Though I wasn't there I would assume that more laws than the Law of Gravity were at play when the fossil record was laid down. Fossilized creatures with the capacty to rise above through physical exertion should be found at higher levels. Are they?
When was the last time you baked up a heavy element in a supernova? Never have, and probably never will. So?
When was the last time you felt the North American continent drift?I don't have to feel it. I'll trust the measurements other scientists have made.
When was the last time you observed light reducing in wavelength after traveling for billions of years?The only billions of years I know of are in the imagination of men.
Sciences operates on induction . . .
I appreciate the value of induction when it comes to scientific inquiry. I also appreciate it when scientists know the difference between induction and story telling.
By the way, should we trust you to be the arbiter of sanity for the rest of us?
What exactly is the difference between induction and story telling, other than the fact that scientists put their stories to the test?
Equally, one might assume the earth and moon were both made of green cheese when the fossil record was laid down--lacking further evidence, I think we may safely assume the law of gravity prevailed, and heavy, dense things did not uniformly float on top of light loose things.
Fossilized creatures with the capacty to rise above through physical exertion should be found at higher levels. Are they?
That's a good one, what mechanism do you propose for this--flash fossilization?
I also appreciate it when scientists know the difference between induction and story telling.
There is no functional difference between story-telling and theories derived by inductive reasoning--it is just a question of how much faith you put in the story, and why you do so. Your disclaimer is absurd. You want to argue that a story with virually no positive, tangible, incontrovertable evidence is more believable than the one story with more and better evidence than any other scientific story around today. Holding your hands firmly over your eyes and saying "what evidence?" over and over, is not a pursuasive counterargment.
Whereas, we should trust someone who thinks the fossils all happened at once, contrary to what any 10 year old can observe in a trip down the grand canyon wall, as our arbiter of sanity?
So since you are saying that the best swimmers rose to the top and that the fossils of these creatures are found in the shallowest rock layers, why aren't these rock layers full of nothing but fish fossils? Surely fish must swim better than any other creatures, right? Or weren't the fish killed in the flood (contrary to what the Bible says)?