How Does YEC Explain The Fossil Record?

[mattrose]

It's not really a subject on my mind right now.... but a quick search did turn up this quote from a message board (obviously not a great source since people like me post on message boards!). In any case, he/she seems to provide a 'source' for their information.

There have been numerous caches of "modern" fossils found, but for various reasons they tend not to make their way into either contemporary news accounts or historical texts. For those debating evolution/creation here, I would remind you that the question is in fact, "why are there no fossils of modern animals in with the dinos?" To specifically address that question, I refer you to an edition of the journal of the Royal Society of London, published in 1893, which details a rather large cache of "modern" fossils (deer, oxen, elephants, hippos) comingled in cave of San Ciro outside Palermo in Sicily. Twenty tons of these fossils are recorded as having been shipped out of the caves and ground up for various commercial purposes and thus lost to the ages. Sadly,neither the historical nor scientific value of these bones was realised at the time. This is hardly the sole example; further similar collections (wolves, bears, horses, oxen) were found throughout England and western Europe in the same time period, similarly recorded, specifically in places such as the Rock of Gibralter and Santenay, near Chalons in central France. The French location herein described is located in caves and fissures 1,000 feet above sea level. Specific English locations include the Channel Islands and Brighton. By the way: The English locations did in fact produce human fossils comingled with mammalian samples, as detailed in the cited publication. Conclude what you will from this, but for those of you who laugh at the idea of researchers ignoring data that does not fit a preconceived theorum, I must ask whether you were aware of this...
Source(s):
Phil. Trans. of the Royal Soc. of Lond., CXXIV (1893), 903-84; SCOT, 238-82.

[seer]

It's not really a subject on my mind right now.... but a quick search did turn up this quote from a message board (obviously not a great source since people like me post on message boards!). In any case, he/she seems to provide a 'source' for their information.

There have been numerous caches of "modern" fossils found, but for various reasons they tend not to make their way into either contemporary news accounts or historical texts. For those debating evolution/creation here, I would remind you that the question is in fact, "why are there no fossils of modern animals in with the dinos?" To specifically address that question, I refer you to an edition of the journal of the Royal Society of London, published in 1893, which details a rather large cache of "modern" fossils (deer, oxen, elephants, hippos) comingled in cave of San Ciro outside Palermo in Sicily. Twenty tons of these fossils are recorded as having been shipped out of the caves and ground up for various commercial purposes and thus lost to the ages. Sadly,neither the historical nor scientific value of these bones was realised at the time. This is hardly the sole example; further similar collections (wolves, bears, horses, oxen) were found throughout England and western Europe in the same time period, similarly recorded, specifically in places such as the Rock of Gibralter and Santenay, near Chalons in central France. The French location herein described is located in caves and fissures 1,000 feet above sea level. Specific English locations include the Channel Islands and Brighton. By the way: The English locations did in fact produce human fossils comingled with mammalian samples, as detailed in the cited publication. Conclude what you will from this, but for those of you who laugh at the idea of researchers ignoring data that does not fit a preconceived theorum, I must ask whether you were aware of this...
Source(s):
Phil. Trans. of the Royal Soc. of Lond., CXXIV (1893), 903-84; SCOT, 238-82.

See, if the above was true then that would go a long way to support a global flood and it would go a long way to undermine the theory of evolution as we know it. But how do we verify these claims?

[darinhouston]

See, if the above was true then that would go a long way to support a global flood and it would go a long way to undermine the theory of evolution as we know it. But how do we verify these claims?

You might find that journal -- here's a possibly more authoritative or scholarly reference to it...

http://books.google.com/books?id=wYIPAA ... 2.&f=false

[seer]

See, if the above was true then that would go a long way to support a global flood and it would go a long way to undermine the theory of evolution as we know it. But how do we verify these claims?

You might find that journal -- here's a possibly more authoritative or scholarly reference to it...

That basically says the same thing that Matt quoted. But no where does it speak of dinosaurs being intermingled with modern animals. Or did I miss something?

[Paidion]

According to the article in the link below, "Some of today's species look a lot like their Mesozoic counterparts."
If the Mesozoic mammals look so much like today's species, how can we be so sure they weren't today's species?
Or is it mere presumption that they COULDN'T have been the same mammal types?

http://science.howstuffworks.com/enviro ... porary.htm

[seer]

According to the article in the link below, "Some of today's species look a lot like their Mesozoic counterparts."
If the Mesozoic mammals look so much like today's species, how can we be so sure they weren't today's species?
Or is it mere presumption that they COULDN'T have been the same mammal types?

http://science.howstuffworks.com/enviro ... porary.htm

Like I said earlier, there certainly are species like the coelacanth that seemed to remain relatively unchanged for millions of years (that in itself seems to speak against the evolutionary paradigm) - so called living fossils. Perhaps there are mammals did not change that much either.