The Fossil Record: Evolution and/or Progressive Creation

Drawing the tentative conclusion (based on tentative scientific knowledge) that it doesn't seem like life can arise by abiogenesis is not some foolhardy rush to an 'unsound' conclusion.  Nor is *not* drawing such a conclusion somehow more nobler or the path that true 'enlightened' individuals with superior intellect take.  To the contrary, it's simply a failure to follow the evidence where it leads.

We should have like and love buttons for things that people write that we go YES over.

A good resource for Christians on problems with YEC flood geology is the book "Grand Canyon: Monument to an Ancient Earth" co-authored by 10 Christian geologists.

One of the many problems with YEC flood geology discussed in the book, which I mentioned on a different thread, is worth repeating.  As told in the words of one of the co-authors, Wayne Ranney, on his blog:

"In one of my favorite graphics from the new book,written with 10 co-authors, we show how so-called "flood geologists" actually contradict what is written in the Bible to come up with their nefarious claims that have hood-winked so many unsuspecting people in the American populace.

The diagram shows that during the Biblically described 'days' of creation, specific locations in the modern Middle East are described. The Garden of Eden is described as being in the vicinity of the "four rivers" (the Tigris, Euphrates, Pishon, and Gihon rivers) in modern day Kuwait. Other landscape features are described in Genesis, such as the archaeological site of Ashur. All of these features are described before "the flood" such that the Garden of Eden location predates Noah's flood. But Young Earth Creationists also maintain that all post-Precambrian rocks on Earth were deposited in the flood, which according to them means that the Garden of Eden sits atop deposits from the flood. This one fact shows that flood geologists not only contradict their own "reasoning" but also what is written in the Bible. In our book, we highlight numerous other instances where the flood geology model contradicts the Bible and doesn't hold water (pardon the pun).

People can keep their religious or spirituality views and believe in the evidence for an old Earth. Don't be duped by ministers or pastors who misrepresent science for their other, politically motivated goals."

Source: https://earthly-musings.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-arizona-daily-sun-newspaper-runs.html

On the non-Christian/non-theist side there are also many misunderstandings of the fossil record.  Perhaps it would be beneficial for me to go into greater detail about the empirically observed patterns in the fossil record from Sepkoski's famous diversity curves that divide the record into three major 'Evolutionary Fauna' (EF) based on the marine invertebrate record ('Cambrian Fauna', 'Paleozoic Fauna', and 'Modern Fauna') to Boucot's Ecological-Evolutionary Units (EEUs) and its revisions (i.e., C1, C2, P1, P2, P3, P4, M1, M2, M3).

*The Ecological-Evolutionary Units (EEUs) represent the major global 'successions' or 'turnovers' we see in the fossil record that I discussed earlier in this OP.  There are 9 of them: two 'Cambrian Fauna' EEUs (C1, C2), four 'Paleozoic Fauna' EEUs (P1, P2, P3, P4), & three 'Modern Fauna' EEUs (M1, M2, M3). 

**The same types of diversity, organisms, behavior, ecological and trophic relationships, etc. unique to each EEU remain largely unaltered/unperturbed during the time duration of a given EEU, with little to no directional evolution observed particularly with the dominant genera, which usually exhibit morphological stasis (*it is usually the rare, under-represented genera that exhibit the most evolutionary change at different rates from 'fast', 'moderate' to 'slow' gradual).  Each EEU persists for millions of years until a disruptive event occurs--usually an extinction--that wipes out most of the EEU.  The EEU is then replaced by a new EEU with unique types of life and different ecological associations than existed in the prior EEU. 

***The solid red lines (and corresponding dotted red lines) mark the Five Major Extinctions in the fossil record.  The last one resulting from the asteroid impact at the end of the Cretaceous that wiped out the dinosaurs is the extinction people are most familiar with.  But the third one at the end of the Paleozoic Era (the 'Permian Extinction') was actually the most devastating mass extinction in earth's history.

In the sentence above: "This one fact shows that flood geologists not only contradict their own "reasoning" but also what is written in the Bible", should the word 'geologists' be placed in quotes to indicate that they aren't really what should be considered geologists?

The flood geologists he's referring to are YECs but YECs who still have PhDs in geology, so no

How so? Geology is a branch of science and those who practise it should draw whatever conclusions they do primarily from the evidence that's contained within rocks. But what is there 'written' into the many layers of sedimentary rocks that compels anyone to believe that a worldwide flood ever occurred?

No doubt some theists are tired of hearing me say this but it seems yet again lik a case of starting with the conclusion - there must have been a worldwide flood because the Bible says so - and searching for the evidence (in sedimentary rocks in this case) to justify the pre-formed conclusion. In other words, an adulteration of the scientific method.

Why isn't that an accurate characterisation of what they're doing?

I don't think theists are tired of hearing you say that in this instance because it's not a theistic position (nor a biblical one!).  And like I said they're still geologists just like a quack doctor is still a doctor.  Would you prefer the term quack geologist?

If someone were to say you believe in billions/millions of years and are therefore pushing your beliefs into explaining the geology, would that be the same thing?

Believing in the Biblical flood isn't a theistic position to adopt? O/k.

I'd prefer they were reminded to observe conventional scientific methodology, as the trained scientists they're supposed to be and limit themselves to interpreting what an examination of  geological strata reveals.

@stephen_33,

You seem to be majoring on the minors here and being a bit pedantic by insisting geologist be in quotes.  Of all the things to get riled about!  Seriously?  And all the more so when the author states up front in the *first* sentence that these are "so-called 'flood geologists'", which he puts in quotes.  So the author put it in quotes in the first sentence but failed to in the third, so this is cause for ire???

Second, you are preaching to the choir.  'Grand Canyon: Monument to an Ancient Earth' is a book written by Christian geologists that is entirely devoted to repudiating YEC flood geologists and demonstrating how utterly bereft their ideas are of any scientific (or biblical) merit.  What more do you want???

You believe they see something and instead of acknowledging it promote something else, or do you think they believe what they see shows them something else?

I recommended the book to Christians but in truth it is an excellent resource for anyone.  Most people (non-theists included!) are pretty ignorant when it comes to geology.  The book does an excellent job explaining how geology works and how geologists come to the conclusions that they do about the past.

Here's some more pedantry - there's no such thing as a 'flood geologist'. You can't study for a PhD in 'Flood Geology' only the regular kind of geology and where someone does so, they should really strive to stick to the disciplined process of investigation that study of that science requires.

I'm done now.  😉

I believe that no trained Geologist starting with a clear and unprejudiced mind would be drawn to the conclusion that a world-wide flood had occurred, based on anything he or she saw in any rocks.

Cannot argue with that, literally.

Are you just venting?  I assume this is just a pet peeve of yours that you have to get out of your system.  Otherwise you're arguing over things we're in agreement on, which makes little sense.

In fairness, YEC flood geologists aren't the only ones who don't follow the evidence where it leads.

No one has a clear unprejudiced mind, we all come with bias that colors everything we see. Our only hope is that when we see things we are as honest about it as possible.