Recolonization Flood/Post-Flood model

quote:

---

Of course the Triassic/Jurassic gap between bird footprints and bird fossils is a puzzle too.

---

I am a little rusty on my paleontology so bare with me--this sounds very interesting. Could you elaborate on this gap or direct us to more information?-Chris Grose

From the first link it seems clear that the YEC model can't stand up to the level of criticism directed at more mainstream models. Although repeatedly challenged to show evidence that your explanation was possible I didn't see any attempt to answer the difficulties raised.I will add that the post was written before I examined the second link. But I couldn't find an argument for YEC there at all. So far as I can tell, it proposed a test for CPT and when it failed asserted that there must be an explanation consistent with CPT anyway.

TB,When I asked you what large carnivores did until populations of prey species became large enough to sustain them, you said that they... Could you please explain exactly what this means?Look at current populations of cheetas to gazelles, and tell me if cheetas are flourishing or surviving.I mentioned that flying creatures should be able to colonize areas far sooner than reptiles that are relatively immobile. You replied... I was wondering how you are reaching prolific reproduction rates with tetrapods? When you mention a reproductive rate, what factors are you considering? Are you only looking at numbers of offspring, or numners of offspring to live long enough to reproduce? Look into r and K strategists.So if the competing variables involve travel speed against reproduction rate, I would have to say travel speed easily wins out in the short term, and in your model for colonization, I think thats pretty important.

---

Why do men have nipples?

I'll restore the numbers to the issues in my replies for easy reference. Click on the peek button to see how to do this. Not only have you and TC not been here in quite a while, which makes recollection of your specific views difficult, but both your views have changed. And many here now were not party to your original discussions of a couple years ago. Please, why don't you fill everyone in about the major problems you have with modern geology? Uh, marine environments are almost always regions of net deposition, and most sedimentary layers are marine. Given that you need erosion to produce an unconformity, and given that you won't usually get net erosion in a marine environment, why would expect more unconformities than we see? What evidence are you looking at? I've asked you to stop misrepresenting mainstream geological views, but you continue to do so. I absolutely detest having to drop into admin mode in the middle of discussions, but this is the fourth instance of misrepresentation and you leave me no choice. When I finish this message you'll begin a 24 hour suspension. If when you return you're able to demonstrate that I've somehow fallen out of the mainstream in geology then you'll get a full apology.Most geologic layers are marine, and research indicates that it takes about 7500 years to deposit a yard of limestone, 3500 years for a yard of sandstone, and 1500 years for a yard of shale, though of course those are averages and it can vary widely. Mainstream geology definitely does not believe the majority of sedimentation occurs rapidly. What kind of habitation are you thinking of? If you're thinking of land habitation such as might occur if a marine environment were uplifted above sea level, then in most cases it would become an area of net erosion, and preservation of evidence of land habitation in the form of burrows and worm holes and so forth would not occur. Non-marine layers are mostly just what you would expect. Erosion via weathering is like a fine sandpaper that eventually levels all mountains to flat plains. The only uneveness is caused by rivers and streams which have a much greater erosive force than weathering. If weathering is like fine sandpaper, then rivers and streams are like saws. The fossil remains of rivers and streams are captured in the geological layers.I'll address your reply to my point 2 when I next get a chance.--Percy

Actually, speaking as a structural geologist, one could say that every bedding plane is an unconformity. Each discontinuity represents a change or hiatus in deposition, and, in effect represents the passage of an indefinite amount of time. My theory is that for some units, there is more time locked up in hiatus than in deposition. And then, of course there are the erosive events, which are intrinsic to cross-bedding. It is possible that most cross-beds that were ever formed were eroded away before preservation. Of course, YECs won't see that. They are more interested in how the Navajo Sand could be deposited in a week or less.

Hi, Chris.I will bear with you, but I shall refrain from baring with you. I have heard this before. Evidently someone has published the fact that there are bird tracks in the fossil record before there were known birds. To a geologist this is neither a great surprise, nor a very deep puzzle. To YECs, however, it is a monument to the imprecision of paleontology and somehow negates evolution. Anyone trained in the field knows that there are several viable explantions within the framework of evolution, and someday we will probably know the answer.

quote:

---

I will bear with you, but I shall refrain from baring with you.

---

fiiiine. Have it your way

quote:

---

I have heard this before. Evidently someone has published the fact that there are bird tracks in the fossil record before there were known birds. To a geologist this is neither a great surprise, nor a very deep puzzle.

---

I hardly know enough abot this observation to do anything more than speculation, however if I am understanding correctly it would seem to be an extremely peculiar finding. By what reasoning is this not considered surprising? It would seem to me to be very unexpected to find trace fossils of an organism that does not appear until much later in the fossil record. Do you know of any literature offering a hypothesis to explain this? Or maybe TB could provide a source.

quote:

---

To YECs, however, it is a monument to the imprecision of paleontology and somehow negates evolution. Anyone trained in the field knows that there are several viable explantions within the framework of evolution, and someday we will probably know the answer.

---

What explanations?-Chris GroseThis message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-29-2005 02:20 AM

---

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.

I've done some research. The tracks are described as "bird-like" and it is not decided whether they were made by birds or their dinosaurian ancestors. But even the Triassic is surprisingly late for the "recolonisation" scenario. Birds have superior mobility through flight so it is very surprising that seabirds - some of whom migrate long distances - could not reach the coast before the slower amphibians.

quote:

---

I've done some research. The tracks are described as "bird-like" and it is not decided whether they were made by birds or their dinosaurian ancestors.

---

That makes more sense--do you have any citations for this research?-Chris Grose

Addressing more of your replies: I asked you what evidence pushes you toward a recolonization model, and you didn't mention any. What you did say makes clear that you're taking a backasswords approach to science. Instead of following the evidence where it leads, your selecting your preferred scenario (a global flood and a young earth) and attempting to shoehorn the existing data into it. The wrongheadedness of your approach is made clear by the physical laws you're required to break or ignore. I'm not even sure these are all features of mainstream geology. For example, what are all the layers behind your claim of frequent inability to tell marine from non-marine? But anyway, a repeated pattern of frequent inundations of the land would produce a repeated pattern of sedimentary layers. What is that pattern, and do you see it exhibited all over the globe? Because you require a much shorter time frame, and because fine-grained material cannot fall out of suspension rapidly, in terms of sediment material you have a significant problem, especially with limestone, sandstone and shale marine layers.--Percy

What is your major, Chris? I see nothing peculiar at all about this. Interesting perhaps, but readily explainable. Are you asking me to prove a negative hypothesis? It is not surprising because we often find organisms outside their previously known range. Why should birds be different? Well, first of all, don't believe everything you read. Second, there are several plausible explanations. You have already read one, if you have been following this thread: they may not be actual bird footprints. I mean, how do you know that there were no dinosaurs that had footprints that look very much like birds? One is mentioned above. Another is that it is only one person's interpretation that they are bird footprints. Do you actually know the quality of these prints? Another possibility is that it is another transitional form leading back to an even earlier common ancestor. Really, don't believe things just because they are interesting. Do the science.

Ah, the fine print trips up our YEC friends once again...

Of course they're referred to as 'bird-like'! Because although evolution can accomodate just about anything, it certainly doesn't expect birds there.Has anyone out there actually read the paper? When you read the actual Nature paper you find that by the standard 5 out of 5 (or is it 7 out of 7) standard diagnostic pointers they ARE objectively bird tracks.'Bird-like' is completely understandable language if there are no actual bird fossils themselves around for almost 100 million years.

clpMINI I'm not expert on this but it is possible for some carnivors to eat plant material if that is all that is available. Also: travel speed means both quicker recolonization AND escape (competing).