winding up

Not really. Literally the entire fossil record of life shows that all life did not appear at the same time, but at different times.

No, that's the story attached to the fossil record.

No. It is an objective observation that anyone can see for themselves. Just go to the Grand Canyon and follow northward up through the Grand Staircase. Different types of life appear at different stratigraphic horizons. All life does not appear at the same stratigraphic horizon in time. That's an objective observational fact.

Have you ever seen a time stamp on one, or were they assigned?

It doesn't matter the actual "time stamp" date. Even creationists agree with relative dating and that the bottom most layer is older than the one on top of it, which in turn is older than the one on top of it, and so on. Even if we compress the fossil record into a 6,000 year period, the fossil record still shows that different types of life do not all appear at the same time, but at different times

Hydraulic sorting.

Doesn't work. The fossil record is filled with poorly sorted fossiliferous sediments at every horizon. For example, according to young earth creationist Morris:

"In the marine strata, where invertebrates were fossilized, these would tend locally to be sorted hydrodynamically into assemblages of similar size and shape. Furthermore, as the turbulently upwelling waters and sediments settled back down, the simpler animals, more nearly spherical or streamlined in shape, would tend to settle out first because of lower hydraulic drag. Thus each kind of marine invertebrate would tend to appear in its simplest form at the lowest elevation, and so on." (Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, p. 119)

And yet we find tiny invertebrate forams throughout the fossil record, which instead should all be at the lowest stratigraphic horizon instead of every stratigraphic level from the Precambrian to Present. This is but one of thousands of contradictions for the "hydraulic sorting" hypothesis.

Well, catastrophes are like that sometimes, aren't they?

If anyone still doubts that 'faith' places little value on reason, there's a demonstration of it!

I swear, if the order of the sun and planets was a matter of strict religious doctrine, we'd be sitting here arguing about whether the Sun or the Earth is at the centre of the solar system.

You're comparing something we can see (the solar system) with stories about something we can see (fossils)

Faith and reason are bed fellows, unless you have blind faith there is always a cause.

The fossil record doesn't fit with a global flood. But more to the original point: all life does not appear at the same time.

The fossil record is fossils found where they are found, the story of what a global flood would do or the passage of time in how they were placed are just stories, if both accounts are not given the same amount of critical scrutiny that shows bias.

I was raised to believe the fossil record is the result of Noah's Flood. Ironically, it was young earth creationist geologists who showed me in the field that the fossil record and geologic record doesn't support that. There is literally NO evidence for a global flood at any time during Earth's history. Those who believe it do so on faith with no supporting evidence. And there's nothing wrong with faith as long as we call it what it is and not pretend otherwise. The fossil record has received an intense amount of scrutiny all the way around. The myth that geologists just assume the earth is old and that it's just a matter of interpretation and that the same evidence can be interpreted as supporting a young earth is a LIE and nothing more than YEC propaganda.  And that's the worst part of it: Christians who are lying and being deceptive and distorting truth and fact, instead of being honest about the lack of evidence. Only a rare few YECs are honest enough to admit that.... like the YEC geologists I met.

I don't like arguing personal opinions which is what people do when they try to explain how the fossils got where they are and how old they are, neither is provable no matter what explanation is true. What I do think is something only the here and now can show us is what it takes to setup instructions to do specific work that would not normally occur if left to just mindless operational directions, we normally don't have any issues finding intelligence in something like radio signals, or language, but people to go great lengths to deny intelligence in the formation of instructions in life.

Yeah, the conversation always ends up with you speaking nonsense about things of which you have no understanding (paleontology), while still refusing to get educated on the topic.  It is an understandable tactic, because the only way you can maintain your fiction is to remain ignorant on the subject. When someone’s eyes are so closed to reality that they won't even acknowledge the objective observational fact that mammoths and dinosaurs and the Burgess Shale fossils and Cretaceous angiosperms (flowering plants) and scleractinian corals, and archaeocyathid reefs, and bryozoans and ammonites and trilobites and on and on and on DON'T all appear in the fossil record together at the same time in the bottom most layer of the fossil record, then it's impossible to have a rational discussion. 

Yeah, nothing like being insulting to make yourself feel good about your stance on things.

A statement of fact can be awkward, even embarrassing but never insulting.

What fact did you post that your position is based upon?

That is the thing, I can ask what is the color of grass, I can go outside, see the grass know it is the color green, a fact. You can look at a fossil, see the fossil and know what happen millions of years ago, an amazing thing you can get at looking at a rock that some call facts.