How Does YEC Explain The Fossil Record?

[darinhouston]

I did some googling and it appears mammals were extensively present in the fossil record along with Dinos. But they tended to be the smaller varieties due to the predatory pressures against the larger ones from the large dinos. When the dinos went away, the prey thrived and the larger ones flourished and began to be seen in the record. That doesn't mean they weren't around previously, just not in sufficient numbers statistically speaking to be seen in the fossil sampling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[seer]

I did some googling and it appears mammals were extensively present in the fossil record along with Dinos. But they tended to be the smaller varieties due to the predatory pressures against the larger ones from the large dinos. When the dinos went away, the prey thrived and the larger ones flourished and began to be seen in the record. That doesn't mean they weren't around previously, just not in sufficient numbers statistically speaking to be seen in the fossil sampling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, that is correct, I looked into it yesterday more. But these were early forms of mammals are not the mammals of the last 10-20,000 years or so. The mammals that we know and love today. So back to my original point - if the fossil record was created by the flood as YEC suggest then why don't we see these more modern mammals in the fossil record with the dinos? To me this is strong, perhaps conclusive, evidence of the fossil record not being created by a world wide flood.

[mattrose]

Here is the Answers in Genesis response to this question
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... s-together

Basically, their answer is that fossils are very rare, especially for mammals. They would, of course, not be surprised to find human and dinosaur fossils together... but they don't appear to be shocked that we haven't found such evidence yet either.

[seer]

Here is the Answers in Genesis response to this question
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... s-together

Basically, their answer is that fossils are very rare, especially for mammals. They would, of course, not be surprised to find human and dinosaur fossils together... but they don't appear to be shocked that we haven't found such evidence yet either.

Thanks Matt, but that really does not work. As darinhouston rightly said, we do find very ancient, early mammals in the same area/strata with dinos. But what we don't ever find are modern mammals. And though the human population may have been too small to register in a flood created fossil record that certainly would not have been the case with the thousands of other mammal species.

[mattrose]

Here is the Answers in Genesis response to this question
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... s-together

Basically, their answer is that fossils are very rare, especially for mammals. They would, of course, not be surprised to find human and dinosaur fossils together... but they don't appear to be shocked that we haven't found such evidence yet either.

Thanks Matt, but that really does not work. As darinhouston rightly said, we do find very ancient, early mammals in the same area/strata with dinos. But what we don't ever find are modern mammals. And though the human population may have been too small to register in a flood created fossil record that certainly would not have been the case with the thousands of other mammal species.

The answer might not be satisfying to you... but it also might be satisfying to people more in the know and more educated on the subject to both of us.

I did find it interesting in the article that there are fossils of some species found in strata BEFORE and DURING the dinosaur era.... that are living/active species today. To me, that sheds a lot of doubt on the whole range of assumptions made by uniformitarianists. I could just as easily conclude from such evidence that uniformitarian answers 'don't work for me'

[seer]

The answer might not be satisfying to you... but it also might be satisfying to people more in the know and more educated on the subject to both of us.

I did find it interesting in the article that there are fossils of some species found in strata BEFORE and DURING the dinosaur era.... that are living/active species today. To me, that sheds a lot of doubt on the whole range of assumptions made by uniformitarianists. I could just as easily conclude from such evidence that uniformitarian answers 'don't work for me'

It is not about being satisfying Matt, it is about the evidence. The fact is, if the fossil record was created by a world wide flood you would expect to see what we consider modern mammals in the same strata, and intermingled, with dinosaurs. There is no reasonable explanation for why we don't see that. And I'm not defending Uniformitarianism, though it may be the best possible explanation. Generally unaided evolution, to me, has real, insurmountable problems.

[steve]

Jim,

It seems that you missed part of Matt's observation, namely, that some modern animals are found before and alongside dinosaurs.

When you say it is about the evidence, you seem to imply that evidence by itself proves something, apart from interpretation of that evidence. All such interpretation seeks to fit a given datum into a larger paradigm, which itself is part of the researcher's worldview. Some data fit one worldview paradigm and not another, while some data can be harmonized with more than one worldview paradigm.

You have presented arguments that the fossil record should display certain features if the flood-paradigm is true. Perhaps it should. Perhaps it does not display them as admirably as one could desire. Dearth of evidence is often appealed to remove the difficulty.

The same issues arise when we ask what the fossil record should display if the uniformitarian/evolutionary paradigm is true. In this case, as well, the evidence does not fit the paradigm as admirably as one could wish. One would predict (as Darwin did) that we would find a finely-graded series of intermediates between major plant and animal groups in the strata. This is not what is found. Once again, dearth of evidence is the most likely defense against the data (it was the defense to which Darwin resorted, and most evolutionists follow him in this).

So which way does the evidence point? It depends on one's paradigm of interpretation. To say that the evidence for a certain thesis is not "satisfying" is not to say that one is being completely subjective in his judgment, but that he cannot see that the evidence fits a paradign alternative to the one he finds most convincing.

[seer]

Jim,

It seems that you missed part of Matt's observation, namely, that some modern animals are found before and alongside dinosaurs.

Yes Steve, there are species that have remained relatively unchanged for literally millions of years, and we do find those alongside dinosaurs. Which is what you would expect to see. So why don't we see these other later mammals?

When you say it is about the evidence, you seem to imply that evidence by itself proves something, apart from interpretation of that evidence. All such interpretation seeks to fit a given datum into a larger paradigm, which itself is part of the researcher's worldview. Some data fit one worldview paradigm and not another, while some data can be harmonized with more than one worldview paradigm.

You have presented arguments that the fossil record should display certain features if the flood-paradigm is true. Perhaps it should. Perhaps it does not display them as admirably as one could desire. Dearth of evidence is often appealed to remove the difficulty.

Really Steve? Perhaps the fossil record should display certain features if the flood paradigm was true should? Can you offer any plausible reason why these mammals are missing? No apes, no men, no dog, no cats, no deer, no bears, no rabbits, squirrels, etc... This is a real problem for the flood model - perhaps even a defeater.

The same issues arise when we ask what the fossil record should display if the uniformitarian/evolutionary paradigm is true. In this case, as well, the evidence does not fit the paradigm as admirably as one could wish. One would predict (as Darwin did) that we would find a finely-graded series of intermediates between major plant and animal groups in the strata. This is not what is found. Once again, dearth of evidence is the most likely defense against the data (it was the defense to which Darwin resorted, and most evolutionists follow him in this).

So which way does the evidence point? It depends on one's paradigm of interpretation. To say that the evidence for a certain thesis is not "satisfying" is not to say that one is being completely subjective in his judgment, but that he cannot see that the evidence fits a paradign alternative to the one he finds most convincing.

Steve I'm not defending evolution, though in the past when I have presented the anomalies I have seen in uniformitarian view they have at least offered a reasonable explanation. Like I said, I believe that the idea of unaided biological evolution has insurmountable problems. But this lack of mammal fossils may be insurmountable for the flood theory.

[backwoodsman]

No apes, no men, no dog, no cats, no deer, no bears, no rabbits, squirrels, etc... This is a real problem for the flood model - perhaps even a defeater.

Just to clarify, you mean for the young-earth creationist, worldwide flood model, right? It presents no problems for the old-earth creationist, "global but not worldwide" flood model, of course.

[steve]

Jim,

You asked a question, and I have answered to the best of my knowledge. If you do not find this answer adequate, you are at liberty to seek alternatives.