"The fact remains that if creature B appears in the fossil record after
creature A, there is no reason to believe that creature B actually existed
before creature A. The best the evolutionist can say is that it is possible
that the vagaries of fossilization have created a false impression."
I don't disagree except at one point. Let us assume that PC is correct and
that the animals are fossilized according to the way geologists think they
are. God creates an animal, it multiplies and begins to spread over the land.
Occassionally one of these critters is going to be buried by a landslide or
caught in a flood an leave it's bones in the rock record. If PC is correct it
is still reasonable to believe that the first appearance in the fossil record
is not the first appearance of that form on earth. Unless you are willing to
believe that in every case, God caused the fossilization of the very first
individual of each form He created. I doubt that you would make such a strong
statement. So why would you expect such a strong statement from the
evolutionist?
If ICR is correct and the animals all represent the remains of the pre-flood
world, then their first fossilization once again is long after their first
appearance on earth.
As near as I can tell, every theory of prehistory, PC, fiat creation followed
by flood, or evolution absolutely requires that individuals of the various
species were in existence long before the first of their kind was fossilized.
What it appears to me is that there is a double standard. Evolution must work
with the first appearance in rocks = first occurence on earth. While all
Biblical, non evolutionary models get to work with first appearance in rocks
not = first occurence on earth. Doesn't seem fair.
It also seems that the best any theory can say is that the vagaries of fossili
zation or of the model create a false impression.
glenn