Wibble: After all, under creationism they should be present at any point in the fossil record along with all other modern birds ? At least say from the Carboniferous onwards.
I would like to address this type of reasoning, not just from Wibble but basically from many evolutionists I have encountered online, because many of them seem to have this or a very similar argument. I am just using Wibble as an example of it, he doesn't have to feel implicated or answer for it, my goal is to address the reasoning;
I would like to phrase this reasoning with it's hidden assumptions. I am not saying those are deliberately hidden, in fact I believe most of the time evolutionists don't know the error they make, so here is a better phrasing of what they are saying, which may highlight that error for them;
"If the fossil record isn't a record of millions of years of uniformity, and if it was basically laid down by a catastrophic flood, then we would also expect to find a bird or human or bunny in the Cambrian layers too, because if we treat those layers according to uniformity, we would expect a bunny in the Cambrian."
Can you see the switch?
The evolutionist reasons from the antecedent, "if the fossils were created by the flood according to creation" but then he goes on to still treat the fossils like they were laid down according to millions of years, as though that record is not only a record of time but how the rocks are laid down according to long age.
Think it through with me, for "if the fossils are caused by the flood" that means that if you find a jellyfish in the Cambrian and a T-Rex in the Jurassic, then both would be the same age anyway, if a flood caused those rocks to be laid down over one year. Also, since the creation argument is a fast splitting of the super-continent, pangea, WHEN and WHERE certain fossils were laid down, would depend upon the stages of that flood.
With the flood model, there is an inundatory stage and a recessional stage, where you get different type of geomorphological structuring of the earth. During the recessional stage, there is the abative phase and the dispersive phase which has less energy for example, than the former.
But also "if the rocks are laid down by the flood according to creation" then it also follows that the distances between ecological zones on a world where the super-continent spans thousands of miles, could have been very great indeed.
If God created the original Pangaea with an abundance of animal forms which were basically separated into zones where many types of organisms basically dwelt, but others didn't, then you wouldn't necessarily expect some species to be buried with other species.
Conclusion: I only request that if you reason that "if it was creation" that you fully understand that "if it was creation" is a million miles away from, "if it was uniformity", for example the pre-flood world and the post-flood world, and all of the complications of that, must also come into your reasoning. You can't just pick some of what we argue without understanding the rest.
It would be like me saying that "chimps are still here so we can't have evolved."
That reasoning shows ignorance of evolution, but the, "bunny in a Cambrian please!" request, is equally silly.