I think BioLogos folks sometimes take the long way around some of these geological findings:
A stratigraphied analysis of fossils show that dinosaurs and large mammals died quite separately, with no co-mingling.
For those YECs who think fossils represent 5000 years of life/death, it still shows large mammals (horses, elephants, giraffes, rhino’s, hippo’s etc) living and dying in the recent years with no indication of how they could have existed at all while dinosaurs existed.
The same dramatic oddities are seen when comparing marine dinosaurs to marine mammals.
And the same dramatic oddities are seen when comparing marsupials in Australia to the placental mammals everywhere else.
These stratigraphied sets of evidence irrefutably resist any explanation a Creationist can offer (with or without a global flood or a sequence of regional floods).
*************
Naturally, YEC opponents will offer apologia for each of the four separate observations.
But I have yet to find a convincing discussion that explains all four (4) data sets all together!
Thats because you dont bother to read the counter argument…your claims above arent at all problemwtic and habe been adequitely explained so many times and yet you still try to rehash this anyway.
The point is, this…have you ever found a snake in New Zealand? No and why…because there arent any native snakes in New Zealand so finding one in the wild would be rare in that country…i could cite the Tasmanian Devil in Australia as another example…theres hundreds more we could use.
My point to those simple minded enough to come up with such tripe is this…
In 5 million years time, when some imbocile comes out and says that the new Zeland Kiwi fossils are not found alongside the snakes that are currently kept at the Repitle Park at Ti Point Leigh New Zealand, or indeed in the same strata layers conclduing therefore they must have existed at different times in history… hopefully at least one smart cookie will show those future birdbrains why your claim there is deeply deeply flawed!
gbrooks9
(George Brooks, TE (E.volutionary T.heist OR P.rovidentialist))
3
Why would giant marine reptile fossils all be found below the KT horizon, but not a single cow, rhino or elephant?
The Nile Valley is a place of many fossils conventionally older than the emergence of large mammals…. and yet we find no dead Egyptians drowned along with these fossils?
Do you reject the Global Flood? Do you not believe that the Global Flood happened sometime around the 4th Dynasty of Egyptian history? Or maybe more recently?
You’ve introduced yourself (sort of) - - but you have not refuted any of my points.
So we don’t find fossils of snakes and kiwis together because they live(d) in places separated by geographical barriers that were impassable by those creatures.
Fossil species correlate with ratios of isotopes in the rocks above and below them. Even if you reject radiometric data, the isotope ratios are still there and need to be explained. I have yet to hear how a global flood is able to sort rocks by their K/Ar, U/Pb, and Rb/Sr ratios so that you get the same fossil species associated with specific ratios. The only explanation that makes sense of this correlation is deep time.
Not all rare species get preserved as fossils, but the change in common species is not compatible with young-earth claims. Single-celled ocean algae change over time. Pollen changes. Seashells change. None of this is compatible with a young earth or a global flood. Claiming that the sequence of fossils can be explained by escape ability, different habitats getting flooded by elevation, or hydraulic sorting require a thorough ignorance of the fossil record. The first oysters and first dinosaurs are from the same time layers, for example.
… and literature and history and psychology and philosophy and theology.
The only exception is poor William Dembski’s reflections on poor Mark Fitzmaurice,
‘Did creationist… [William Dembski] say, to the effect, that all the evidence shows evolution to be correct, but that he still believes in a creator God?’
5: 'You’ve got a sharp memory, Martin. The passage you recalled—about belief knowingly trumping rationality—does seem to echo William Dembski’s reflections, especially in The End of Christianity. While the most poignant lines come from the foreword contributor (Mark Fitzmaurice), Dembski includes them to illustrate the psychological and theological cost of questioning young-Earth creationism:
“To question a young-earth reading of Genesis was to question the entire Bible and to place one’s faith in jeopardy. It was forced upon me with great pain and with tears. It tore me apart. I felt like an infidel.”
This is not a direct concession to evolution’s evidentiary strength, but it’s a clear admission that the theological imperative to believe in a literal Genesis can override rational discomfort. The contributor even describes creating a “bubble” during medical education to shield his beliefs from scientific data—especially evolutionary biology—which he found persuasive but incompatible with his faith.
Dembski’s inclusion of this testimony, and his own nuanced wrestling with old-Earth creationism, suggests he was sympathetic to the tension you’ve described. He later distanced himself from the ID movement (circa 2016), citing exhaustion and a shift in focus, but returned in 2021 with renewed interest.
If you’re tracing the arc of someone who might have said, in effect, “I know evolution makes sense, but I must reject it to remain faithful,” Dembski—especially through the lens of this foreword—might be your man.’
The average five-year old knows that nests and eggs can’t run away.
Though the average five-year old may not yet know that turtle nests and eggs are found on beaches and don’t float (they’re made of sand), yet are not at the bottom of the fossil record, the average fifteen-year-old would (if they’re not kept deliberately ignorant).