RE: [asa] Loading the ark (Ken Ham)

Jon said:
" But if its remains were truly found in ancient geological layers (65
mya),

but not in intervening geological layers, would this constitute some
level

of evidence against vast geological ages? "

My thoughts, let me know if wrong:

The fossil record is a snap-shot in time. However, it is not complete.
For example, if you go to a fossil dig, you don't find every animal and
plant that existed at that place and time (far from it). Therefore, the
snapshots are few and far between, and when you finally do get a
snapshot, it is far from being a "complete picture." It's like taking
photo's every so often, but instead of a full photo each time, only
about 1% of the picture is available. Therefore, hunting for more
fossil beds are like getting more snap-shots, and looking more in an
existing fossil bed is like trying to get more than the 1% out of the
current picture.

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Jon Tandy
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 1:43 PM
To: 'ASA'
Subject: RE: [asa] Loading the ark (Ken Ham)

I understand that a case can be made for evolutionary survival of stable

species, such as the Wollemi pine or the coelacanth (although it seems a
bit

hard to imagine why, since many other animal and plant species in the
same

changing environmental conditions have died off long since).

But if its remains were truly found in ancient geological layers (65
mya),

but not in intervening geological layers, would this constitute some
level

of evidence against vast geological ages? I suppose two answers might
be,

if the plant virtually died off but not completely, then its small

population wouldn't have created as much of a fossil trail, and just
hasn't

been discovered in newer layers; and, the evidence for the geological
ages

of the rocks is confirmed by many evidences, so just the absence of one

particular species in one sequence of rock doesn't overturn other lines
of

evidence for the rock age.

Jon Tandy

-----Original Message-----

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On

Behalf Of David Campbell

Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 12:48 PM

To: ASA

Subject: Re: [asa] Loading the ark (Ken Ham)

Might be misrepresenting the Wollemi pine. Fossils were known from the

Cretaceous, same age as younger dinosaurs. Living ones recently
discovered

in a remote spot in Australia. Study of the living ones shows that a

distinctive fossil pollen type known from much of the Cenozoic (after

dinosaurs to the present) also goes with them, so the gap between the
fossil

record and the living ones is much smaller. Again, there's nothing about
the

survival of a species that poses a problem for old earth views.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with

"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 29 17:27:41 2007