Creationist Confusion, page 1

Aeon, thanks for taking the time to respond to some of the specific issues I presented in a previous post. I appreciate the time you've taken to write an eloquent, confident, and authorotative sounding post. I thought it implicit in one of your posts that you were or are a scientist. Did I read wrong? If you are a scientist, what is your particular area of interest? Just curious.

In 1982 Edwin McKee A leading authority on the Grand Canyon published photographs of horselike hoofprints visible in rocks that, according to the theory of evolution, predate hoofed animals by more than a 100 million years. Please see:Edwin D. McKee, The Supai Group of Grand Canyon, Geological Survey Professional Paper 1173 (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982), pp. 93�96.
The operative term is "horselike footprints." Certainly, nothing actually implies a horse, nor an equine form either. It is possible that a dinosaur or other animal developed horselike feet. Indeed, the Mesozoic was a rich period of diversification. Also, there exists a well-known evolutionary phenomenon known as convergence, whereby distinct species develop similar characteristics as a result of natural selection in similar environments (i.e. corresponding adaptation; e.g. nautiloid cephalopods vs. modern nautilus mollusks). Even mammals evolved during that time, but only small ones escaped dinosaurs' voraciousness. If extant mutations were too large, they became easy prey for the "terrible lizards" (and a satisfying meal instead of tiny snacks). Perhaps pre-equine forms forms emerged prior to the Cenozoic, but if so, they became fodder, such that only smaller mutations survived to breed. That is why Edwin McKee's observations are not often replicated.

Interesting, in my mind the operative phrase is "predate hoofed animals by more than a 100 million years" I acknowledge your highly speculative comment that some animal with hooflike feet may have existed at the time but this is merely speculation in the face of 'evidence.' I've taken Bio101 as well, and I am aware to the theory of convergent evolution. But again is your reply really anything more than speculation? And while your point regarding the nautilus is acknowledged, you are comparing a situation for which evidence of 'convergent evolution' exists in the form of fossil evidence, and saying it applies here, where the evolutionary evidence absolutely suggests otherwise ie: "predate hoofed animals by more than a 100 million years." The very ideology you are defending argues against your speculation.

This should be an easy one too: Explain the fact that sometimes, land animals, flying animals, and marine animals are fossilized side-by-side in the same rock. Please see Andrew Snelling, �Fossil Bluff,� Ex Nihilo, Vol. 7, No. 3, March 1985, p. 8. for details.

Quite easy. Some event such as a volcanic eruption (with a pyroclastic flow), earthquake, tsunami or storm killed the animals near a seashore, transporting the bodies a small distance, which were quickly buried of course. But what type of rock was it?

I promise to get back to you on the rock type in the near future. Again, I am inclined to address the speculative nature of your comments without having actually examined any info I've presented. In the mean time perhaps you'd care to comment on a similar 'statistical outlier' observed in the phosphate beds of South Carolina. It is reported that items that should clearly not be fossilized together based on evolution are. Dinosaur, whale, elephant, horse, and other fossils, plus crude human tools, have reportedly been found in fossilized in close proximity in these South Carolina phosphate beds. Please see: Francis S. Holmes, Phosphate Rocks of South Carolina and the �Great Carolina Marl Bed� (Charleston, South Carolina: Holmes� Book House, 1870), and Edward J. Nolan, �Remarks on Fossils from the Ashley Phosphate Beds,� Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1876, pp. 80�81.

How about this: In Venezuelax, in Guyana, in Kashmir, hell in the Grand Canyon, spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in Cambrian rocks supposedly deposited before flowering plants evolved.
Please see:R. M. Stainforth, �Occurrence of Pollen and Spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana,� Nature, Vol. 210, 16 April 1966, pp. 292�294, and A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, �Spores and Tracheids from the Cambrian of Kashmir,� Nature, Vol. 169, 21 June 1952, pp. 1056�1057.

Apparently the rocks in all cases were exposed to surficial conditions where the microscopic debris could penetrate. When pollen coated the material it could then infiltrate rock pores, carried by water (i.e. cross-contamination). Again, what types of rock? It is interesting to note that Cambrian rock is predominantly sandstone, generally quite porous.

Oh, apparently, huh? Another interesting speculative reply backed up once again by exactly nothing. In the case of Roraima formation we are talking about sandstone. But again, I draw attention the speculative nature or your reply with 0 supporting documentation. But let's grant you this, despite the highly speculative nature of your reply, and move on then and talk a little about some 'statistical outliers' observed in coal beds. Perhaps you can speculate on the round, black lumps called coal balls contained in coal beds, some of which contain flowering plants that allegedly evolved 100 million years after the coal bed was formed. Please see: A. C. No�, �A Paleozoic Angiosperm,� The Journal of Geology, Vol. 31, May�June 1923, pp. 344�347.

How about another easy one: In Uzbekistan, 86 consecutive hoofprints of horses were found in rocks dating back to the dinosaurs, coupled with the observation that hoofprints of some other animal are alongside approximately 1,000 dinosaur footprints in Virginia.
Please see: Richard Monastersky, �A Walk along the Lakeshore, Dinosaur-Style,� Science News, Vol. 136, 8 July 1989, p. 21

Operative term "some other animal." (See first refutation.)

So, again in this case I should ignore what evolution teaches about the chronological appearance hoofed animals and dinosaurs, and I should apply your speculative comments with respect to McKee's findings here also. Perhaps in the future I can consult you on a case-by-case basis to determine when the findings of evolution are relevant and when they are not. Isn't it interesting how the evolution camp feels no need to back up any assertions with anything other than imaginative stories thus far.

Any other "evidence?"

You mean in addition to that which you've addressed only by speculation? Sure, I do. Would you like to continue with this discussion of fossil records? Perhaps, we should address some 'young Earth' questions I've mentioned in this particular thread. Or maybe we can talk about some of the more recent genetic studies that might argue against macroevolution. It's your call.