Response to Answers In Genesis: Order in the Fossil Record
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-03-2014, 11:21 PM (This post was last modified: 02-03-2014 11:31 PM by Metazoa Zeke.)
Response to Answers In Genesis: Order in the Fossil Record
Answers in genesis has anohter false statement about geology. This deals with the grand canyon and why fossils appear in the way evolution has predicted.

"The best way to do that is to see a list of the fossils found in each of the main layers, as in Figure 3.7 A careful examination of this list reveals the order in which creatures were buried by the Flood."
Before we get to that was it rapid or fossils didn't need the flood? Seeing creationist, the flood was rapid. Lets continue.

"Shallow Marine Invertebrates of the Seafloor. Trilobites, brachiopods, and other shallow marine invertebrates are the first creatures to be buried in the first sedimentary layers of the Flood—the Tapeats, Bright Angel, and Muav."

Well if there was a flood why are they buried first? There would have been in the same area as other marine animals that live in the same area. In fact many animals would have moved much slower. What about sea cucumbers, some like the sea pig move slowly, in fact evidence shows that trilobites might have moved faster.1 So that would mean they would move as fast or maybe faster then the sea pig. Now to be fair you guys do say shallow marine invertebrates of the seafloor, however the fossil record is more complicated then that, even between invertebrates of the seafloor. It's more then just them appearing. First ,it is how it is mixed. If sea pigs were found before trilobites then there would be a problem. A sea pig in the Cambrian would really cause problems seeing as the appeared in the Silurian. However it isn't like that. So maybe you should look more into prehistoric invertebrates.

"It is not until the Temple Butte Limestone that fish remains are found. Note, however, that the marine invertebrates are found buried at almost every level in this fossil record. This is consistent with the ocean waters rising and washing across the continents during the Flood, carrying these marine creatures with the sediments in which they were buried."

Then why wouldn't the flood was the fish lower? In fact who said the flood necessarily washed animals only up, seeing as a flood can go both ways. Also many fish sink when they die. Sharks do for example. SO that would mean that when the flood calms down they would sink to the bottom, or maybe sink even faster depending on the situation. Sure other animals could eat the body before it reaches the bottom, but that is not guaranteed and that some shark bodies would make it to the bottom.

"Fossils of Land Vertebrates. Interestingly, the first fossilized bodies of land vertebrates (reptiles in the Moenkopi Formation) are not found buried until much higher than the footprints. Dinosaurs are found even higher, in the Moenave Formation. Mammals aren't found buried until right at the top of this sequence of rock layers."

What paper says higher? Sure there can be but does that mean that it was running from a flood?

"Remember, this is a burial during the Flood. As the Flood waters inundated the continents, the shallow marine invertebrates were first swept from the pre-Flood ocean floors and buried on the continents in rapid succession. After the waters rose over the continents, they progressively encountered different ecological zones at different elevations, which were inundated in rapid succession."

Also why only marine invertebrates? What about fish? A shark sinking can surely end up be right next to a trilobite in the Cambrian area rock.

"The conventional explanation of the fossil order is progressive evolutionary changes over long periods of time. But this explanation runs into a huge challenge. Evolution predicts that new groups of creatures would have arisen in a specific order. But if you compare the order that these creatures first appear in the actual fossil record, as opposed to their theoretical first appearance in the predictions, then over 95% of the fossil record’s “order” can best be described as random."

Well no, In fact this is false. In fact animals and other organisms are in order. No canines are found in the cambrian. In fact tiktaalik was found based off of the fact that no fossil is out of place, and based on earths time line2 IF it were random then we should find canines in the cambrian period. Also for something in order look at something like the evolution of mammal-like"reptiles". The more mammal like ones are found in areas younger then more "reptile" like ones.3

"On the other hand, if these organisms were buried by the Flood waters, the order of first appearance should be either random, due to the sorting effects of the Flood, or reflect the order of ecological burial. In other words, as the Flood waters rose, they would tend to bury organisms in the order that they were encountered, so the major groups should appear in the fossil record according to where they lived, and not when they lived. This is exactly what we find, including this fossil record within the Grand Canyon—Grand Staircase."

There should only be random or in a different order the predicted model of the history of earth. They wouldn't only be buried by where they were encountered. Bison and triceratops should be found in cretacous rock together because they lived in the same area. In fact that means many animals should be buried together. Mosasaurs with whales, smilodon with moshops, or trilobites with sea pigs in the Cambrian. But we don't find that do we.

"You can also see another interesting pattern that confirms what we would expect from a global Flood. You would expect many larger animals to survive the Flood waters initially, leaving their tracks in the accumulating sediment layers as they tried to escape the rising waters. But eventually they would become exhausted, die, and get buried."

Well this also needs some explaining. Do you mean running higher up a hill? If you do then this is wrong. Who is to say something stoped them. Also you can tell when the animal that left the foot prints was running.4 I know this is not at the grand canyon but it can still apply seeing the flood is global, the picture here doesn't look like running.5

[Image: sucre-dinosaur-tracks.jpg]
so do titanosaurus move this slow during a flood?

"Indeed, the pattern of first appearances doesn’t fit the expected evolutionary order but instead is consistent with the rising Flood waters, as they inundated the continents. Furthermore, even the pattern of finding tracks before bodies is consistent with creatures surviving in the initial Flood waters before eventually perishing."

How does this fit creationism instead of science again? I still don't see sea pigs with trilobites in cambrian rock. Of course some people need a little education on the history of life.6

This brings me to the part where you said evolutionary bias. When you brought up the footprint claim it shows your bias. Finding a animal in front of its foot print doesn't mean that there was a global flood, it just proves that the animal died in front of its foot prints. This isn't a prediction, but a bias if you say that it proves the flood. What makes you think that animals should be only be found running in the fossil record if there is a global flood? Animals can run and move period, even without a global flood. So what would make that evidence? In fact this can't be a prediction of anything, period. The only reason why you think this is evidence for a global flood is because you start with the conclusion, and what ever looks good you count as evidence, even though it implies nothing except that the animal left foot prints.

Evolution on the other hand makes predictions. Tiktaalik was found on the predictions made by evolution. However unlike your foot prints, we could make a prediction off of this. Fossils like those of other tetrapod evolutionary fossils was found around 390-360 million years ago. That would mean that if there were looking for an example they would look in a certain area. Tiktaalik was supposed to be found between primitive tetrapod transitional fossils and more advanced ones. Ironically tiktaalik was found in an area dated 375 million years ago, and right between panderichthys and elginerpeton. This is how you find evidence based on predictions.8

It looks like when you said that, you were using bias, which is what all evidence for creationism is. AIG you need to make better predictions.

Leave suggestions and thanks for readingThumbsup








[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: