O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
I have a question that I don't recall being discussed in BCS, but if it was, then feel free to just direct me to those pages (and if it wasn't maybe it should be!)...but here goes.
A YEC friend of mine recently went to hear Ken Hamm and YEC "scientist" speak. He is reconsidering YEC in light of the BCS book and lectures I've given him, plus our ongoing discussion. He came back from the AiG conference with one unanswered question cracking his paradigm and I wonder if you know the YEC explanation for it:
"If Noah put all kinds of modern animals on the ark, and then a global flood killed the rest, including the dinosaurs and all the people, then why are there over 700 kinds of dinosaur fossils but NO MODERN ANIMAL or people fossils? Wouldn't one expect that modern animals and people would have been preserved at the same rate as the dinosaurs? But we have no camels, sheep or children fossils. And according to YEC belief, they walked side by side and were all killed the same way..."
I think BCS explains this indirectly. Since BCS promotes a local flood, this would explain why no fossil remains as you ask.
Yes, I get the BCS view. But I'm wondering how the Creation folks answer this question. Thought folks here might know. I'm guessing that there's some fantastical explanation for the deafening silence in the fossil record...
I guess I was replying to your first paragraph.
I suppose Ken Hamm and his imagination could conjure up some fanciful ideas. Now whether it would make a lick of sense would be another matter. LOL
I have never seen that problem addressed in print.
Isn't this a HUGE hole in their argument? I mean if there were 1000 dinosaurs, 1000 humans, 1000 camels, 1000 sheep, 1000 of EVERY OTHER SPECIES on earth all at the same time, and the same event supposedly killed them ALL AT ONCE, then why did ONLY dinosaurs get fossilized? No humans, sheep, cattle, camels, ANYthing else. This seems like it would be awfully tricky and confusing for God to do that to people if he wanted them to believe in a relatively recent global flood. All he would have had to do was preserve some other contemporary animals. Or a village. But no. He only left us with very old and prehistoric looking dinosaurs.
There are problems galore. Your example is just one more on a very long list.
The major issue, for me personally, that I considered in my research is the fact that various fossils are specific to certain geological layers. Now, how in the world would one chaotic, global flood sort out specific fossilized organisms in specific layers? Wouldn't one big global flood that produced the geological column (young-earth model) mix all kinds of fossils in all different layers?
But that is not what is recorded in the rock layers.
I tried to figure that out as a YEC. I tried, and tried, and tried...
If the flood was only local, then how did the fossils come to appear in other areas all over the earth?
From what I can understand, fossils can be made in a variety of ways. Many fossil beds are remnants of ancient seas. (We have a lot of those around here where I live.)
Floods, volcanoes, landslides, sea beds, all can produce fossils. And that list is not comprehensive.
The biggest problem for YEC flood geology is this fact. Certain fossils are exclusive to certain layers of rock. There is a rhyme to the whole thing.
For instance, back in the day before seismic technology, oil companies utilized geologists to examine fossils from core samples. They could / can figure out the probability of oil by examining the types of fossils in the rock.
There is a reason why one can "read" geological maps. They are uniform, coherent, and consistent. This would be impossible using the YEC flood geology paradigm.
There was a system to how the fossils record was made and preserved. It's the same thing with the different layers of the earth's crust. Throw in plate tectonics and we can really enjoy reading God's tape recorder.
YEC flood geology posits that it was all laid down at once in a catastrophic global flood. If that where the case there would be no rhyme or reason. It would be a jumbled mess, not to mention we would not see certain fossils unique to certain rock layers.
If you have a chance, I would highly recommend finding a place where you can look and study a geological map. (Maybe a library or the internet.) They are very fascinating.
I have attached a picture from a hike I did in the Bob Marshall Wilderness. Please notice the amazing detail in the layered rock combined with the effects of plate tectonics. (In this case, I think it is called upthrust.)
Here is another picture from Glacier National Park. This is not the best by far, but you can see the distinct lines of different rock layers, incredibly uniformed.
I particularly like the little white layer that is just above half way up. If you could see the other mountains around this one, you would see that same white layer, in the same place. It's pretty neat.
I witnessed this same effect in the red river valley of Texas. About 3 or 4 feet down from the top soil there is a white band of what looks like ash but instead it is rock from a layer of organic material. It is a band that may position hiher or lower in places but is continueous.
ROB, I have just seen your posting.
It seems to me you are asking two different questions with one as a denial of the other which is the one posited in Tim and JL's book.
One question involves the time of the flood and the other is of the area encompassed by the flood, which is the question addressed by Tim Martin in his first editon and all subsequent editions including the one co-authored by JL.
My observations would be that the fossil record would be identical in all areas encompassed by the flood, whether global or local, as would also be true of the time of the flood, whether global or local, unless there was no flood.
But, since you indicate that the global fossil record is identical, then you are positing that the flood that provided the global fossil record was indeed global and not local. Unless the fossil record was formed by some means other than a flood, which would have to be argued humanistically independent of any scriptural record for agreement or disagreement.