People and dinosaurs did not exist at the same time

[Suhar]

Here's a web page perspective on two Civil War Pterosaur pictures in which the large Pterosaur picture is presented as authentic; and the smaller Pterosaur picture is presented as a fraud -- which is introduced to discredit the authentic picture:

http://www.estremecedorbook.com/the-civil-war-pterosaur-shot-no-one-should-see-must-read/

So you focus on one picture to disregard thousands of other artifacts showing recent co-existence of dinosaur and man? Very bias of you!

 

[River Jordan]

What you originally suggested was not that humans and dinosaurs should be found in the same strata, but that we should find "human remains and artifacts mixed in with dinosaur fossils all the time".

The article I posted, which I doubt you even read, deals with the rarity of such fossils and subsequently the likelyhood that they should be found in the same strata. For example, if absence of fossils in a particular strata proves that they did not live during that "time" then how do you explain the coelacanth? It does not appear in several layers of strata and yet lives today.

Yes, according to young-earth creationism, that's what we should see. If dinosaurs and humans were both created on the same week 6,000 years ago, and we see dinosaur fossils all the time all over the globe, then by the same token we should see human fossils and artifacts. Whatever conditions led to massive, rapid fossilization of dinosaur remains should also lead to rapid, massive fossilization of human remains.

Yet human fossils and artifacts are not ever found in the same geologic strata with dinosaurs. In fact, they're always separated by strata that span very long periods of time. That's a very, very good indication that dinosaurs did not exist alongside humans.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

So that's a "No, human remains and artifacts are never found with dinosaur fossils".

Using that same analogy we should be able to find all the transitional fossils showing how monkeys became humans

 

[River Jordan]

Using that same analogy we should be able to find all the transitional fossils showing how monkeys became humans

I didn't say we should find every fossil of every dinosaur and every human. I said we should find them pretty often. Given the number of dinosaur fossils we have, you'd think if humans were right there with 'em, we'd see at least some of their remains in the same strata. We don't.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Yes, according to young-earth creationism, that's what we should see. If dinosaurs and humans were both created on the same week 6,000 years ago, and we see dinosaur fossils all the time all over the globe, then by the same token we should see human fossils and artifacts. Whatever conditions led to massive, rapid fossilization of dinosaur remains should also lead to rapid, massive fossilization of human remains.

Yet human fossils and artifacts are not ever found in the same geologic strata with dinosaurs. In fact, they're always separated by strata that span very long periods of time. That's a very, very good indication that dinosaurs did not exist alongside humans.

You are ignoring what I wrote and just parroting what evolutionists believe. Dinosaur fossils are rare. You cannot hide that fact just by saying the are found "all the time all over the globe". While it is true that these fossils are found in every continent, you must understand that continents are very large, whereas dinosaurs, in comparison, are very small. What evidence have you provided here that shows us what the likelyhood is that humans and dinosaurs should be fossilized together? Nothing! Where are your statistics? You don't have any! All you do is repeat the same arguments that you have heard others make. Am I right or am I right?

You also ignored what I wrote about the coelacanth. Why was that?

 

[River Jordan]

Dinosaur fossils are rare. You cannot hide that fact just by saying the are found "all the time all over the globe". While it is true that these fossils are found in every continent, you must understand that continents are very large, whereas dinosaurs, in comparison, are very small.

As was posted before, there are vast "fossil graveyards" in many areas that contain all sorts of fossilized ancient organisms. Yet not one single human fossil or even artifact is ever found mixed in. That's just reality.

Surely if humans and dinosaurs existed a few thousand years ago side by side in large numbers, some evidence of that would be present in the fossil record, right? A knife, an ax, some pottery....something in one of these graveyards.

What evidence have you provided here that shows us what the likelyhood is that humans and dinosaurs should be fossilized together? Nothing! Where are your statistics? You don't have any! All you do is repeat the same arguments that you have heard others make. Am I right or am I right?

Then please explain why even though dinosaurs and humans existed side by side and in significant numbers a few thousand years ago, their remains are never found in the same geologic strata, and are instead separated by several strata representing long geologic ages.

You also ignored what I wrote about the coelacanth. Why was that?

Mostly because it's irrelevant to the question of humans dinosaurs. Also because it's ridiculously ignorant creationist talking point that I've seen lots of times before. If you must know, the fossil coelacanths aren't even in the same family as the ones that exist today.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

As was posted before, there are vast "fossil graveyards" in many areas that contain all sorts of fossilized ancient organisms. Yet not one single human fossil or even artifact is ever found mixed in. That's just reality.

Surely if humans and dinosaurs existed a few thousand years ago side by side in large numbers, some evidence of that would be present in the fossil record, right? A knife, an ax, some pottery....something in one of these graveyards.

Surely?? What are you basing that assumption on? 95% of all fossils are MARINE animals. Of the remaining 5% there are only a very small fraction that are humanoid! Among them there are only a few thousand dinosaur fossils that have been found across the ENTIRE planet! Many of them would have been sea-dwelling creatures or possibly living in swamps which would have been perfect areas where "fossil graveyars" could form, but not somewhere where you would find HUMANS.
Again, what are your claims based on?

Then please explain why even though dinosaurs and humans existed side by side and in significant numbers a few thousand years ago, their remains are never found in the same geologic strata, and are instead separated by several strata representing long geologic ages.

What makes you think that humans and dinosaurs would live "side by side"? And what "significant numbers" are you talking about? The human population at the time of the flood would not have been "significant" and would mainly be centered around the Middle East. If dinosaurs were living in other areas at that time then why would they be found in the same strata? You claim strata has to do with "long geologic ages", but what ages they are assigned is largely dependent on the fossils that are found there. That is why you won't find a "Cambrain rabbit", because the Cambrian was most likely an area that existed at the bottom of an ocean.

Mostly because it's irrelevant to the question of humans dinosaurs. Also because it's ridiculously ignorant creationist talking point that I've seen lots of times before. If you must know, the fossil coelacanths aren't even in the same family as the ones that exist today.

It is relevant to your argument concerning STRATA and what "surely" should be found there! Even coelacanths that are not of the same family as those we see in fossils should be found in several layers that supposedly go back MILLIONS of years. What you are doing is starting off with what evolutionists assume and then saying "surely" but ignoring all the things that one would NOT expect - such as almost complete stasis in the fossil record for some animals whereas others change from ocean-dwellers to land-dwellers and back to ocean-dwellers again, soft tissue in dinosaur bones that have been burried for 80 million years or so, the Cambrian explosion that contains complex fully-formed creatures without any predecessors found in the fossil record, and other gaps that are so huge that evolutionists need to resort to patching up their theory with another theory in order to explain why they aren't finding what they would have expected to find!

 

[River Jordan]

Well, I'll tell you what. If you want to chalk up the fact that human remains or artifacts are never found in the same geologic strata with dinosaurs or other ancient organisms to just an amazing coincidence, yet still cling to the belief that they all existed at the same time....well, have fun with that.

Let me know when you find some actual hard data to support that position.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Well, I'll tell you what. If you want to chalk up the fact that human remains or artifacts are never found in the same geologic strata with dinosaurs or other ancient organisms to just an amazing coincidence, yet still cling to the belief that they all existed at the same time....well, have fun with that.

Let me know when you find some actual hard data to support that position.

Sure, just as soon as you show me ANY statistics that prove that not finding them IS actually the "amazing coincidence" you claim it is. I asked you a couple of times to show me what your assumptions are based on. So far - NOTHING! You simply regurgitate what you have been told by evolutionists. I on the other hand have spent well over a decade challenging proponents of evolution to actually back up what they say, and ALL OF THEM just do what you are doing here - parroting what they have heard from others. Let me know when YOU have anything that proves macroevolution to be a scientific fact. Then we can start talking.

 

[DaDad]

So you focus on one picture to disregard thousands of other artifacts showing recent co-existence of dinosaur and man? Very bias of you!

Hi Suhar,

I think you may have misunderstood my post. Apparently the Civil War era ~20ft wingspan pteradon picture is authentic. However the "Civil War" ~10ft wingspan "pterdon" picture is a fraud which the TV series "Freaky Links" conspired to hoax their viewing audience and thereby discredit the authentic Civil War ear ~20 wingspan picture.

This is the best information I have!

With Best Regards,
DaDad

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Surely if humans and dinosaurs existed a few thousand years ago side by side in large numbers, some evidence of that would be present in the fossil record, right? A knife, an ax, some pottery....something in one of these graveyards.


Then please explain why even though dinosaurs and humans existed side by side and in significant numbers a few thousand years ago, their remains are never found in the same geologic strata, and are instead separated by several strata representing long geologic ages.

We just unearthed a new dinosaur fossil here in Alberta Canada (digging a pipeline)

The fossil was found in the soil just a few feet beneath the surface of the ground (see pictures in link)

Plenty of human artifacts (flint arrows and stone tools) can be found in the same geological soil in that whole area.

Remember this is loose top soil .... it is not a fossil embedded in rock layers presumably formed over millions of years

You will notice the evolutionists will never point that out

But I will

Best wishes in your studies.

2 pictures here http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/in-pictures-significant-dinosaur-fossil-discovered-in-alberta/article14700900/

 

[UppsalaDragby]

We just unearthed a new dinosaur fossil here in Alberta Canada (digging a pipeline)

The fossil was found in the soil just a few feet beneath the surface of the ground (see pictures in link)

Plenty of human artifacts (flint arrows and stone tools) can be found in the same geological soil in that whole area.

Remember this is loose top soil .... it is not a fossil embedded in rock layers presumably formed over millions of years

You will notice the evolutionists will never point that out

But I will

Best wishes in your studies.

2 pictures here http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/in-pictures-significant-dinosaur-fossil-discovered-in-alberta/article14700900/

Well that's kind of embarrasing isn't it?

It reminds me of the following article that shows the footprint of a dinosaur lying flush on top of the ground.

http://www.wcpo.com/news/national/apparant-dinosaur-track-found-where-scientists-reach-for-the-stars

Why, after 60 million years or so would it not have eroded away? Wind and rain are constantly wearing down the hardest of rock surfaces, and yet this track just sits there out in the open, with grass growing around it, for everyone to see. If fossilation was a common event then perhaps there would be an excuse for something like that, but we KNOW that it isn't. These kinds of things are never discussed openly in scientific journals because they don't fit in with the preferred paradigm.

Somehow 60 million years of erosion just stopped in its tracks so that we could see this fossil.

Thanks erosion!

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

There are many other cases where the rock strata completely contradicts the evolutionist claim that each layer took millions of years to form

For example a 60 foot whale fossil standing on its tail and embedded in hundreds of different rock layers .... that is an amazing whale to stand erect for millions of years while the rock builds up around it.

Uprooted trees , inverted , and vertical in the rock layers.

Hairpin bends and curves in the rock strata.

The evolutionist always leaves that information out of the texts because it contradicts his theory.

I HATE IT WHEN THIS FORUM SOFTWARE MUSHES ALL THE POSTS TOGETHER SO I AM PUTTING THIS OBNOXIOUS BARRIER BETWEEN MY PREVIOUS POST AND MY CURRENT ONE ..... I HATE IT WHEN THIS FORUM SOFTWARE MUSHES ALL THE POSTS TOGETHER SO I AM PUTTING THIS OBNOXIOUS BARRIER BETWEEN MY PREVIOUS POST AND MY CURRENT ONE ..... I HATE IT WHEN THIS FORUM SOFTWARE MUSHES ALL THE POSTS TOGETHER SO I AM PUTTING THIS OBNOXIOUS BARRIER BETWEEN MY PREVIOUS POST AND MY CURRENT ONE ..... I HATE IT WHEN THIS FORUM SOFTWARE MUSHES ALL THE POSTS TOGETHER SO I AM PUTTING THIS OBNOXIOUS BARRIER BETWEEN MY PREVIOUS POST AND MY CURRENT ONE ..... I HATE IT WHEN THIS FORUM SOFTWARE MUSHES ALL THE POSTS TOGETHER SO I AM PUTTING THIS OBNOXIOUS BARRIER BETWEEN MY PREVIOUS POST AND MY CURRENT ONE .....

.

Back to the question about Dinosaurs and humans living together ..... Behemoth in Job 40 may or may not be a dinosaur .... but we must admit it sure sounds like a very large animal .... and I have selected a few sentences showing this large animal did indeed live with mankind:

-- Look at Behemoth, which I made along with you , and which feeds on grass like an ox.

-- feeds on grass like an ox. (doesn't eat humans)

-- The hills bring it their produce, and all the wild animals play nearby (other animals apparently not afraid of it)

-- Can anyone capture it by the eyes, or trap it and pierce its nose? (this question is addressed to humans .... so they must have been there)



.

 

[River Jordan]

Sure, just as soon as you show me ANY statistics that prove that not finding them IS actually the "amazing coincidence" you claim it is.

Sure. There is a definitive statistical relationship between cladograms (which represent evolutionary relationships between taxa) and stratigraphy (the order of geologic strata and their fossils). You can read an introduction to this concept HERE. Note the reference at the bottom of the page.

You can also CLICK HERE (PDF) for one paper that assess this technique and concludes that the relationship between the two is highly significant.

So under evolutionary theory, humans and dinosaurs are very widely separated both phylogenetically and temporally. Thus, that should be reflected in the geologic record. As these statistical analyses show, it is.

Now again, if you have contrary data that shows humans and dinosaurs really did coexist, then please provide it. Otherwise, you're guilty of the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof (the positive claim is "dinosaurs and humans coexisted").

I on the other hand have spent well over a decade challenging proponents of evolution to actually back up what they say, and ALL OF THEM just do what you are doing here - parroting what they have heard from others.

Well this should be fun then! You're talking to someone who's a biology expert.

Let me know when YOU have anything that proves macroevolution to be a scientific fact. Then we can start talking.

I already have. "Microevolution" (evolution below the species level) is a directly observed fact (evolution of resistance in bacteria for example). "Macroevolution" (evolution above the species level) is also a directly observed fact (evolution of new species). I've posted a directly observed example of the evolution of a new species of goatsbeard here before.

We just unearthed a new dinosaur fossil here in Alberta Canada (digging a pipeline)

The fossil was found in the soil just a few feet beneath the surface of the ground (see pictures in link)

Plenty of human artifacts (flint arrows and stone tools) can be found in the same geological soil in that whole area.

Remember this is loose top soil .... it is not a fossil embedded in rock layers presumably formed over millions of years

You will notice the evolutionists will never point that out

But I will

Best wishes in your studies.

2 pictures here http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/in-pictures-significant-dinosaur-fossil-discovered-in-alberta/article14700900/

Um, that's a picture with no description or other information. And if you look, the fossil that is being extracted is indeed embedded in rock, contrary to what you stated.

Well that's kind of embarrasing isn't it?

It reminds me of the following article that shows the footprint of a dinosaur lying flush on top of the ground.

http://www.wcpo.com/news/national/apparant-dinosaur-track-found-where-scientists-reach-for-the-stars

Why, after 60 million years or so would it not have eroded away? Wind and rain are constantly wearing down the hardest of rock surfaces, and yet this track just sits there out in the open, with grass growing around it, for everyone to see. If fossilation was a common event then perhaps there would be an excuse for something like that, but we KNOW that it isn't. These kinds of things are never discussed openly in scientific journals because they don't fit in with the preferred paradigm.

Somehow 60 million years of erosion just stopped in its tracks so that we could see this fossil.

Thanks erosion!

Why do you think it had to have been fully exposed for 60 million years?

There are many other cases where the rock strata completely contradicts the evolutionist claim that each layer took millions of years to form

For example a 60 foot whale fossil standing on its tail and embedded in hundreds of different rock layers .... that is an amazing whale to stand erect for millions of years while the rock builds up around it.

Uprooted trees , inverted , and vertical in the rock layers.

Hairpin bends and curves in the rock strata.

Seriously? Polystrate fossils is your argument here? Geologists fully accounted for those over 100 years ago.

Come on guys....

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Sure. There is a definitive statistical relationship between cladograms (which represent evolutionary relationships between taxa) and stratigraphy (the order of geologic strata and their fossils). You can read an introduction to this concept HERE. Note the reference at the bottom of the page.

You can also CLICK HERE (PDF) for one paper that assess this technique and concludes that the relationship between the two is highly significant.

So under evolutionary theory, humans and dinosaurs are very widely separated both phylogenetically and temporally. Thus, that should be reflected in the geologic record. As these statistical analyses show, it is.

Now again, if you have contrary data that shows humans and dinosaurs really did coexist, then please provide it. Otherwise, you're guilty of the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof (the positive claim is "dinosaurs and humans coexisted").

Well you on the other hand are guilty of elephant hurling. All these links do is show that "under evolutionary theory" the geologic record, which ALSO has been interpreted "under evolutionary theory" has a correlation. Wow! Neither of them show any statistics demonstrating the likelyhood of humans and dinosaurs being found together, which is what I was asking for!

I already have. "Microevolution" (evolution below the species level) is a directly observed fact (evolution of resistance in bacteria for example). "Macroevolution" (evolution above the species level) is also a directly observed fact (evolution of new species). I've posted a directly observed example of the evolution of a new species of goatsbeard here before.

How is the emergence of a new species of goatsbeard equivalent to observing the kinds of things that evolutionists claim? The new species of goatsbeard is still goatsbeard, is it not? All it shows is that life can adapt to changes in the environment.

Why do you think it had to have been fully exposed for 60 million years?

I didn't say that I think it had to be exposed for that length of time. You are the one that is talking about "amazing coincidences". All I'm doing is questioning the likelyhood that this fossil would happen to be flush with the surface of the earth after such a vast lenght of time.

Seriously? Polystrate fossils is your argument here? Geologists fully accounted for those over 100 years ago.

Well how convenient for geologists that all they need to do is "account" for polystrate fossils. However, polystrate trees PROVE that strata does not need millions and millions of years to form. Can evolutionists PROVE that any strata takes millions of years to form, or is it enough for them to give an "account"?

 

[River Jordan]

Well you on the other hand are guilty of elephant hurling. All these links do is show that "under evolutionary theory" the geologic record, which ALSO has been interpreted "under evolutionary theory" has a correlation. Wow! Neither of them show any statistics demonstrating the likelyhood of humans and dinosaurs being found together, which is what I was asking for!

First, as the explanatory webpage from the University of Bristol states, the geologic record was not developed in concert with phylogeny in mind. In fact, most of the geologic strata were identified, named, and ordered long before evolutionary common descent was accepted. And actually, most of the geologists who did that were European Christians.

Second, the PDF paper I linked to does walk through several different statistical analyses. I suggest you read the Results section.

Finally, these studies demonstrate the statistical relationship between evolutionary and temporal relationships and geologic strata. Under evolutionary theory, humans and dinosaurs are very distant both phylogenetically and temporally. A statistical comparison between that and stratigraphy strongly supports that conclusion.

Unless you have additional hard data supporting the co-existence of humans and dinosaurs, there's not really any reason to even discuss this further.

How is the emergence of a new species of goatsbeard equivalent to observing the kinds of things that evolutionists claim? The new species of goatsbeard is still goatsbeard, is it not? All it shows is that life can adapt to changes in the environment.

It's exactly what you asked for...proof of macroevolution (macroevolution being evolution above the species level).

I didn't say that I think it had to be exposed for that length of time.

Then what was this about? "Why, after 60 million years or so would it not have eroded away?" If the trace fossil has only been exposed for a small portion of the 600 million years, why would it have eroded away?

You are the one that is talking about "amazing coincidences". All I'm doing is questioning the likelyhood that this fossil would happen to be flush with the surface of the earth after such a vast lenght of time.

Why wouldn't it be?

Well how convenient for geologists that all they need to do is "account" for polystrate fossils.

Read the description. These fossils exist in a specific geologic environment of deposition that easily lends itself to an obvious explanation.

However, polystrate trees PROVE that strata does not need millions and millions of years to form. Can evolutionists PROVE that any strata takes millions of years to form, or is it enough for them to give an "account"?

You need to read the material more closely. It wasn't the fossilization that happened quickly, it was the sedimentation.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

First, as the explanatory webpage from the University of Bristol states, the geologic record was not developed in concert with phylogeny in mind. In fact, most of the geologic strata were identified, named, and ordered long before evolutionary common descent was accepted. And actually, most of the geologists who did that were European Christians.


Second, the PDF paper I linked to does walk through several different statistical analyses. I suggest you read the Results section.

Finally, these studies demonstrate the statistical relationship between evolutionary and temporal relationships and geologic strata. Under evolutionary theory, humans and dinosaurs are very distant both phylogenetically and temporally. A statistical comparison between that and stratigraphy strongly supports that conclusion.

Is there any particular reason you are avioding the question I actually asked?

It's exactly what you asked for...proof of macroevolution (macroevolution being evolution above the species level).

That's right, I said: "Let me know when YOU have anything that proves macroevolution to be a scientific fact. Then we can start talking."

So, now we are talking, and that is why I said:

"How is the emergence of a new species of goatsbeard equivalent to observing the kinds of things that evolutionists claim? The new species of goatsbeard is still goatsbeard, is it not? All it shows is that life can adapt to changes in the environment."

Then what was this about? "Why, after 60 million years or so would it not have eroded away?" If the trace fossil has only been exposed for a small portion of the 600 million years, why would it have eroded away?

You are just splitting hairs in order to be evasive. Let me rephrase the question and see if that helps you. After 60 million years would the layers above the fossil be eroded down and then stop exactly where the fossil appears?

You need to read the material more closely. It wasn't the fossilization that happened quickly, it was the sedimentation.

Did I say anything to the contrary? Perhaps you need to read my post more carefully.

 

[River Jordan]

Is there any particular reason you are avioding the question I actually asked?

You asked for statistical evidence that it's not coincidental that human and dinosaur remains are not found in the same geologic strata ("ANY statistics that prove that not finding them IS actually the "amazing coincidence"). That's exactly what I provided.

"How is the emergence of a new species of goatsbeard equivalent to observing the kinds of things that evolutionists claim? The new species of goatsbeard is still goatsbeard, is it not? All it shows is that life can adapt to changes in the environment."

It shows that evolutionary mechanisms are fully capable of producing new species. Other studies and observations demonstrate that the same mechanisms are fully capable of producing new traits and abilities, including entirely new genetic sequences.

You are just splitting hairs in order to be evasive. Let me rephrase the question and see if that helps you. After 60 million years would the layers above the fossil be eroded down and then stop exactly where the fossil appears?

First, I have no need to be evasive. Second, why do you think erosion stopped?

Did I say anything to the contrary? Perhaps you need to read my post more carefully.

Ok then, I guess I don't understand your objection to the long-established geologic explanation for polystrate fossils. The surrounding environments of deposition show unequivocally what took place. If you have a direct rebuttal to that, then please give it. Otherwise, vague complaining about "evolutionists" doesn't amount to much.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Seriously? Polystrate fossils is your argument here? Geologists fully accounted for those over 100 years ago.

Come on guys....

Rapid sedimentation is the reason given for the upright fossils throughout the rock layers .... AMEN !!! ..... so would you not agree that allows for the possibility of a worldwide flood as per the Genesis record ??

Did you know that for years Creationists have theorized the rock layers were formed from rapid sedimentation after Noah's flood .... and the high pressures of all the water helped solidify it into rock ?? Today we can make diamonds in a lab by putting carbon etc under pressure. Diamonds are a lot harder than rock layers.

Worldwide flood theory also fits with identical marine fossils found on Mount Everest and Baja California ??

Observable science has always fit reasonably well with the Genesis record. And it is a permanent 4000 year old record that we cannot change.

Science , on the other hand changes daily. It was not all that long ago geologists poo-pooed the creationist claim the rock layers could have been caused by rapid sedimentation.

The creationist never changes his story.

The evolutionist is always changing stories ... and the modifications always creep toward creation theory .... never the other way.

 

[River Jordan]

Rapid sedimentation is the reason given for the upright fossils throughout the rock layers .... AMEN !!! ..... so would you not agree that allows for the possibility of a worldwide flood as per the Genesis record ??

Once again, you're confusing "floods happen" with "there was a recent global flood". The two are not the same.

Also, some of these are not associated with flood sediments. Did you even read what was at the link?

"In geology, such fossils are referred to as upright fossils, trunks, or trees. Brief periods of rapid sedimentation favor their formation.[2][4] Upright fossils are typically found in layers associated with an actively subsiding coastal plain or rift basin, or with the accumulation of volcanic material around a periodically erupting stratovolcano. Typically, this period of rapid sedimentation was followed by a period of time, decades to thousands of years long, characterized by very slow or no accumulation of sediments. In river deltas and other coastal plain settings, rapid sedimentation is often the end result of a brief period of accelerated subsidence of an area of coastal plain relative to sea level caused by salt tectonics, global sea level rise, growth faulting, continental margin collapse, or some combination of these factors.[4]"

IOW, the surrounding environments in which these fossils are found show very clearly what took place.

Did you know that for years Creationists have theorized the rock layers were formed from rapid sedimentation after Noah's flood .... and the high pressures of all the water helped solidify it into rock ?? Today we can make diamonds in a lab by putting carbon etc under pressure. Diamonds are a lot harder than rock layers.

Yes, I'm aware of what creationists believe. It just doesn't match up with reality though.

Worldwide flood theory also fits with identical marine fossils found on Mount Everest and Baja California ??

How? Do you believe that there was enough water to cover the earth over 29,000 feet deep? And in the midst of a tumultuous flood, enough corals and/or foramins existed above the mountain to deposit enough calcites to make thick layers of limestone? If so, do you understand how that doesn't make sense at all?

Observable science has always fit reasonably well with the Genesis record. And it is a permanent 4000 year old record that we cannot change.

I'll ask again....how do you know what the state of the science is? Do you stay up on the relevant journals? Attend conferences? Take higher level college courses?

Science , on the other hand changes daily. It was not all that long ago geologists poo-pooed the creationist claim the rock layers could have been caused by rapid sedimentation.

The creationist never changes his story.

The evolutionist is always changing stories ... and the modifications always creep toward creation theory .... never the other way.

The fact that you think never changing no matter what the data says is a good thing speaks volumes.