Question: The fossil record is a record of the destruction and death caused by the Flood.
Response: If the record represented the Noah’s flood…why is the majority of the record extinct predatory arthropods (exo skeletons like scorpions and crabs) who were highly adapted to swimming? Why are there literally no fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, dinosaurs, birds, or anything that shouldn’t have evolved yet (according to evolution) in the record? Why is the most primitive form of every family today present before the Cambrian which is then represented in the Cambrian with only simple advancements?
Organisms killed by a flood would never fall into place like the Cambrian fossil record because there is no way a highly water adapted organism like Anomalocaris would die and sink to the bottom before a house cat. The order of the record makes literally no sense in the light of a biblical flood. Records of floods are very obvious in that they show a great amount of unnatural mixing and no natural order. This is definitely not the Cambrian.
Question to Response: Was the predictable form of the fossils created after the fossil was found or before? The fact that the fossils found in Cambrian rock differ from living animals of the same phyla only shows the living forms were not buried in Cambrian rock. You also assume that the fossil bacteria are as old as the rocks they are found in. It is well known that bacteria have found their way to every place on Earth that is possible for them to live, including deep rocks. Bacteria dying in a rock long after it was formed could under the right conditions become fossilized in the that rock, so it is no surprise to find bacteria fossils in rock well below multicellular organisms. Furthermore, there is still no evidence connecting bacteria to multicellular organisms. Evolutionists take fossils and find patterns in other fossils. This is just pareidolia not evidence of common decent
Response to Question
"Was the predictable form of the fossils created after the fossil was found or before?”
Both, fossils can often be predicted before we find them and are found later with their form verifying the prediction as well as fossils that are found before that still fit into the form that they are supposed to. Predictions wont be made though without a lot of information of the two points on either side because you need traits to follow.
“The fact that the fossils found in Cambrian rock differ from living animals of the same phyla only shows the living forms were not buried in Cambrian rock”
The fact that not even one fish, reptile, amphibian, mammal, bird, dinosaur, or any known insect or crustacean was found in the record that was supposedly created by a flood that killed everything really makes no sense. And the fact that everything that SHOULD be in the record like finless, jawless pre-fish (myllokunmingia, haikouichthys , haikouella) for evolution to be correct is, without one species out of place. Literally. None. As the Cambrian rocks get older, the forms get more and simpler, just like they are supposed to.
“You also assume that the fossil bacteria are as old as the rocks they are found in. It is well known that bacteria have found their way to every place on Earth that is possible for them to live, including deep rocks. Bacteria dying in a rock long after it was formed could under the right conditions become fossilized in the that rock, so it is no surprise to find bacteria fossils in rock well below multicellular organisms”
Well the bacteria I mentioned were the stromatolites which aren’t just 99% rock with some bacteria on top of it. Stromatolites are literally built by bacteria living in a group and their waste being laid down layer by layer…so they created the structure. And during this time period what should be found in the environment (increase in oxygen from the new bacteria) is found at this time period and not before. They correlate with each other, as they should according to evolution.
“Furthermore, there is still no evidence connecting bacteria to multicellular organisms. Evolutionists take fossils and find patterns in other fossils. This is just pareidolia not evidence of common decent”
Well, since you said there is no evidence for the connection between bacteria and multi-celled organisms, ill explain the evidence that actually does exist.
Archaea and Bacteria are small, relatively simple cells surrounded by a membrane and a cell wall, with a circular strand of DNA containing their genes. They are called prokaryotes. Evidence supports the idea that eukaryotic cells are actually the descendants of separate prokaryotic cells that joined together in a symbiotic union. In fact, the mitochondrion (the powerhouse of the cell) itself seems to be the "great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great granddaughter" of a free-living bacterium that was engulfed by another cell, perhaps as a meal, and ended up staying as a sort of permanent house guest.
The host cell profited from the chemical energy the mitochondrion produced, and the mitochondrion benefited from the protected, nutrient-rich environment surrounding it. This kind of "internal" symbiosis — one organism taking up permanent residence inside another and eventually evolving into a single lineage — is called endosymbiosis.
Biologist Lynn Margulis first made the case for endosymbiosis in the 1960s, but for many years other biologists were skeptical. Although
Lynn watched his amoebae become infected
with the x-bacteria and then evolve to depend upon them, no one was around over
a billion years ago to observe the events of endosymbiosis. Why should we think
that a mitochondrion used to be a free-living organism in its own right? It
turns out that many lines of evidence support this idea. Most important are the
many striking similarities between prokaryotes (like bacteria) and mitochondria:
1) Membranes — Mitochondria have their own cell membranes, just like a prokaryotic cell does.
2) DNA — Each mitochondrion has its own circular DNA genome, like a bacteria's genome, but much smaller. This DNA is passed from a mitochondrion to its offspring and is separate from the "host" cell's genome in the nucleus
3) Reproduction — Mitochondria multiply by pinching in half — the same process used by bacteria. Every new mitochondrion must be produced from a parent mitochondrion in this way; if a cell's mitochondria are removed, it can't build new ones from scratch.
When you look at it this way, mitochondria really resemble tiny bacteria making their livings inside eukaryotic cells! Based on decades of accumulated evidence, the scientific community supports the ideas that endosymbiosis is the best explanation for the evolution of the eukaryotic cell.
What's more, the evidence for endosymbiosis applies not only to mitochondria, but to other cellular organelles as well. Chloroplasts are like tiny green factories within plant cells that help convert energy from sunlight into sugars, and they have many similarities to mitochondria. The evidence suggests that these chloroplast organelles were also once free-living bacteria.
The endosymbiotic event that generated mitochondria must have happened early in the history of eukaryotes, because all eukaryotes have them. Then, later, a similar event brought chloroplasts into some eukaryotic cells, creating the lineage that led to plants.
Biologists are in the process of figuring this out using evidence provided by comparing the gene sequences of different organisms. In general, the more similar two organisms' genes are, the more recently their two lineages split apart from one another. If two organisms have been evolving separately for a very long time, and have a distant common ancestor, they are likely to have evolved lots of differences between their gene sequences. So by comparing the genetic sequences of different organisms, biologists can piece together their family tree — who is related to whom. Biologists have even studied the DNA in mitochondria to figure out how they are related to free-living bacteria. These studies have shown, first, that all mitochondria are descended from one original mitochondrion — that is, endosymbiosis of a mitochondrion only happened once — and second, that mitochondria are most closely related to a bacteria called Rickettsia prowazekii.