Dr Jackson, this debate has drawn to a close and readers who take the time to read the debate in its entirety will note that you have not even hit the surface in responding to my last rebuttal, and have left several facts unaccounted for, each of which individually point to faunal succession while disproving your global flood;
The disappearance of fauna over 10kg between the Cretaceous and Palogene (with gradual succession of larger fauna above this), the large gap in appearance between creatures filling similar niches (namely fish vs whales, aquatic reptiles vs aquatic mammals, large dinosaurs vs large mammals, etc), how Ostracoderms (freshwater variations included) appear in the lower layers (you insist that bottom dwelling sea life were the first to go) and how Teloest fish don't show up until the Triassic (despite existing on sea bottoms today), Fauna in the upper layers that better represent modern fauna, animal dens and burrows throughout the layers (animals can't create dens and burrows while they're being drowned), and why rapid and intact preservation (which happens during a flood) is the exception as opposed to the rule.
Nor have you explained why we find no Dinosaur fossils with spear points, or animals that fall outside of the usual same basic body plan, or remnants of human civilization until the very top layers. You never even bothered to account for the gradual succession in brain size (from 420 CC – 1350 CC) and other gradual "ape to human" characteristics between the hominids, nor account for the fact that we find these fossils in the same parts of the world where we find the great apes. I forgot to include the link to the Newsweek, 3/19/07 article you insist help disqualify them as our ancestors. I hope readers take the time to read this in full.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17542627/site/newsweek/page/4/
Readers will also notice your continued dependence on dishonest quote mines (both using articles as well as my own statements). In one quote I am alluding to the entire geological record throughout the world and how we shouldn't expect sediment and erosion to occur everywhere and at the same time, and in another I am talking about one portion of the world. In one minute I am talking about the uniformity of the overall sequence of fauna (reptiles->archaeopteryx->modern birds) then next I am delving into specific species and how its impossible to know which species evolved into the next (but rather, we know they are transitional because of their features). You quote the convenient elements of these statements and proceed to assert that they are mutually exclusive. Furthermore, I have never mentioned a global flood on Mars and for some reason you insist that I believe in one.
You continually attack a National Geographic article (again, a popular magazine, not a peer-reviewed scientific journal) as a detriment to evolutionary theory and give no references in regards to which transitional forms you refer to, where you come up with these dates (120 Mya, 150 mya, etc), nor showcase any peer-reviewed works that claim that these specific fossils are specifically ancestral to Archaeopteryx. Given that you only used 753 of your allotted 2,000 word limit, how difficult would it be to delve into specifics? This method of debate is juvenile at best and you are once again repeating the "x must evolve into y" straw man argument. Any Paleontology source will show you that Theropods first appear in the Triassic, whereas Archaeopteryx doesn't appear until the Jurassic (meaning they are not "out of order").
To put your quote mines into perspective, what are the chances that after reading the statement below, you wouldn't accuse me of taking the Bible out of context and coming to a faulty conclusion?
"The Bible is a horrendous book; its remedy for disobedient children is that "all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die" (Deuteronomy 21:18) and sets the stage for 2 millennia of bigotry towards females with chauvinistic rules, including but not limited to rules that tell us that women who give birth to male children "shall be unclean seven days" whereas after birth to a female child, she "shall be unclean two weeks, as in her impurity" (Leviticus 12)."
You have made up your own Geology by making Turbidity currents the cause for fossil destruction in the Cambrian, despite the fact that they can be checked for and yet none are found (the sort of ad hoc explanation I predicted in my first rebuttal). Furthermore, they can only account for the destruction of life among slopes and other formations where mudslides can drift from. A mudslide wouldn't account for burial along flat abyssal plains for the same reason we don't have avalanches in Kansas.
Any field Geologist will tell you that water-logged sunken tree trunks can indeed cross-cut layers of mud (gravity being a primary factor), and result in what creationists would define as polystrate, inasmuch as a tree surrounded by rapid deposit. I have never denied that floods cause rapid deposition. Its common knowledge that floods happen and always have, though it never ceases to amaze me how creationists automatically imply that any trace of a flood having occurred automatically means 'their' flood.
This has been another example of Creationist mischaracterization of Geology, Biology, Paleontology, and Anthropology in areas Creationists find inconvenient. Your methods of debate have been dishonest at best, though I suppose that's what one must do when trying to defend an indefensible position. But these methods won't turn fence sitters and certainly won't change anyone's mind. I would postulate that even a few of the "convinced creationists" that read the entire debate will begin to doubt you (and it certainly doesn't help that you thought whale blow holes were located behind their brains). Perhaps if Creationism ever comes up with an actual science as opposed to continually mischaracterizing what "evolutionists say," it can be taken a bit more seriously. Nothing about Creation Science holds up to scientific scrutiny.
