Is Dawkins right that the question of God is for science

[Senor Hoint]

The only exception that I take to this statement is that fossils are not rare. In fact, the entire planet is covered with them. Whole/intact invertebrate fossils are rare but that should not surprise us considering that most fossils come to us under catastrophic circumstances such as floods, mudslides, volcanic activity, etc., and such ferocity tends to rip apart soft flesh.

So let's start with something simple.

According to uniformitarian assumptions, they should be rare - local, sporadic castrophies much as we see in today's enviroment.

According to catastrophism assumptions, particularly the global flood during Noah's time as detailed in the bible, circumstances were ideal for mass fossilization to occur on a global scale.

Thoughts on this?

Fossilization is a rare in that the number of fossils is only a tiny, tiny fraction of the total number of animals with hard body parts that have lived on the Earth. This does not mean that fossils themselves are "rare," though they are much more rare than normal rock.

If the flood caused all of the fossils why are there a myriad of fossils of marine animals which are now extinct, which certainly wouldn't have been killed by a global flood? Why does the biomass of two members of every extant land-based species far exceed what could possibly be loaded onto a boat constructed with modern engineering and materials, let alone what Bronze-age herdsmen would have been able to put together?

Also your flood does not account for faunal/floral succession, not to mention that even if all the water on Earth were converted into liquid and added to the oceans it wouldn't come close to covering all the continental crust.

[Questatement]

Second, a massive flood would not likely cover a dead body in sediment as soon as possible. The animal would likely drown and float around and mabe get covered only to be dug out again by the receding waters.

So a small flood would cover living things in sedient, but a massive one wouldn't? Can you explain how that works?

You were supposed to be showing me how this is better explained by a young earth.
Explain the sequence of fossils found in the record.

Let's not try and cover too much at once. I assume that you're asking something to the effect of... why aren’t trilobite and dinosaur fossils found together?

According to uniformitarianism, the Cambrian trilobites died out millions of years before the dinosaurs evolved. However, even if trilobites and dinosaurs were alive today, they still wouldn’t be found together because they would live in different ecological zones - dinosaurs being land animals, trilobites bottom-dwelling sea creatures. Hence, the geological 'systems' are the buried remains of plants and animals that once lived together at the same time but represent different ecological zones.

To support the gradual (even punctuated) evolutionary theory via the fossil record, there should be no instances of 'misplaced' fossils unless geological layers fold (in situ) to confuse time eras. The solution to the myrid of in situ, misplaced fossils being found each and every year? Simple, just adjust evolutionary timetables to allow for them.

Other examples of fossils being dating much older than previously thought include:
Australopithecus (ape thought to be ancestral to humans) dated 4 million years older than previously thought ( Link ).
Platypus dating 40 million years older than previously thought (to 120 Ma) pushing the first appearance of mammals back to the time of the dinosaurs ( Link ).
A block of amber (fossil resin) encasing an extinct, stingless bee (Proplebeia dominicana) carrying a clump of orchid pollen on its back shows that these "masterpieces" among flowers appeared sometime between 76 million and 84 million years ago, much earlier than previously believed. ( Link ).
Orb-weaving spiders arrived during the Jurassic period, not the Cretaceous period, making them about 100 million years older than has been believed, the Times of London reported Wednesday ( Link ).
Ants 40 million years older than previously thought ( Link ).
Animal fossils associated with the Ediacaran Period (635 to 543 million years ago) have been found in sediments that date squarely in the Proterozoic Eon, 1.6 billion years ago - a billion years older than previously thought ( Link ).
The phylogenetic group of crustaceans includes nearly 100,000 species, including relatively big creatures such as prawns, lobsters and crabs, but also smaller specimens such as sea fleas and bay barnacles. In geological terms, the group is as much as 480 million years old; some rare fossils even belong to the late Cambrian and date as far back as 505 million years ago. The new fossil is part of the Lower Cambrian and is no doubt the oldest representative of modern crustaceans ( Link ).
Crayfish were once thought to have originated about 140 million ears ago (compare with the oldest known lobster at 167 Ma; Link). Most researchers assumed that crayfish had descended from lobsters around that time and gradually made their way inland. However, Hasiotis has discovered 220-million-year-old specimens that are almost identical to modem ones. He thinks crayfish may be as much as 300 million years old. ( Link ).

So what we have is one theory that needs continual adjustments in order to remain viable (uniformitarianism) and the other (global flood) that does not need to manipulate the same evidence at hand to remain viable. BTW, that link is an excellent read now that it has been updated.

[Questatement]

If the flood caused all of the fossils why are there a myriad of fossils of marine animals which are now extinct, which certainly wouldn't have been killed by a global flood?

Let's think about this for a moment. Extinction is just an extension of many individual deaths. If fossilization occurred due to these sea creatures being covered in sediment and their natural environment was water, how would they NOT have died and by extension, (at least some) gone extinct?

Why does the biomass of two members of every extant land-based species far exceed what could possibly be loaded onto a boat constructed with modern engineering and materials, let alone what Bronze-age herdsmen would have been able to put together?

Adaptation leading to new species and variations of species.

Also your flood does not account for faunal/floral succession...

How so?

... not to mention that even if all the water on Earth were converted into liquid and added to the oceans it wouldn't come close to covering all the continental crust.

What if enough land that is now above ocean level was once below it? Did you know if the mountains were leveled into ocean valleys today (leveling the global land mass) that the land would be 2 miles under water?

[BlackSheep]

So a small flood would cover living things in sedient, but a massive one wouldn't? Can you explain how that works?

I thought I just did.
First it doesn't need a flood, but a small flood could take a few days or hours and so the action of the flood happens i a fairly short period of time.

The Biblical flood taken at face value took 40 day to rain the water down and the flood lasted as I understand it about a year. Animals are going to down pretty quickly, within the first 40 days. The sediments are going to move around a lot in that period, but there is such a massive flow of water is as you said likely to destroy the bodies. Now it is in this first period the bodied need to be covered, but later on as the waters recede they will tend to erode things and dig these bodies out and disturb them again. It does not seem ideal by any stretch.

Let's not try and cover too much at once. I assume that you're asking something to the effect of... why aren’t trilobite and dinosaur fossils found together?

According to uniformitarianism, the Cambrian trilobites died out millions of years before the dinosaurs evolved. However, even if trilobites and dinosaurs were alive today, they still wouldn’t be found together because they would live in different ecological zones - dinosaurs being land animals, trilobites bottom-dwelling sea creatures. Hence, the geological 'systems' are the buried remains of plants and animals that once lived together at the same time but represent different ecological zones.

Lets try something a little less absurd. Trilobites and plesiosaurs.

To support the gradual (even punctuated) evolutionary theory via the fossil record, there should be no instances of 'misplaced' fossils unless geological layers fold (in situ) to confuse time eras. The solution to the myrid of in situ, misplaced fossils being found each and every year? Simple, just adjust evolutionary timetables to allow for them.

This list some things someone out of place based o what we knew before they were found and now we have more evidence. The general effect is still the same.

There is a pattern here ad that pattern is not explained by the flood.

So what we have is one theory that needs continual adjustments in order to remain viable (uniformitarianism) and the other (global flood) that does not need to manipulate the same evidence at hand to remain viable. BTW, that link is an excellent read now that it has been updated

All theories tend to need adjustment. That is how science works. You know that right? We don't say this is the answer and then refuse new evidence. That is something else.

Now back to the questions:

You still have not shown me how the fossil record is better explained by a young earth.
Explain the sequence of fossils found in the record.
Explain the placements of the fossils.
Explain the immensity of species in the fossil and explain how they could have maintained a breading population.

[BlackSheep]

Let's think about this for a moment. Extinction is just an extension of many individual deaths. If fossilization occurred due to these sea creatures being covered in sediment and their natural environment was water, how would they NOT have died and by extension, (at least some) gone extinct?

You missed the point. These now extinct species were of a great variety of type. Many would have been deep sea creatures. How would they all have been buried? Most of them could have swam away from sediment. And why they layers?

Adaptation leading to new species and variations of species.

In what,five thousand years? That would also mean that there would be no fossils of these creatures then if they were all caused in the flood.

[minorwork]

All theories tend to need adjustment. That is how science works. You know that right? We don't say this is the answer and then refuse new evidence. That is something else.

Right. That something else is Creation Science that accepts as valid only the evidence that supports the Bible or Koran. From Sean Pitman:

If you actually read the information on my website and knew me just a bit better, you'd know that I do not reduce creationism simply to "what the Bible says". Creationism is based on empirical evidence that supports what the Bible says. This is the scientific basis for believing in the reliability of the biblical texts - testable empirical evidence that is potentially falsifiable.

[Questatement]

I thought I just did.
First it doesn't need a flood, but a small flood could take a few days or hours and so the action of the flood happens i a fairly short period of time.

The Biblical flood taken at face value took 40 day to rain the water down and the flood lasted as I understand it about a year. Animals are going to drown pretty quickly, within the first 40 days. The sediments are going to move around a lot in that period, but there is such a massive flow of water is as you said likely to destroy the bodies. Now it is in this first period the bodied need to be covered, but later on as the waters recede they will tend to erode things and dig these bodies out and disturb them again. It does not seem ideal by any stretch.

I'm sorry to admit that your responses don't elicit enough interest from me to continue.

My apologies.

[SoylentGreen]

What if enough land that is now above ocean level was once below it? Did you know if the mountains were leveled into ocean valleys today (leveling the global land mass) that the land would be 2 miles under water?

That's good. Now you have two books backing you up. The bible and

[Senor Hoint]

Let's think about this for a moment. Extinction is just an extension of many individual deaths. If fossilization occurred due to these sea creatures being covered in sediment and their natural environment was water, how would they NOT have died and by extension, (at least some) gone extinct?

Yes, let's think about it for a second. What exactly are you saying here? That the flood buried the creatures all at once?

Adaptation leading to new species and variations of species.

And you believe it is possible for this to take place how quickly?

How so?

Do you understand what floral/faunal succession is? If many creatures die at once in a cataclysmic event why would certain species be found only in lower layers of sediments and as you get higher your species change completely? Why would this rule hold everywhere, across the entire Earth?

What if enough land that is now above ocean level was once below it? Did you know if the mountains were leveled into ocean valleys today (leveling the global land mass) that the land would be 2 miles under water?

Are you suggesting that God did something as drastic as, say, compressing the continental crust to match the density of oceanic crust? And you believe that something like this would not be indicated by empirical evidence in the geological record? That's what would be required, you realize.

[minorwork]

I'm sorry to admit that your responses don't elicit enough interest from me to continue.

My apologies.

So you are indifferent to any science that supports OTHER than the Biblical young earth creation?

[BlackSheep]

I'm sorry to admit that your responses don't elicit enough interest from me to continue.

My apologies.

That is fine if you wish to give up

[Questatement]

Yes, let's think about it for a second. What exactly are you saying here? That the flood buried the creatures all at once?

No more than floods today drown and/or bury (should moving sediment be present) all 'creatures' at once. If you watch the news, man tends to be the last one still alive and I believe each organism's ability to flee, swim, float, breathe in less than ideal water (if gilled), etc., would affect if and when they end up on the bottom of a watery grave.

And you believe it is possible for this to take place how quickly?

I don't have to believe, I can point to modern examples. It is you that must add a huge measure of faith to extrapolte your belief into existence.

Do you understand what floral/faunal succession is? If many creatures die at once in a cataclysmic event why would certain species be found only in lower layers of sediments and as you get higher your species change completely? Why would this rule hold everywhere, across the entire Earth?

The rule does not hold everywhere and I can provide examples to the contrary until the cows come home. Unfortunately, your belief does not allow for these so additional faith must be applied for your theory to remain viable.

Are you suggesting that God did something as drastic as, say, compressing the continental crust to match the density of oceanic crust? And you believe that something like this would not be indicated by empirical evidence in the geological record? That's what would be required, you realize.

The mountains today rose up during the flood period and yes, the geological record supports this claim.