Organization of Fossils

Arkguy, that is a very weak argument since it only applies when it makes sense, ie, when the two species actually *wouldn't* be expected together. But this is not the case.

troodon..why are ther no camels running around in the Us of A?
...or elephants?

don't you realize if a flood happened today the african animals and the USA animals would be buried in different strata?

Because the American versions went extinct after the Bering land bridge split apart. Camels originated in the Americas you know (as did lions and horses). You must not have read the part about the La Brea tar pits. There are examples of "african" animals living in America. They are morphologically different but are nonetheless those animals. Lions, sloths, camels, elephants (mastodons), and horses all at one time lived in North America (we have the fossils!) but no longer do. *IF* a flood happened today african and american animals would not necessarily be in different strata *if* that flood had currents capable of carving a 270 mile long gash in solid rock.

Now, you have not-so-cleverly dodged the portion of my post where I talk about your alleged "biomes". Why were there, according to you, several, completely different dinosaurian ecosystems thriving in areas only a few thousand square miles in size? What kept specimens from any of these "biomes" from mixing with the enormous flood currents? Why didn't any grass grow in the same areas as the dinosaurs lived in? There weren't any dinosaurs that would be very good at eating grass so you'd think it would thrive.

__________________

Troodon.....I was talking about if the flood happened now...In todays time.

Fossils are seperated in many ways. One of which is ---zonation---where ecological and biogeographic elements come into play.

Some fossils are seperated by hydrolic means. Some of the animals were selectively preserved while some could not escape the rising flood waters.

It's not as cut and dry as you seem to make it.

If a flood happened today that was the exact same as your proposed global flood then I have no idea what the fossil strata would look like because I have yet to hear about what this flood will do. For example:

Here you propose that the fossils are laid down in the same place where they lived. So, it sounds an awful lot like the argument Saint Philip used where sediment moving with the flood immedietly trapped the animals in place. This would, seemingly, account for some fossils that appear to have been buried very quickly while the animal was still alive (several oviraptor specimens come to mind).

Here, you propose a completely different type of flood. One in which the flood waters do not carry large amounts of sediment and one in which the animals knew to run and cover. Also, if the animals were not immedietly buried in sediment wouldn't they be free floating in the water once they died? There for wouldn't they have floated to other locales?

You tell me what this flood was like and I'll answer your question. Now I'll address your points:

Yes and I have addressed this. How could so many completely different ecosystems thrive within two hundred miles of each other? What mechanism kept birds and flowering plants from living in central Colorado and Western Arizona? What kept Tyrannosaurus or Dromeosaurus or Allossaurus from taking over the tiny mammalian ecosystems? How could a few thousand square miles support not only 2 Tyrannosaur populations but also several populations of smaller predators? What kept these populations from mixing with nearby ecosystems? How did the Rocky Mountains grow up around the Burgess Shale?

How does this acount for any of the fossil record? I fail to see how the mountain of sediment that supposedly comes with the flood could "selectively" preserve some specimens while doing nothing to others. If some specimens did "escape the rising flood waters" then wouldn't they have died in open sea? Wouldn't they then float in the sea until finally deposited in a place where they didn't live? A fail to see what you're trying to do with this argument.

Oh, but it is. I have cited in this thread many fossil sites that have no genera overlap whatsoever. These sites often do not even contain the same families or orders. You try and explain this by saying that each fossil site represents its own ecosystem. That is correct. What you are wrong in saying is that all of these ecosystems coexisted. You have yet to tell me how several dinosaur populations could coexist within a few hundred miles of each other without any overlapping of species. All you have done is try and dismiss this problem by comparing it to species living either on other sides of a continent or species living on different continents. This is not the same thing. These "ecosystems" would have been monsterously small and right next to each other. Why didn't birds live in central Colorado again?

__________________

Originally Posted by Ark Guy

lucaspa:
We are also saying that there should be every major taxonomic group in every major fossil layer. Understand?

But there aren't. That's the problem

Sorry lucaspal, but i can shut that statement down with absolutly no problem at all.

Wouls you expect to see a trilobyte fossilized along side of a gray squirrel? I wouldn't. Why? because the different strata represents different biomes.

Now, do you understand?

I do, but you don't. Look at my examples: pairs of animals that share the same biome or geographical area. Wouldn't you expect trilobite fossiles alongside lobsters? They share the same biome. Or fossils of dolphins alongside ichthyosaurs? They share the same biome.

Maiasaura and mammoths both lived in Alberta and Montana. Yet they are not buried in the same layers.

You tried a nice duck by comparing apples and oranges. But try comparing apples and apples and that's where the problem is.

__________________
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890

Originally Posted by Ark Guy

Troodon.....I was talking about if the flood happened now...In todays time.

Fossils are seperated in many ways. One of which is ---zonation---where ecological and biogeographic elements come into play.

Some fossils are seperated by hydrolic means. Some of the animals were selectively preserved while some could not escape the rising flood waters.

It's not as cut and dry as you seem to make it.

But there's no way that any combination of the methods you named will yield the fossil zonation.

Take the teleostean fishes. A very diverse group including perch, flounder, tuna, etc that live in all oceans. Then there are the cartilaginous fishes, also a very diverse group of all sizes and shapes that lived in all the oceans. Teleostean fishes are never found in the same layers as the extinct cartilaginous fishes. Using the standard geologic column, teleostean fishes don't appear until the Cretaceous while the cartilaginous fishes are abundant in the Devonian.

So, none of your methods of sorting, or combinations of methods, explain this. In terms of biogeography, both types of fishes lived in the same areas. Hydrolically, for every cartilaginous fish there is a teleostean fish of the same size and shape. And since they lived in the ocean to start with, there is no issue of escaping the rising flood waters.

These data alone falsify flood geology/paleontology. There is simply no way, IF flood geology were true, that these two types of fishes would not be found in the same sediments. Since they are found in different sediments only, then flood geology can't be true.

__________________
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890

I'll be bumping this with yet another addition.

In Fossil Butte National Monument (of Wyoming) we find some awesome early Quaternary fossils. Flowering plants (including grasses), diverse species of insect, fish, birds, primitive mammals, and some small reptiles are known from the site. Does this site represent its own ecosystem wholly separate from the others I've listed? If so then what mechanism kept the other animals I've cited (more advanced mammals and dinosaurs specifically) from moving in? There are no large predators known from this site; a very nice niche for an allosaur or lion or dromaeosaur to take. There are no large herbivores known from this site; a very nice niche for a buffalo or stegosaur or baluchitherium to take over, no? Also, what kept the flowering plants and birds located here from spreading to the Morrison? Where did the grass present in the northern Midwest come from since it isn't located in any of the dinosaur localities I've listed? What kept it from spreading there while the dinosaurs were still around? You see, all of this makes sense from an old earth standpoint; none from a young earth standpoint.

__________________

I find it amazing that you young earth creationists can live with this. So many YECs are so willing to accept the most absurd "falsifications" of evolution (the 2nd law of thermodynamics one is the funniest) and yet you refuse to open up your eyes and see how impossible the notion of a global flood is. Is the truth so bad?

Whoops, did I just *bump* this?

__________________

This entire thread transpired while I was in Europe and I just glanced through it. I see that at least a few YECs have made failed attempts to explain the fossil record using biomes. One wonders why mangroves which live in swamps are found above primative conifirs since conifers live in mountains.

I see that sharks were brought up and they are never found buried below a certain level. Could this be biomes? It is said that triblobites for example lived on the bottom and thus were buried below sharks. This is easily falsified because modern bottom dwellers are never found with trilobites but consider also shark's teeth. Shark's teeth are very common fossils because sharks continually grow new teeth and the old ones are shed and fall to the bottom. Why are shark's teeth never found buried with trilobites and early animals that were supposedly buried deep because they lived on the bottom? Did the shark's teeth swim up to escape the flood?

The other really cute thing about creationist claims of fossil sorting is that they use either biomes at different elevations (even though plants that live at higher elevations are first found below many that live at lower elevation) and escapability up the mountains to sort fossils into tens of thousands of feet of geologic layers. However, the really charming part comes when you challenge the same YEC for the source of enough flood water to cover all the mountain. You generally get the serious reply that there were no significant mountains before the flood. So the fossils that don't live in different biomes got sorted during the flood because the biomes were at differnt heights in the mountains that didn't exist. This is clear logic in the wacky world of YEC.

The Frumious Bandersnatch