Challenge: Explain the fossil record without evolution

[AV1611VET]

It's been tested in real life floods and lahars. And yet, the species caught and drowned are distributed randomly in the debris.

Then they made a mistake somewhere.

Either that, or God did it; and scientists cannot recreate it, even under controlled conditions.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And why would a YEC advocate waste his time testing it in a laboratory, just to satisfy those who say the Flood couldn't have been global?

If the YEC wishes to convince other people, and cares about his beliefs being justified.

I know you don't care about that. You just hold your beliefs and that's fine for you.
But in this thread, we are looking for models with explanatory power.

 

[Hieronymus]

It's been tested in real life floods and lahars. And yet, the species caught and drowned are distributed randomly in the debris.

That's not very likely.
Obviously fish are relatively heavier than birds.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's not very likely.
Obviously fish are relatively heavier than birds.

Let's even entertain the pretty childish notion that "heavy creatures will be below lighter creatures"...

They'ld still be trapped in the same sedimentary layer.

Which is not what we observe in the fossil record.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's not very likely.
Obviously fish are relatively heavier than birds.

That's incredibly poor reasoning.
Why do we find fossils of basilosaurus', a huge aquatic mammal, in layers above prehistoric fish and trilobites?

 

[RickG]

Rick, this is your original post, and you have no proof of evolution. You have no evidence.

I have no evidence of evolution because this thread is not about evolution. Stop jumping to conclusions. If you have not read the OP yet please do so. If you have, please read it again and provide the information it asks for.

 

[Hieronymus]

That's incredibly poor reasoning.
Why do we find fossils of basilosaurus', a huge aquatic mammal, in layers above prehistoric fish and trilobites?

Iḿ not sure, but mammals do tend to have lungs filled with air.

 

[Hieronymus]

Let's even entertain the pretty childish notion that "heavy creatures will be below lighter creatures"...

They'ld still be trapped in the same sedimentary layer.

Yes, when it was still liquid.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Iḿ not sure, but mammals do tend to have lungs filled with air.

As did prehistoric fish. But a basilosaurus would be many, many times heavier than a simple fish.

 

[RickG]

Rick, you have inserted major assumptions. Major assumptions. And have excluded major "causes" that are from the One on High. You have dismissed and restricted His Work and Purpose in the geologic rock record.

And your state your "science is solid"? It is a theory, Rick. A theory lacking the most important evidence. You do know that.

WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS THREAD THAT IT IS NOT ABOUT EVOLUTION, IT IS ABOUT DESCRIBING THE FOSSIL RECORD WITHOUT EVOLUTION. GOT IT!
WITHOUT EVOLUTION.

 

[RickG]

Has this been tested in a laboratory, using life-like dummies, instead of real animals?

NO, it is viewed in the (real live) actual fossil record as it exists in geologic strata. No laboratory dummies needed. Real, once alive, now fossilized animals, were used. Explain how they got distributed through the sedimentary strata of the geologic column without evolution. What other process(es) placed them where they are. The challenge stipulates that a scientific explanation must be provided.

 

[RickG]

Reminder to everyone: This is not a discussion about evolution. Evolution pro or con is off topic.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes, when it was still liquid.

But fossils are NOT trapped in the same sedimentary layer. That's exactly the point. A point that you conviniently removed from the quote. They are distributed in multiple layers. And distributed in a progressive pattern. As in: you never find rabbits in layers X and Y. Ever.

How does the magical flood story explain this?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It's been tested in real life floods and lahars. And yet, the species caught and drowned are distributed randomly in the debris.

That's not very likely.

Wrong. It has a probability of 1.0. Reality, you know.

Obviously fish are relatively heavier than birds.

Some are. But as you see, it doesn't matter. Even worse for your argument, gradual sedimentation is associated with sorting of sediment, but sudden sedimentation, as in drumlins, is not.

And you're still stuck explaining why we see (for example) all shapes and sizes and weights of living things in the Cretaceous sediment, but no modern organisms of the same shapes, sizes, or weights.

 

[RickG]

It has actually, more or less.
Stratification doesn't just occur when over time you add layers, it happens when a big jumble of mud, rocks and organisms come to rest too.

It happens through both processes whether eolian, fluvial, or marine. Do you know how limestone forms?

Obviously birds will end higher up than fish, because of their volume to weight ratio.
Size also plays a roll.

The geologic column does not show that.

There are good models ceationists subscibe to that are consistent with both the flood and what we see today.

I disagree. The main thing they ignore is the many different and unique processes involved in sedimentation. There is is huge difference in the mechanics and results of catastrophic sedimentation and that of normal sedimentation.

Let's not forget,or let's realize the naturlistic / (popularizd) scientific models have some serious problems too.
The dating of the layers is usually based on the type of fossils in them, and the age of the fossils are usually based on what layer they're in. So that's circular reasoning.

That is incorrect. What you are erroneously describing is relative dating by index fossils. There are some specific fossils that are found only in specific strata, and only that strata, during a range of geologic time. In geochronology, a range of time is called "relative". Thus, a range of 240 Ma to 225 Ma would be a relative date. An absolute date would not cover a range of dates. What you need to understand is that the strata is dated first, and there would be many many dates of this obtained first as we are only looking for a time period in which a specific fossil existed. Therefore, by recognizing a specific "index fossil" we have a relative date for the strata in which the fossil is contained. Do you understand the difference?

Radioactive dating turns out to be unreliable as well, for various resons.
Things naturalists are unaware of usually, or they just ignore it.

Really? People who are completely unaware the the numerous different dating methods available and how they specifically work know there are things geochemists/geochronologists about those processes that they don't. How about lets stick to science.

 

[AV1611VET]

But in this thread, we are looking for models with explanatory power.

You want models with explanatory power?

Anita Jane Bryant (born March 25, 1940) is an American singer, former Miss Oklahoma beauty pageant winner, and former spokeswoman (brand ambassador) for the Florida Citrus Commission (marketing orange juice).

SOURCE

Wendy Wright is an activist for American conservative causes.

SOURCE

 

[AV1611VET]

Reminder to everyone: This is not a discussion about evolution. Evolution pro or con is off topic.

Remind me again later, will you please?

Thanks!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You want models with explanatory power?

I'm going to admit, I'm impressed. That was clever.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm going to admit, I'm impressed. That was clever.

Thank you, sir!

 

[Hieronymus]

As did prehistoric fish. But a basilosaurus would be many, many times heavier than a simple fish.

It's about relative weight.