How Does YEC Explain The Fossil Record?

[seer]

If the earth is really young why don't we find humans or mammals in the same strata that we find dinosaurs. Or dinosaurs in the same lower strata as earlier life forms. There seems to be a clear progression of more and more complicated life.

[steve]

Hi Jim,

Most Young Earth Creationists hold to the "flood geology" view, suggesting that the geological strata are not reflective of when these creatures came into existence, but of when they died—i.e., in the biblical flood. They would suggest that the order in which things are found (which is not as consistent as textbooks might lead one to believe) is a result of hydraulic sorting—with the simpler, less mobile creatures being trapped at the lower levels, and the more mobile creatures escaping to higher levels before being trapped and entombed in mud. They dispute the more popular uniformitarian view, which envisages creatures lying down when they died, and gradually being covered with sedimentary rock over millions of years.

Some of the evidences that they believe support their alternative would include:

1) Fossils have to be formed rather rapidly, not over millions (or even tens) of years, since carcasses are quickly dismembered by scavengers if they lie exposed. The evidence is that the relatively few creatures that became fossils were killed rather violenty, and covered abruptly;

2) Fossils are often found in the wrong layers vis-a-vis the predictions of the uniformitarian theory—with allegedly more ancient specimens located above the more modern. This is sometimes caused, it is thought, by "overthrusts" in which strata become inverted;

3) Polystrate fossils (especially large trees) traverse a number of strata, suggesting the simultaneous creation of those strata, rather than the gradual accumulation over millions of years.

4) The entire geological column, as depicted in textbook drawings, is not known to be observable in any place on the earth. Textbook orthodoxy often relies on speculative combinations of partial evidences discovered in various locations around the world. While the resultant paradigm may be valid, it is not certainly so.

[Paidion]

Check out these links:

Men and Dinosaurs Co-existed


Tracking Those Incredible Dinosaurs

[seer]

Hi Jim,

Most Young Earth Creationists hold to the "flood geology" view, suggesting that the geological strata are not reflective of when these creatures came into existence, but of when they died—i.e., in the biblical flood. They would suggest that the order in which things are found (which is not as consistent as textbooks might lead one to believe) is a result of hydraulic sorting—with the simpler, less mobile creatures being trapped at the lower levels, and the more mobile creatures escaping to higher levels before being trapped and entombed in mud. They dispute the more popular uniformitarian view, which envisages creatures lying down when they died, and gradually being covered with sedimentary rock over millions of years.

Some of the evidences that they believe support their alternative would include:

1) Fossils have to be formed rather rapidly, not over millions (or even tens) of years, since carcasses are quickly dismembered by scavengers if they lie exposed. The evidence is that the relatively few creatures that became fossils were killed rather violenty, and covered abruptly;

2) Fossils are often found in the wrong layers vis-a-vis the predictions of the uniformitarian theory—with allegedly more ancient specimens located above the more modern. This is sometimes caused, it is thought, by "overthrusts" in which strata become inverted;

3) Polystrate fossils (especially large trees) traverse a number of strata, suggesting the simultaneous creation of those strata, rather than the gradual accumulation over millions of years.

4) The entire geological column, as depicted in textbook drawings, is not known to be observable in any place on the earth. Textbook orthodoxy often relies on speculative combinations of partial evidences discovered in various locations around the world. While the resultant paradigm may be valid, it is not certainly so.

I don't know Steve, I still think we should find many mammals with dinosaurs, and we just don't. If the the flood really caused these fossils they should be intermingled.

[darinhouston]

I'm not a YEC. BUT it seems to me we don't find a lot of anything with dinosaurs. Aren't they (and humans) still relatively rare finds?

Are you suggesting there aren't any mammals at all found in the fossil record during the dinosaurs' reign? I hadn't heard that extreme position.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[seer]

I'm not a YEC. BUT it seems to me we don't find a lot of anything with dinosaurs. Aren't they (and humans) still relatively rare finds?

Are you suggesting there aren't any mammals at all found in the fossil record during the dinosaurs' reign? I hadn't heard that extreme position.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Listen, as far as I know we don't find mammals, especially mammals like we see today, intermingled with dinosaurs. I mean if this was all caused by the flood wouldn't you expect to see dogs, cats, monkeys, deer, lions, bears, etc,etc,etc widely intermingled with dinosaurs.

[PR]

I think the dinosaurs ate everything else...

Phil

[seer]

I think the dinosaurs ate everything else...

Phil

LOL....

[Paidion]

Or everything else ate the dinosaurs, and that's the reason there aren't any around now.

[mikew]

Is it true that the dinosaurs were going to devour the whole earth and that God had to stop that with the flood?