higher you go in the column the better able was the creature to put off death in the flood, the ones in the top layers then being the ones that succumbed latest. It no doubt also had something to do with opportunity of course - the availability of high ground or trees to climb and so on, competition with other animals as well as the animal's own direct abilities to survive. The size of the dinosaurs would have been in their favor, as would the birds' ability to fly and find the highest perches. Marine animals, amphibians, smaller animals, ground-dwelling animals, would have had the least chance, while big animals, climbers, flyers, speedy and smart creatures would have had the best chance. I understand that you are used to thinking like an evolutionist, but the birds' ability to seek high ground along with the dinosaurs is what associates them in my mind and explains their appearance with the dinosaurs in the strata. Accident of location, absence of availability of high ground, accident of opportunity, competition with other animals for safer places? And this is only a general principle anyway. Some other principle may govern the placement of those you list higher in the strata than the "slower" animals.Lots of possibilities, very logical possibilities.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-25-2005 12:54 AM

Now this may be something. It is sort of an hypothesis: So, lets go on from there. Now, from your hypothesis, make some predictions. If the ability to escape rapid flooding would determine the relative positions in the strata, what would you expect to see? Let's see... It seems to me that a very fast predator, say one of the many bipedal predatory dinosaurs, would be better suited to this task then, say, a mouse. So, one might expect to find bipedal dinosaur fossils in higher strata then mice.Is that the case? If it is you have some support for your hypothesis. If it isn't, your hypothesis is disproved.I don't know for sure which it is, but I can guess.

Here you are saying the entire rock column (stratagrapic section), or at least a great deal of the column, is (one) flood deposited. The problem is, the rocks of the column show strong evidence of many varieties of depositional environments, including wind blown sands.You are presenting a very convoluted flood model. One that uses every possible depostional environment, from dry land, to rivers, to shallow seas, to deep sea basins, and more. Found in varieties of successive orders and geometric relationships.Time for that "Great Debate" with Jassns yet?Moose

I realize you're swamped, and there's no need for you to respond; I just wanted to make sure my point that this model fails to explain paleobotany was understood. That's why I brought up grasses and other plants in that message - plants, like animals, display a progression in the fossil record, and that progression can't be explained by your "running for high ground" model. That to me is a fatal flaw.

Well that's what I've read. It seems to fit with the abundance of animal life forms in the strata that there was abundance of plant life then too. Because land creatures are represented in the upper layers, marine creatures in the lower. Grass doesn't normally grow in the oceans. I said there were no doubt other principles involved than that, Crash, and I generalized it to ability to survive including accidental circumstances that favored survival. I considered quite a few factors. Size for one. Habitat for another. Also I don't know how much speed would have been required to get to higher places. The rain itself would have been alarming enough, and started them moving. Maybe no great speed was needed. Depends on how soon the water was deep enough to be a threat. Days?As for the plants, where they ended up in the strata probably has most to do with their pre-Flood location on the planet than anything else. In the lower layers are mostly marine critters. Grass doesn't grow in the oceans.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-25-2005 02:24 AM

Just answered you. I didn't confine it to running for high ground though occupying high ground one way or another would have been the only thing that would have conferred safety for the longest periods. Some might already have been on higher ground. Some could climb trees, others couldn't. Etc. The dinosaurs' very size would be an advantage. Etc.And where plants ended up doesn't seem like a big problem to me. The idea of primitiveness is just a prejudice anyway. Do they grow on high or low ground would be a consideration about where they ended up in the strata, what kind of root systems do they have. Also where on earth they grew in most abundance would have to do with those being represented in some parts of the Geo column and not others. I'll have to think about this more tomorrow.Don't be overeager to see the model go down in flames. It's a model in the making.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-25-2005 02:32 AM