This is aimed mostly at creationists. How do you explain the order of the fossil record? That is, in the creationist view, why do we find only primitive creatures lower in the geological column, never any modern creatures.

I went to an old textbook I had from grade-school (I went to a private Christian school with its own creationist textbook) and they had the only explanation I have ever seen:

Quote:Eras, periods, and epochs are all related to a sequence of time. This fits well with naturalistic evolution, but not with special creation. As a result, most creation scientists interpret these terms as describing the sequence in which the fossils would have been buried by the flood and later geologic activity. For example, snails and similar animals would have been buried lower in the geologic column than animals, such as mammals, that could have escaped the rising waters of the flood by moving to higher ground

I hope everybody understands why that is such a ridiculous proposition. The fact with the geological record is that crossovers that would destroy the theory of evolution simply never occur. We have NEVER found a mammal in or before the Jurassic period. We do, however, find fossils of simpler animals in recent fossil record, those that shouldn't have been able to "escape the rising waters of the flood" in recent geological periods. They're just different from earlier periods. So this explanation obviously fails. Besides that, radiometric dating is completely consistent with evolution and common descent. The fossils give the exact radiometric dates they should.

So my question is: is there another explanation creationists have explaining the complex order of fossils in the fossil record? Because this is extremely compelling evidence for evolution, and it seems to be the one thing creationists haven't really touched.

(Side note, another huge problem with the other explanation is the fact that there is zero evidence for a world wide flood, but I didn't want to start an argument over that)

Let me know if anyone offers an explanation that is a) falsifiable, and b) not ad hoc bullshit.

Will do, I'm not holding my breath

"Global Evilutionist Conspiracy" = 3-2
"Devil Dun It" = 4-1
"God's Will" = evens favourite

Stimbo, you're laying awful long odds for such sure bets.

Preferred artsy answer: It was an attempt to make a deeply satirical point about the nature of probability, the inconsistency of dogmatic beliefs and their relationship to reality in general.

Boring honest answer: I'm not a gambling man so I just threw down some numbers to get the point across.

I've heard quite a few, actually. The most common (Of late, anyway) is that radiometric/carbon dating do not return accurate results, and that scientists are deliberately falsifying the data.

The two sources below pretty much cover the arguments that I've heard the most.

http://www.creationism.org/topbar/fossils.htm
http://www.icr.org/article/5145/

Quote:I've heard quite a few, actually. The most common (Of late, anyway) is that radiometric/carbon dating do not return accurate results, and that scientists are deliberating falsifying the data.

That would be typical of creatard stupidity and completely misses the point that we do not find rabbits with tyrannosaur fossils.

The shitheads can't understand stuff like that, though.

Flood geology? You mean creotards still try to sell that idiocy? I would like to hear any creotard tell me what the first thing laid down by a flood would be and what is seen in the geological column. They can even use the grand canyon for ease.

Incidentally, most Muslims argue from the same hymn book; so to speak.

Edit:

Phil Wrote:Flood geology? You mean creotards still try to sell that idiocy? I would like to hear any creotard tell me what the first thing laid down by a flood would be and what is seen in the geological column. They can even use the grand canyon for ease.

Didn't you know that the Grand Canyon was formed by the flood? Well, so I've been told, anyway.