Organization of Fossils

[troodon]

*bump* because no YECs have even made an attempt to discuss this falsification of a global flood as described in Genesis.

Also, if you don't mind P) I'll make an addition.

At Mistaken Point in Newfoundland you have a rather well known collection of Precambrian fossils (dispelling the Creationist argument that there are no fossils from strata predating the Cambrian). Much of the sea-life found at Mistaken Point is so bizarre that scientists are often hesitant to say whether fossils are whole organisms, collections of organisms, or parts of organisms. To quote http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vendian/mistaken.html (my source for information on this fossil site because I knew comparitively little about it):

"Typical of the Mistaken Point biota were large frondlike, leafy forms -- some with stalks, others with a bush-like or cabbage-like appearance, others with a branching, tree-like or network-like shapes, and still others spindle-shaped, long and pointed at both ends. Large, lumpy disc-shaped fossils were also found to be abundant. "

The plants found in the site are not those of any known taxa.

Also, the fossil organisms found here are similar to those found in Precambrian rock from Australia and Russia and yet completely different from any organisms found in other areas of North America (with the exception of the more advanced and diverse creatures in the Cambrian Burgess Shale). Out of all the fossils and impressions of this fossil site, there are no bones whatsoever. No bones, no teeth, no fish impressions, nothing recognizable today. Why did no bony fish or vertebrate organisms live in the vicinity? Why didn't any get washed into the sediment that eventually hardened and formed this strata? Why didn't any of those iguanodons, humans, ceolophysis, rhinoceros, lions, sabre-toothed tigers, bears, anomalocaris, crabs, salmon, tuna, whales, lobster, sharks, etc. etc. etc. get washed the few miles where they must have been living to become existant in this fossil assemblage? The flood was supposed to carve the 250+ miles of the grand canyon yet it couldn't make a dead lobster's carapece float the meager distance from Maine or Massachusettes (they were living there back then, right?) to this area where evidently primitive trilobites were able to beat out sharks and plesiosaurs and whales and everything else?

I will not let you YECs skimp by ignoring this thread.

Come on, give me some company

 

[Saint Philip]

Firstly, I want to take us on a trip to the Burgess Shale of British Columbia. This fossil bed is located right in the middle of the Canadian Rockies and produces some of the world's greatest Cambrian fossils. Among the inhabitants are Anomalocaris, Opibinia, and Pikaia. What's amazing about this rock formation is that, not only are no modern taxa known from the formation, there are no terrestrial animals AT ALL and there are no vertebrates (but there is one chordate). A simple question. Why is it that not a single fossil of a type of organism alive today has been found in the Burgess Shale? Heck, why hasn't a single vertebrate creature or land dwelling organism been found there? You realize, of course, that if one mammalian molar were to be verified to have been found encased in this formation then the evolutionary timeline as we understand it would be shot, right?

Looking at all the Evolutionist claims in this thread, I'm reminded once again why Evolutionists must resort to censorship and games. 'Cause they got nothing. Troodon, remember, you're suppose to be on the side of science. That takes a little more rigor than subjecting us to your ideas of plausibility.

Okay, we have all these Cambrian fossils that are all extinct. Somehow the fact that they're extinct is suppose to prove Evolution? Very much the opposite, as already pointed out, now you have to explain where they came from because they suddenly appear. You have a bunch more critters in need of transitional forms. What did they evolve to? From? Like every fossil in the fossil record, they essentially stay until they're gone. There is no significant change (other than extinction). Billions of fossils provide this testimony against Evolution.

No modern taxa? Every major taxa of marine invertebrate living today is found in Cambrian rock. But, the Evolutionists can just wave their hands and dismiss multitudes of living creatures as "not modern" based on nothing but their depth in the fossil record and then they turn around and say there's nothing modern deep down.

We can test the sorting hypothesis. The Cambrian is full of marine invertebrates, creatures that live near the bottom of large bodies of water. According to the sorting hypothesis, these are at the bottom because they were already at the bottom when the flood started. Flood debris simply poured in over them. According to the Evolution hypothesis, they're at the bottom because that's when they first evolved. Given the huge variety of marine invertebrate that appeared in a geological instant, evolving a marine invertebrate must not be so hard. But, in the sorting model, it is impossible to evolve a new marine invertebrates.

So, if sorting is true, we should expect to find marine invertebrates at the bottom, but no new kinds higher up. Just more of the same. If Evolution is true there would be new marine invertebrates evolving. Well guess what. If the Evolutionist had any functioning grey matter, this should be a monumental embarrassment. There is not a single new major taxa of marine invertebrate. Hundreds of millions of years and nothing new, but some are extinct.

What about that mammalian molar? As already pointed out, why should we find one? Mammals don't live at the bottom of large bodies of water. The Cambrian would have started to form before the flood and large portions of marine bottom would have been quickly buried without a lot of mixing. If such a molar were found, it would have to be in very good shape before an Evolutionist would consider that it might be molar, even then he would dismiss it as something that just had an uncanny resemblance to a molar. Besides, most rock is dated by the fossils in it, if it had a molar, the rock would just be dated later. Problem solved. No Evolutionist would admit to finding a molar in the Cambrian, all his pals would think he's kook.

What would need to be found is a number of mammal bones. They would at first be dismissed as mixing or some such thing. After the number became too large to dismiss the Evolutionist would just modify the story of Evolution. After all, there is nothing about Evolution that predicts (remember, Evolution predicts nothing) there are no mammal-like fossils in the Cambrian. But, there isn't going to be a large number because mammals don't live at the bottom of the sea.

 

[troodon]

I'm reminded once again why Evolutionists must resort to censorship and games.

Please stop flaming.

Okay, we have all these Cambrian fossils that are all extinct. Somehow the fact that they're extinct is suppose to prove Evolution?

Did I, ever in this thread, say that this evidence 'prove's evolution? No, I said it falsifies a global flood. Something you totally ducked.

Very much the opposite, as already pointed out, now you have to explain where they came from because they suddenly appear. You have a bunch more critters in need of transitional forms.

Late Precambrian/early Cambrian rocks are very rare. I'd estimate the number of fossil sites from this period to be somewhere around a dozen. You expect us to show you a detailed fossil sequence of the evolution of any of these species when we have such scanty material to work with?

What did they evolve to?

Most of them, nothing. There were many dead ends in the Cambrian; 20 or so phyla went extinct (if I remember correctly... could be wrong on the number)

From?

From the primitive echinderms, arthropods, and cnidaria living in the Precambrian.

Billions of fossils provide this testimony against Evolution.

Think of this from the point of view of an old earth with dinosaurs as an example. Assume that dinosaurs existed for some 160 million years and we have a total of a mere 150 to 200 known dinosaur species. By comparison, there are some 9,500 species of birds and 3,000 species of mammals alive today. So, we have to assume that there were well over 1,000 (at the very least) species around at any one time. And yet we know of 150 of these? And you think we should be able to show you specific, generation to generation fossil sequences of dinosaurian evolution? If so then I must admit you have too high of expectations.

No modern taxa? Every major taxa of marine invertebrate living today is found in Cambrian rock.

Every major phyla of marine invertebrate living today is found in the Cambrian. If you honestly think I meant taxa as in any taxonomic group no matter the size then I apologize for the mix up. What I meant is there are no modern, smaller phyla present in the Burgess Shale. No modern species, no modern genera, no modern families, no modern orders, very few (if any) modern classes. So, were nurse sharks or sting rays deathly afraid of little .1m Opibinia or 2m Anomalocaris or what?

But, the Evolutionists can just wave their hands and dismiss multitudes of living creatures as "not modern" based on nothing but their depth in the fossil record and then they turn around and say there's nothing modern deep down.

Pardon? So is this

"modern"?

Can you think of any modern order for that to fit into?

We can test the sorting hypothesis. The Cambrian is full of marine invertebrates, creatures that live near the bottom of large bodies of water. According to the sorting hypothesis, these are at the bottom because they were already at the bottom when the flood started.

Firstly, not all of the animals here were bottom dwellers. Anomalocaris, Opibinia, Trilobites, and Pikaia were all free, ocean swimming organisms. Plus, Trilobites are also found in later strata. Secondly, what about this being on the ocean floor has to do with it radiometric dating to the early-mid Cambrian? Thirdly, how did the Rocky Mountains get formed around this site (considering you just said it was ocean at the time)? Fourthly, why aren't any modern ocean floor dwellers found in the sediment (crabs, lobsters, certain species of shark, certain species of bony fish, ect)? Fifthly, where did all of this sediment come from? Sixthly, how did the Grand Canyon get formed by flood water if it was covered in sediment (you know, the sediment that covered the Kaibab formation )?

Given the huge variety of marine invertebrate that appeared in a geological instant

Geological instant = tens of millions of years.

evolving a marine invertebrate must not be so hard. But, in the sorting model, it is impossible to evolve a new marine invertebrates.

Your sorting model doesn't make sense. There are no more advanced upper ocean dwelling organisms in the strata above the shale, it doesn't account for the lack of modern genera and families, and it creates the problem of explaining how the rocky mountains sort of just formed underneath the site.

So, if sorting is true, we should expect to find marine invertebrates at the bottom, but no new kinds higher up. Just more of the same.

Why wouldn't you find modern bottom dwellers? Why don't we find modern sea dwellers in the strata above the shale? Why are organisms obviously capable of free ocean swimming (Anomalocaris, Opibinia, etc.) only found in the shale and yet trilobites are found here and in older strata (in different locations)?

If Evolution is true there would be new marine invertebrates evolving.

They do, unless you can point to where crabs, lobsters, horseshoe crabs, octopi, and squids are in the Burgess.... no?

If the Evolutionist had any functioning grey matter

You are really pushing it with these flames buddy.

this should be a monumental embarrassment. There is not a single new major taxa of marine invertebrate.

Wrong. New taxa have been created. No new phyla have been created but phyla are enormous groups of animals. All vertebrates are in the same phyla. What has happened is that these preexistant phyla have diversified beyond all recognition. You know what the single chordate representative in the Burgess is? Pikaia; it's basically a worm with a notochord. Mollusks, arthropods, and cnidarians are all also very primitive and very undiversified in this strata.

What about that mammalian molar? As already pointed out, why should we find one? Mammals don't live at the bottom of large bodies of water.

Mammals don't, but lobsters, crabs, octopi, brittle stars, mussels, clams, certain sharks and bony fish, gee, look at the bottom of the ocean floor and whatever it is, it doesn't exist in the Burgess Shale.

Once again, I'll ask where all these hundreds of tons of sediment came from and I'll go ahead and ask if you think that all of the fossil sites I cited (of which you singled out one, yay!) were all independant ecosystems.

The Cambrian would have started to form before the flood and large portions of marine bottom would have been quickly buried without a lot of mixing.

So why didn't modern bottom dwellers live here?

If such a molar were found, it would have to be in very good shape before an Evolutionist would consider that it might be molar, even then he would dismiss it as something that just had an uncanny resemblance to a molar.

Nice. When in doubt, accuse paleontologists of hiding evidence.

Besides, most rock is dated by the fossils in it, if it had a molar, the rock would just be dated later.

False, fossil indexing is used to get an idea as to when a rock will be dated to. It is most always corroberated with radiometric dating.

No Evolutionist would admit to finding a molar in the Cambrian, all his pals would think he's kook.

Not if he had good methodology and evidence on his side they wouldn't.

What would need to be found is a number of mammal bones.

Nope, a molar would do it. You see, at the time there were no bones whatsoever.

After the number became too large to dismiss the Evolutionist would just modify the story of Evolution.

There is no way Evolution could hold out with mammals existing in the Cambrian.

After all, there is nothing about Evolution that predicts (remember, Evolution predicts nothing) there are no mammal-like fossils in the Cambrian.

False. Evolution predicts many things (that the older bird fossils get the more 'birdy' they will become, that the older mammal fossils get the more 'mammalian' they will become, that no bird or mammal fossils will ever be found in rock from before, oh, I'll say the Permian but perhaps the Silurian. I'm not completely up on mammal origins. Anyway, mammals existing in the Cambrian would destroy anything close to modern evolutionary thinking.

But, there isn't going to be a large number because mammals don't live at the bottom of the sea.

Bony fish, sharks, crustaceans, and advanced mollusks do. They are not in the Burgess Shale.

I want to thank you for *attempting* to explain the Burgess Shale but evidently you missed the rest of my thread which details how fossil beds in very close proximity to each other. You "sorting" hypothesis explains none of these things since there are no levels to terrestrial environments.

How does sorting explain how two fossil beds a few hundred miles away yield completely different dinosaur taxa and yet two fossil beds thousands of miles and an ocean away can yield nearly identical dinosaur taxa? How does it explain how there are no modern sea dwellers in the Burgess Shale? Or how the Grand Canyon wasn't covered or how the Rocky mountains formed above and below the Burgess? How does it explain the fact that Tyrannosaurus didn't take over the top predator position in the Green River or Delmarva Penninsula beds? How about why there are bird fossils in the White River and Hell Creek beds but none in the Judith River or Chinle formations? Why didn't birds live there? Are there any modern North American ecosystems that exist without birds? No.

 

[lucaspa]

Okay, we have all these Cambrian fossils that are all extinct. Somehow the fact that they're extinct is suppose to prove Evolution? Very much the opposite, as already pointed out, now you have to explain where they came from because they suddenly appear. You have a bunch more critters in need of transitional forms. What did they evolve to? From? Like every fossil in the fossil record, they essentially stay until they're gone. There is no significant change (other than extinction). Billions of fossils provide this testimony against Evolution.

Saint Philip, you ducked the issue nicely. You tried to turn it around to questioning evolution when the thread asks some questions of creationists. I'll start a new thread on pre-Cambrian fossils, OK?

But, in the meantime, I'd like to see some data from you.

Now, Creation Science says all species were created in a 144 hour period, right? That means they all lived together on the earth at the same time.

1. Why aren't there fossils of sharks, perch, lobsters, hermit crabs, barnacles, whales, etc. in the Burgess Shale fossils?

2. Why aren't the fossils of the Burgess Shale animals found living today? Troodon posted a nice picture of one of them. There is nothing even remotely resembling that animal alive today. Why not? It couldn't have "drowned" in the Flood, because it already lived in water!

We can test the sorting hypothesis. The Cambrian is full of marine invertebrates, creatures that live near the bottom of large bodies of water. According to the sorting hypothesis, these are at the bottom because they were already at the bottom when the flood started. Flood debris simply poured in over them. So, if sorting is true, we should expect to find marine invertebrates at the bottom, but no new kinds higher up.

But lobsters, crabs, flounder, and flatfish also live near the bottom of large bodies of water. They should also have been buried. "Flood debris simply poured in over them." Where are their fossils?

NOT in the Burgess Shale or at the bottom of the fossil record. They are higher up. This cannot be if the sorting hypothesis is correct. Since true statements can't have false consequences, it means the sorting hypothesis is wrong.

Now, are you saying that "marine invertebrates" is all a single kind? Lobsters are the same kind as barnacles? And both are the same kind as that weird swimming creature Troodon had in his picture?

Where is your data for that? What research shows these are all the same kinds?

What about that mammalian molar? As already pointed out, why should we find one? Mammals don't live at the bottom of large bodies of water.

Manatees do. Sperm whales routinely dive to the bottom to hunt. Why wasn't one of these buried in the first Flood debris?

But, there isn't going to be a large number because mammals don't live at the bottom of the sea.

But not all the earth at the time of the Flood was under water, was it? So, why are all the land sediments of that layer (and there are land sediments at the layer of the Burgess Shale) without mammal bones? Little shrews and mice could not have run far before the Flood overwhelmed them. Sloth can't really run at all. So they would have been buried with the first sediments and be in the same level as the Burgess Shale but right next door.

You didn't reason this out very well, did you Saint Philip?

 

[Ark Guy]

From reading these post it seems as if the evos think that for YEC to be correct we should still see all (most of) of these extinct animals we find captured in the flood and preserved as fossils.....but, must I remind you that not all species of animals were on the ark.

Using modern language, species are representatives of a certain genera...which are representatives of the taxonomical rank of famalies.

The "kinds" mentioned in the bible was a biblical taxonomic rank higher than species.

 

[lucaspa]

From reading these post it seems as if the evos think that for YEC to be correct we should still see all (most of) of these extinct animals we find captured in the flood and preserved as fossils.....but, must I remind you that not all species of animals were on the ark.

Using modern language, species are representatives of a certain genera...which are representatives of the taxonomical rank of famalies.

The "kinds" mentioned in the bible was a biblical taxonomic rank higher than species.

Then "two of every kind" didn't mean that?

We see higher taxonomic rank of animals in the fossil record than we see living. Titanotheres for instance. Where are they among the pictures of animals humans have drawn all over the world?

We are also saying that there should be every major taxonomic group in every major fossil layer. Understand? We should see dolphins in the same layers as ichthyosaurs. Perch in the same layers as the cartilaginous fishes. Hermit crabs and lobsters alongside the animals in the Burgess Shales. Mammoths in the same layers as Maiasaura. There is no sorting or hydrodynamic qualities of the Flood that could have sorted the fossils such that all animals aren't mixed up in the layers.

 

[troodon]

From reading these post it seems as if the evos think that for YEC to be correct we should still see all (most of) of these extinct animals we find captured in the flood and preserved as fossils.....but, must I remind you that not all species of animals were on the ark.

lucaspa already said this but I will repeat it for effect. The data shown in this thread is not meant to question why we don't see any of these extinct organisms alive today (although that is a good question). It is primarily meant to question why the fossil record is so segregated. Birds are never found in sediment containing therapsids; why? Angiosperms (flowering plants) are never found in sediment containing prosauropods; why? Tyrannosaurs are never found in sediment containing allosaurs (even when the sediments are only a few hundred miles away; why? These are a few specific examples of a much larger problem.

 

[Ark Guy]

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

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?

 

[Ark Guy]

troodon...and they never find penguins buried alosng side of road runners..

 

[troodon]

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?

Have you read about the distances involved here? They are not large. 500 miles separate the Morrison from Hell Creek yet they have completely different fauna and flora. White River is directly inbetween the Morrison and Hell Creek and yet it has completely different fauna. The Green River is about 250 miles from both Lance and the Morrison and yet its fauna is completely different from any of the others. The Judith River is only about 400 miles away from the Hell Creek and yet it too has completely different fauna! Do you get the picture that is developing? You're saying that the entire northern Midwest was divided into completely different dinosaurian ecosystems with tiny colonies in the middle. Does that make sense to you?

You're explaination explains nothing. Why didn't tyrannosaurs/allosaurs/raptors/saber-toothed tigers/megalosaurs/troodonts take over some predatory niche in the White River? Why did't sauropods/ceratopsians/stegosaurs/hadrosaurs/therapsids/elephants/camels take over some herbivory niche in the White River? Why didn't birds live in Central Colorado before the flood? Why didn't flowering plants live in Central Colorado before the flood? Why didn't grass live in Central Colorado, Montana, North and South Dakota, or Wyoming before the flood? Where did buffalo live before the flood?

troodon...and they never find penguins buried alosng side of road runners..

That is not anologous to my argument. Penguins and road runners are separated by thousands of miles and completely different climates. My examples are all just about in the same climate zone and are separated by a few hundred miles at the most.

 

[Vance]

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.

 

[Ark Guy]

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?

 

[troodon]

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

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).

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

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.

 

[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.

 

[troodon]

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

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:

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

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).

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

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:

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

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?

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

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.

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

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?

 

[lucaspa]

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.

 

[lucaspa]

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.

 

[troodon]

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.

 

[troodon]

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?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

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