Let's try a different approach...
This is kinda-sorta how the fossil record looks
If all life appeared on earth at the same time (one week), then we would expect everything we see in the above picture to all be together in the same rock layer (at the same horizontal level)
But we don't see that
I'm obviously no expert. But I would expect crustaceans and to be on the bottom after a catastrophic flood and geological upheaval simply because they would sink fastest.
I would also expect more intelligent mammals and even larger reptiles to avoid drowning longer and also to float longer and to be buried higher up.
I'm obviously no expert. But I would expect crustaceans and to be on the bottom after a catastrophic flood and geological upheaval simply because they would sink fastest.
I would also expect more intelligent mammals and even larger reptiles to avoid drowning longer and also to float longer and to be buried higher up.
"Ecological zonation" is a good idea in flood geology theory that makes scientific predictions that we can test, and that makes it very useful. But unfortunately when we test those predictions they don't hold up, because the fossil record doesn't actually look this way. For example, like you said, we would expect crustaceans to appear on the bottom, but they don't. They're actually more common higher up in the fossil record (see diagram below):
Similarly, we would expect coral reefs to be at the bottom if the fossil record was the result of a one year global flood. But in fact we find coral reefs throughout the fossil record. There are six major types of reef communities that occur at different levels in the fossil record (see red on diagram below)
And each of these six major reef communities are completely different types of reefs.
For example, the lowest in the Cambrian are the archaeocyathids, which are extinct:
Then in the later Paleozoic but still before the dinosaurs we see the tabulate and rugose corals, which are also extinct
We don't actually see modern-type scleractinian corals until the time of the dinosaurs
So it's a good idea, but not how the fossil record actually looks. Instead of coral reefs at the bottom (like we would expect with a global flood) we find different reef communities throughout the fossil record, and we also don't see all types of fossils at the same level (same layer) like we would predict if all types of life were created at the same time.
Instead what we see (even when we leave evolution out of it and just describe what we physically observe) is this pattern of repeated successions and extinctions. For example, like with reefs, we see one type of reef community appear (archaeocyathids) and then go extinct, and then a little higher up a different type of reef community appear (rugose & tabulate corals) and then go extinct, then this is succeeded by scleractinian-type corals, and so on (And by the way, these different corals reefs communities through time do NOT seem to be evolutionarily related to one another, so that’s still a bit of a mystery and unsolved problem in evolution).
***So we see this repeating pattern of appearances and extinctions of different types of life as we physically go up through the fossil record.
Now back to explanations/interpretations: There seem to be only two possible explanations for the observational data: evolution or progressive creation. I know neither one fits with Genesis, but I don't see how it can be made to fit. However, if Genesis isn't meant to tell us about modern science.... then perhaps it's not meant to fit. If such was true, that wouldn't make it wrong, but simply unrelated to science and 'apples and oranges.' I know that doesn't solve all the problems, but perhaps it's a start.
What evidence have I denied, did I ever admit there are no fossils, or did I say what people say about them is an opinion, not facts? You are quite big on observation, I will grant you everything you can observe, and when you say these things mean this, that is something we can talk about. Are the claims you make something we can see in the observable world to the scale you present them or are they just assumptions posing as facts?
For example, @stephen_33 and I have both pointed out to you that all life does not appear in the fossil record at the same "time" (in the same layer), but different types of life appear and disappear at different points in the fossil record (like the dinosaurs, for example). This is an observational fact that anyone can go see for themselves.
Yes, quite right, and I point out to you that fossils appearing in the ground is really all you got, you are telling me that means X amount of time because they just show up in the ground in different parts of the strata. I thought I had made myself clear, facts, are not a consensus of our educated opinions any more than they are of our purely religious opinions either. You spend a lot of time telling me about your facts that you made up with an educated guess with the best possible explanation you have, but still, those are still not facts, the only fact you have are we find them in the ground.
If you actually knew what you were talking about, you would correct yourself for being so unbelievably wrong
I'm wrong because I tell you the FACTS about fossils are we find them in the ground and then where we find them we apply dates to them and those dates we consider facts?
Let's try a different approach...
This is kinda-sorta how the fossil record looks
If all life appeared on earth at the same time (one week), then we would expect everything we see in the above picture to all be together in the same rock layer (at the same horizontal level)
But we don't see that
If life appeared on earth at the same time then where we found the fossils would not have anything to do with dates.
So it's a good idea, but not how the fossil record actually looks. Instead of coral reefs at the bottom (like we would expect with a global flood) we find different reef communities throughout the fossil record, and we also don't see all types of fossils at the same level (same layer) like we would predict if all types of life were created at the same time.
Instead what we see (even when we leave evolution out of it and just describe what we physically observe) is this pattern of repeated successions and extinctions. For example, like with reefs, we see one type of reef community appear (archaeocyathids) and then go extinct, and then a little higher up a different type of reef community appear (rugose & tabulate corals) and then go extinct, then this is succeeded by scleractinian-type corals, and so on (And by the way, these different corals reefs communities through time do NOT seem to be evolutionarily related to one another, so that’s still a bit of a mystery and unsolved problem in evolution).
***So we see this repeating pattern of appearances and extinctions of different types of life as we physically go up through the fossil record.
Now back to explanations/interpretations: There seem to be only two possible explanations for the observational data: evolution or progressive creation. I know neither one fits with Genesis, but I don't see how it can be made to fit. However, if Genesis isn't meant to tell us about modern science.... then perhaps it's not meant to fit. If such was true, that wouldn't make it wrong, but simply unrelated to science and 'apples and oranges.' I know that doesn't solve all the problems, but perhaps it's a start.
When you have it in your head it must be true that strata equal time you have to make everything fit with that axiom do you not? If you are wrong about that one thing, nothing you come up with after that will fit reality.
T_M, your reasoning is often bizarre to me but can you answer this question - set aside the fossils themselves for a moment and focus instead on the material that makes up the strata in which they're found.
In places on Earth those layers can be hundreds of metres thick, mud, sand and other forms of sediment that's transformed into rock over geological time, but if you believe the entire structure was formed in mere days (or even weeks), where did all of that immense amount of material come from?
What evidence have I denied, did I ever admit there are no fossils, or did I say what people say about them is an opinion, not facts? You are quite big on observation, I will grant you everything you can observe, and when you say these things mean this, that is something we can talk about. Are the claims you make something we can see in the observable world to the scale you present them or are they just assumptions posing as facts?
For example, @stephen_33 and I have both pointed out to you that all life does not appear in the fossil record at the same "time" (in the same layer), but different types of life appear and disappear at different points in the fossil record (like the dinosaurs, for example). This is an observational fact that anyone can go see for themselves.
Yes, quite right, and I point out to you that fossils appearing in the ground is really all you got, you are telling me that means X amount of time because they just show up in the ground in different parts of the strata. I thought I had made myself clear, facts, are not a consensus of our educated opinions any more than they are of our purely religious opinions either. You spend a lot of time telling me about your facts that you made up with an educated guess with the best possible explanation you have, but still, those are still not facts, the only fact you have are we find them in the ground.
If you actually knew what you were talking about, you would correct yourself for being so unbelievably wrong
I'm wrong because I tell you the FACTS about fossils are we find them in the ground and then where we find them we apply dates to them and those dates we consider facts?
You're wrong to say "we find fossils in the ground is the ONLY, ONE, SINGLE FACT" we can say. We know an immense number of additional facts by OBSERVATION ALONE (NO INTERPRETATION). You have no idea what you're talking about.
And you're wrong to keep talking about how I "apply dates to them" when I'm not the one who keeps bringing up dates and everything I've said has nothing to do with the dates of the fossils and are the same physical observations regardless of how young or old. You're the one who keeps assuming that I'm assuming a certain age for the fossils, when I've said nothing about it.
Let's try a different approach...
This is kinda-sorta how the fossil record looks
If all life appeared on earth at the same time (one week), then we would expect everything we see in the above picture to all be together in the same rock layer (at the same horizontal level)
But we don't see that
If life appeared on earth at the same time then where we found the fossils would not have anything to do with dates.
See, you did it again. I've said nothing about dates. You're the one who keeps assuming that I'm assuming that.
So it's a good idea, but not how the fossil record actually looks. Instead of coral reefs at the bottom (like we would expect with a global flood) we find different reef communities throughout the fossil record, and we also don't see all types of fossils at the same level (same layer) like we would predict if all types of life were created at the same time.
Instead what we see (even when we leave evolution out of it and just describe what we physically observe) is this pattern of repeated successions and extinctions. For example, like with reefs, we see one type of reef community appear (archaeocyathids) and then go extinct, and then a little higher up a different type of reef community appear (rugose & tabulate corals) and then go extinct, then this is succeeded by scleractinian-type corals, and so on (And by the way, these different corals reefs communities through time do NOT seem to be evolutionarily related to one another, so that’s still a bit of a mystery and unsolved problem in evolution).
***So we see this repeating pattern of appearances and extinctions of different types of life as we physically go up through the fossil record.
Now back to explanations/interpretations: There seem to be only two possible explanations for the observational data: evolution or progressive creation. I know neither one fits with Genesis, but I don't see how it can be made to fit. However, if Genesis isn't meant to tell us about modern science.... then perhaps it's not meant to fit. If such was true, that wouldn't make it wrong, but simply unrelated to science and 'apples and oranges.' I know that doesn't solve all the problems, but perhaps it's a start.
When you have it in your head it must be true that strata equal time you have to make everything fit with that axiom do you not? If you are wrong about that one thing, nothing you come up with after that will fit reality.
And there you go again. Assuming that I'm assuming some "long age time frame" when I am not and continue to simply physically describe what we observe. You're the one who has this all "in your head"
I'm obviously no expert. But I would expect crustaceans and to be on the bottom after a catastrophic flood and geological upheaval simply because they would sink fastest.
I would also expect more intelligent mammals and even larger reptiles to avoid drowning longer and also to float longer and to be buried higher up.
"Ecological zonation" is a good idea in flood geology theory that makes scientific predictions that we can test, and that makes it very useful. But unfortunately when we test those predictions they don't hold up, because the fossil record doesn't actually look this way. For example, like you said, we would expect crustaceans to appear on the bottom, but they don't. They're actually more common higher up in the fossil record (see diagram below):
Similarly, we would expect coral reefs to be at the bottom if the fossil record was the result of a one year global flood. But in fact we find coral reefs throughout the fossil record. There are six major types of reef communities that occur at different levels in the fossil record (see red on diagram below)
And each of these six major reef communities are completely different types of reefs.
For example, the lowest in the Cambrian are the archaeocyathids, which are extinct:
Then in the later Paleozoic but still before the dinosaurs we see the tabulate and rugose corals, which are also extinct
We don't actually see modern-type scleractinian corals until the time of the dinosaurs
So you're saying (see diagram) that sponges and worms and things that were already on the sea floor and have no real means of propulsion aren't buried first and "long time floaty things" like mammals aren't buried last with things generally sorted out by when we would naturally think they would get covered up in such chaos (obviously with numerous exceptions because it was, you know, absolute chaos)?
Then why does your first chart show exactly that?
T_M, your reasoning is often bizarre to me but can you answer this question - set aside the fossils themselves for a moment and focus instead on the material that makes up the strata in which they're found.
In places on Earth those layers can be hundreds of metres thick, mud, sand and other forms of sediment that's transformed into rock over geological time, but if you believe the entire structure was formed in mere days (or even weeks), where did all of that immense amount of material come from?
How things get where can happen in several ways we have seen this with volcanoes and other major events. Especially when something occurred that was recorded that did occur across the whole world in one moment with catastrophic results, but even localized ones can also churn up things. All of this is beside the points I make either way, it only adds complexity to the beliefs that somehow in very fast geological time new species emerge and leave over and over again with new body forms, and all of those were lifeforms with distinct genetic code driving the processes that make up these new lives, over and over.
What evidence have I denied, did I ever admit there are no fossils, or did I say what people say about them is an opinion, not facts? You are quite big on observation, I will grant you everything you can observe, and when you say these things mean this, that is something we can talk about. Are the claims you make something we can see in the observable world to the scale you present them or are they just assumptions posing as facts?
For example, @stephen_33 and I have both pointed out to you that all life does not appear in the fossil record at the same "time" (in the same layer), but different types of life appear and disappear at different points in the fossil record (like the dinosaurs, for example). This is an observational fact that anyone can go see for themselves.
Yes, quite right, and I point out to you that fossils appearing in the ground is really all you got, you are telling me that means X amount of time because they just show up in the ground in different parts of the strata. I thought I had made myself clear, facts, are not a consensus of our educated opinions any more than they are of our purely religious opinions either. You spend a lot of time telling me about your facts that you made up with an educated guess with the best possible explanation you have, but still, those are still not facts, the only fact you have are we find them in the ground.
If you actually knew what you were talking about, you would correct yourself for being so unbelievably wrong
I'm wrong because I tell you the FACTS about fossils are we find them in the ground and then where we find them we apply dates to them and those dates we consider facts?
You're wrong to say "we find fossils in the ground is the ONLY, ONE, SINGLE FACT" we can say. We know an immense number of additional facts by OBSERVATION ALONE (NO INTERPRETATION). You have no idea what you're talking about.
And you're wrong to keep talking about how I "apply dates to them" when I'm not the one who keeps bringing up dates and everything I've said has nothing to do with the dates of the fossils and are the same physical observations regardless of how young or old. You're the one who keeps assuming that I'm assuming a certain age for the fossils, when I've said nothing about it.
Well there you go, you say I'm wrong that settles that!
What evidence have I denied, did I ever admit there are no fossils, or did I say what people say about them is an opinion, not facts? You are quite big on observation, I will grant you everything you can observe, and when you say these things mean this, that is something we can talk about. Are the claims you make something we can see in the observable world to the scale you present them or are they just assumptions posing as facts?
For example, @stephen_33 and I have both pointed out to you that all life does not appear in the fossil record at the same "time" (in the same layer), but different types of life appear and disappear at different points in the fossil record (like the dinosaurs, for example). This is an observational fact that anyone can go see for themselves.
Yes, quite right, and I point out to you that fossils appearing in the ground is really all you got, you are telling me that means X amount of time because they just show up in the ground in different parts of the strata. I thought I had made myself clear, facts, are not a consensus of our educated opinions any more than they are of our purely religious opinions either. You spend a lot of time telling me about your facts that you made up with an educated guess with the best possible explanation you have, but still, those are still not facts, the only fact you have are we find them in the ground.
If you actually knew what you were talking about, you would correct yourself for being so unbelievably wrong
I'm wrong because I tell you the FACTS about fossils are we find them in the ground and then where we find them we apply dates to them and those dates we consider facts?
You're wrong to say "we find fossils in the ground is the ONLY, ONE, SINGLE FACT" we can say. We know an immense number of additional facts by OBSERVATION ALONE (NO INTERPRETATION). You have no idea what you're talking about.
And you're wrong to keep talking about how I "apply dates to them" when I'm not the one who keeps bringing up dates and everything I've said has nothing to do with the dates of the fossils and are the same physical observations regardless of how young or old. You're the one who keeps assuming that I'm assuming a certain age for the fossils, when I've said nothing about it.
Then come out and say you don't believe in the ages written on the charts you post.
I'm obviously no expert. But I would expect crustaceans and to be on the bottom after a catastrophic flood and geological upheaval simply because they would sink fastest.
I would also expect more intelligent mammals and even larger reptiles to avoid drowning longer and also to float longer and to be buried higher up.
"Ecological zonation" is a good idea in flood geology theory that makes scientific predictions that we can test, and that makes it very useful. But unfortunately when we test those predictions they don't hold up, because the fossil record doesn't actually look this way. For example, like you said, we would expect crustaceans to appear on the bottom, but they don't. They're actually more common higher up in the fossil record (see diagram below):
Similarly, we would expect coral reefs to be at the bottom if the fossil record was the result of a one year global flood. But in fact we find coral reefs throughout the fossil record. There are six major types of reef communities that occur at different levels in the fossil record (see red on diagram below)
And each of these six major reef communities are completely different types of reefs.
For example, the lowest in the Cambrian are the archaeocyathids, which are extinct:
Then in the later Paleozoic but still before the dinosaurs we see the tabulate and rugose corals, which are also extinct
We don't actually see modern-type scleractinian corals until the time of the dinosaurs
So you're saying (see diagram) that sponges and worms and things that were already on the sea floor and have no real means of propulsion aren't buried first and "long time floaty things" like mammals aren't buried last with things generally sorted out by when we would naturally think they would get covered up in such chaos (obviously with numerous exceptions because it was, you know, absolute chaos)?
Then why does your first chart show exactly that?
Look again. Your sponges and worms with no means of propulsion are found throughout the fossil record, not only on the bottom. And true, mammals are found higher up but not because they're "more intelligent" or "floaty things" buried last in a global flood because when you go laterally/sideways you eventually run into ancient shoreline and marine fossils at the same horizontal level as mammals, but not mixed in with mammal fossils like you'd expect with a flood. As we go up through the fossil record we can literally trace the shoreline over time and rise and fall of sea level. Even YECs agree with this. We see 6 major sea level rises and falls (transgressions and regressions) called megasequences. Even YECs agree with this. They just try to say it's all due to a global flood even though at no time do the waters completely cover the earth (and even though the Bible describes one rise and fall of sea level during the flood, not six), which is why, for example, we don't find mammals mixed in with marine fossils. There are major transgressions (sea level rise) in the Paleozoic which almost cover all of North America. At first glance this would seem to support a global flood, except for the problem of where were all the dinosaurs and mammals living at the time if almost all the land was covered with water? We're they all "smart" enough to retreat to a small "island" of land in the center of North America when the flood waters advanced, and then when the waters receded they spread back out across North America but weren't smart enough to retreat when the water rose again? And throughout the fossil record we find organisms of all different sizes large, medium and small. We don't see any hydrological sorting.
And... you completely ignored the succession of fossil reefs. Reefs are on the bottom of the ocean, so if the fossil record is the result of a single flood, then how can we find reefs on the bottom, middle and top?
"Well there you go, you say I'm wrong that settles that!"
@TruthMuse, dude, you’re the one who's saying I'm wrong. Think about it. You are literally saying that in the entire field of paleontology there is only one fact we can say: "fossils are in the ground." You don't want me to insult, but it's a statement that is at once idiotic, ignorant, and arrogant all at the same time. I'm the one who has had years of firsthand experience with the fossil record while you have none, yet you're going to pretend you know all about it. That's arrogance. I would never try to say you're wrong about computers because you know more than I do about computers. I think I know what I'm talking about. It's like telling a doctor we can only be sure of one fact in medicine: people have bodies. And trying to argue a doctor down and then getting upset when the doctor says you're wrong. What do you expect?
I'm obviously no expert. But I would expect crustaceans and to be on the bottom after a catastrophic flood and geological upheaval simply because they would sink fastest.
I would also expect more intelligent mammals and even larger reptiles to avoid drowning longer and also to float longer and to be buried higher up.
"Ecological zonation" is a good idea in flood geology theory that makes scientific predictions that we can test, and that makes it very useful. But unfortunately when we test those predictions they don't hold up, because the fossil record doesn't actually look this way. For example, like you said, we would expect crustaceans to appear on the bottom, but they don't. They're actually more common higher up in the fossil record (see diagram below):
Similarly, we would expect coral reefs to be at the bottom if the fossil record was the result of a one year global flood. But in fact we find coral reefs throughout the fossil record. There are six major types of reef communities that occur at different levels in the fossil record (see red on diagram below)
And each of these six major reef communities are completely different types of reefs.
For example, the lowest in the Cambrian are the archaeocyathids, which are extinct:
Then in the later Paleozoic but still before the dinosaurs we see the tabulate and rugose corals, which are also extinct
We don't actually see modern-type scleractinian corals until the time of the dinosaurs
So you're saying (see diagram) that sponges and worms and things that were already on the sea floor and have no real means of propulsion aren't buried first and "long time floaty things" like mammals aren't buried last with things generally sorted out by when we would naturally think they would get covered up in such chaos (obviously with numerous exceptions because it was, you know, absolute chaos)?
Then why does your first chart show exactly that?
Look again. Your sponges and worms with no means of propulsion are found throughout the fossil record, not only on the bottom. And true, mammals are found higher up but not because they're "more intelligent" or "floaty things" buried last in a global flood because when you go laterally/sideways you eventually run into ancient shoreline and marine fossils at the same horizontal level as mammals, but not mixed in with mammal fossils like you'd expect with a flood. As we go up through the fossil record we can literally trace the shoreline over time and rise and fall of sea level. Even YECs agree with this. We see 6 major sea level rises and falls (transgressions and regressions) called megasequences. Even YECs agree with this. They just try to say it's all due to a global flood even though at no time do the waters completely cover the earth, which is why, for example, we don't find mammals mixed in with marine fossils. There are major transgressions (sea level rise) in the Paleozoic which almost cover all of North America. At first glance this would seem to support a global flood, except for the problem of where were all the dinosaurs and mammals living at the time if almost all the land was covered with water? And throughout the fossil record we find organisms of all different sizes large, medium and small. We don't see any hydrological sorting.
And... you completely ignored the succession of fossil reefs. Reefs are on the bottom of the ocean, so if the fossil record is the result of a single flood, then how can we find reefs on the bottom, middle and top?
I looked again. It's what I would expect from a flood.
What evidence have I denied, did I ever admit there are no fossils, or did I say what people say about them is an opinion, not facts? You are quite big on observation, I will grant you everything you can observe, and when you say these things mean this, that is something we can talk about. Are the claims you make something we can see in the observable world to the scale you present them or are they just assumptions posing as facts?
For example, @stephen_33 and I have both pointed out to you that all life does not appear in the fossil record at the same "time" (in the same layer), but different types of life appear and disappear at different points in the fossil record (like the dinosaurs, for example). This is an observational fact that anyone can go see for themselves.
Yes, quite right, and I point out to you that fossils appearing in the ground is really all you got, you are telling me that means X amount of time because they just show up in the ground in different parts of the strata. I thought I had made myself clear, facts, are not a consensus of our educated opinions any more than they are of our purely religious opinions either. You spend a lot of time telling me about your facts that you made up with an educated guess with the best possible explanation you have, but still, those are still not facts, the only fact you have are we find them in the ground.
If you actually knew what you were talking about, you would correct yourself for being so unbelievably wrong