Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do creationists try to find and study fossils?
bernd
Member (Idle past 3980 days)
Posts: 95
From: Munich,Germany
Joined: 07-10-2005


(1)
Message 91 of 182 (698246)
05-04-2013 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Faith
05-04-2013 12:35 PM


Re: Fossilization
Hello Faith,
As has already been stated by Percy and PaulK, the article is there. But maybe you have trouble handling large files. To help you out,
I have extracted Romer's article from "Natural History Magazine" into a separate pdf and stored it into my drop box folder. You should be able to download the file by clicking on:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0dxjes5m8ly9an7/Romer-NaturalHistoryVol68.pdf
Please have a look and help me to find the quote .
Best regards
Bernd
Edited by Admin, : Fix link.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Faith, posted 05-04-2013 12:35 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Faith, posted 05-04-2013 9:57 PM bernd has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 92 of 182 (698253)
05-04-2013 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by jar
05-04-2013 2:56 PM


Yes, the past left evidence, unique evidence such as the bazillions of fossils in the miles deep stack of sediments that has not occurred on such a scale since and never will. It is open to interpretation in a way evidence formed in the present is not because in the present you have similar events for comparison. That is not the case with the prehistoric past. The evidence remains open to interpretation. The same evidence you take to prove evolution I take to prove the Flood and I think the interpretation of a stack of neatly horizontal sediments as eras in time is stupid in the extreme.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by jar, posted 05-04-2013 2:56 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Coyote, posted 05-04-2013 10:16 PM Faith has replied
 Message 98 by foreveryoung, posted 05-04-2013 10:44 PM Faith has replied
 Message 112 by jar, posted 05-05-2013 8:59 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 93 of 182 (698254)
05-04-2013 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by bernd
05-04-2013 6:49 PM


Re: Fossilization
I accept that the quote is not there, sorry if I was not clear. You've all shown that the page I linked didn't prove what it purports to prove.
I cannot access the article from Percy's link and yours is now taking forever to load what it calls a "preview." If it ever succeeds in loading I'll see if it actually leads me to the article, but again, I accept that the quote is not there since so many have said it isn't.
Page is still trying to load.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by bernd, posted 05-04-2013 6:49 PM bernd has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 94 of 182 (698256)
05-04-2013 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Percy
05-04-2013 2:42 PM


Re: Fossilization
I can't access your link to Romer's article. Bernd's did finally come up but moving from page to page takes forever. I was able to bring up Taylor's dinosaur book but only a preview which tells me that pages 25 to 63 are not included. Since the quote is on page 28 I still don't get to see it.
BUT I'LL TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT. Apparently the links I posted don't prove much of anything. Too bad. I do believe the basic idea is correct, that fossilization does not take aeons of time, but other sources are clearly needed.
Austin and Garner have both been discussed before but I'll try to put up a post sketching out the information next.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Percy, posted 05-04-2013 2:42 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 95 of 182 (698257)
05-04-2013 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Faith
05-04-2013 9:52 PM


Interpretations
The evidence remains open to interpretation.
But some interpretations fit the data better than others, and, most importantly, are not contradicted by any significant data. This is true of the scientific interpretation of the geological record, but not true of the genesis-based interpretation. The latter is just wishful thinking permitted by fingers-in-the-ears and heads-in-the-sand sullen and self-imposed ignorance.
The same evidence you take to prove evolution I take to prove the Flood and I think the interpretation of a stack of neatly horizontal sediments as eras in time is stupid in the extreme.
But it doesn't matter what you think! You have admitted proudly that you wouldn't accept any evidence that contradicted the bible, so when it comes to science you're out of the game. You're just preaching, with a mind so closed it's rusted shut.
When it comes to science we'd do better to listen to four-year-old children. They, at least, can still see the world around them without the blinders you have willingly donned.
Sorry to be so blunt, but I don't think I have ever met someone as close-minded as you seem to be. That is not a trait I respect.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Faith, posted 05-04-2013 9:52 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Faith, posted 05-04-2013 10:17 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 96 of 182 (698258)
05-04-2013 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Coyote
05-04-2013 10:16 PM


Re: Interpretations
I don't respect you either, Coyote. Seems to me you are rigidly adherent to beliefs about dating that you consider to be gospel truth to such an extent that you can't even process the answer that the Flood wouldn't be found in a "layer" at a certain depth, I mean you absolutely cannot process that thought because you are so r8igidly addicted to what you think science tells you.
Yes some interpretations are better than others and the Flood interpretation of the sedimentary column and its fossils is far more reasonable than the Old Earth interpretation of the same phenomena, which as I said is stupid in the extreme.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Coyote, posted 05-04-2013 10:16 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 97 of 182 (698259)
05-04-2013 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by PaulK
05-04-2013 2:22 PM


In other words real fossils are produced by a number of different mechanisms,and there is no special reason to assume that the speed of the particular method you refer to would actually apply to all of them.
In other words you don't have a clue how long it takes either. The idea that it takes millions of years is nothing but an artifact of Old Earth assumptions and evolution theory, you have no actual evidence for it. Even if it takes different amounts of time for different kinds of fossilization to occur, there is NO reason to assume great aeons of time. In the permineralization example that is caused by minerals precipitated out of water, if you have bones compressed within wet sediments and all the water-borne minerals needed to do the work why should it take so long? Give it a few hundred years if you want, I don't think it should take that long, even give it a few thousand, you aren't going to need more than that. More likely 50 years would be more than enough. AT THE VERY LEAST, the time since the Flood is MORE than ample for fossilization of ALL KINDS to have occurred.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by PaulK, posted 05-04-2013 2:22 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by PaulK, posted 05-05-2013 2:02 AM Faith has replied

foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


(3)
Message 98 of 182 (698260)
05-04-2013 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Faith
05-04-2013 9:52 PM


Yes, the past left evidence, unique evidence such as the bazillions of fossils in the miles deep stack of sediments that has not occurred on such a scale since and never will. It is open to interpretation in a way evidence formed in the present is not because in the present you have similar events for comparison. That is not the case with the prehistoric past. The evidence remains open to interpretation. The same evidence you take to prove evolution I take to prove the Flood and I think the interpretation of a stack of neatly horizontal sediments as eras in time is stupid in the extreme.
Why is it that those deep stacks of sediments always have the oldest dated rocks on the bottom and the youngest dated rocks on top? How did the flood manage to do that? Why is it that the least complex fossils are always found on the bottoms layers of sediment and the most complex fossils are always found on the top? How did the flood manage to do that? Lets just take fish for example. Why are there no modern fish found in the bottom layers? Why are the fish found in the top layers never found in the bottom layers? This is even true for fish of approximately the same weight. Why and how would a flood sort fish out in this manner?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Faith, posted 05-04-2013 9:52 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Faith, posted 05-04-2013 10:50 PM foreveryoung has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 99 of 182 (698261)
05-04-2013 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by foreveryoung
05-04-2013 10:44 PM


This has been answered before over and over. First the idea that what is on the bottom is less "complex" is wrong, but as for the general principle concerning supposed "modern" creatures being on the top, which is already a tendentious lie from the ToE, I don't know and neither do you, but the interpretation of successive ages is stupid from so many other angles the Flood interpretation remains far and away the most reasonable. LAND animals appear to have been sorted to the top, that's the main distinction that continues to make sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by foreveryoung, posted 05-04-2013 10:44 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by foreveryoung, posted 05-04-2013 11:18 PM Faith has replied
 Message 101 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-04-2013 11:29 PM Faith has replied

foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


(4)
Message 100 of 182 (698263)
05-04-2013 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Faith
05-04-2013 10:50 PM


Why is it that most of the fossils found in the thick sedimentary layers you speak of don't exist today? If they all came off the ark 4000 years ago, you would think at least some of them would still exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Faith, posted 05-04-2013 10:50 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 1:14 AM foreveryoung has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 101 of 182 (698264)
05-04-2013 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Faith
05-04-2013 10:50 PM


This has been answered before over and over. First the idea that what is on the bottom is less "complex" is wrong, but as for the general principle concerning supposed "modern" creatures being on the top, which is already a tendentious lie from the ToE ...
Though curiously enough, as well as being "a tendentious lie from the ToE", it's also a fact discovered before the ToE was even thought of. In the real world, that is, the one with the fossils in it and in which time doesn't run backwards.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Faith, posted 05-04-2013 10:50 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 1:16 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 102 of 182 (698265)
05-05-2013 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by foreveryoung
05-04-2013 11:18 PM


Why is it that most of the fossils found in the thick sedimentary layers you speak of don't exist today? If they all came off the ark 4000 years ago, you would think at least some of them would still exist.
You are trying to make this thread into an all-purpose Flood debate. All this stuff has been answered elsewhere but if you want to bring it up again start a new thread.
The answer to your question is that most of those fossils that don't exist are nevertheless within the same Species or Kind of those that do exist as their close cousins. Microevolution has occurred since the Flood acting on the small portion of the pre-Flood genetic picture that survived the Flood. The fossils show us the enormous variety that existed before the Flood.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by foreveryoung, posted 05-04-2013 11:18 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by foreveryoung, posted 05-05-2013 2:12 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 103 of 182 (698266)
05-05-2013 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Dr Adequate
05-04-2013 11:29 PM


Then it was exploited by the ToE, so what. The supposed gradation of complexity is rightly disputed as a subjective misjudgment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-04-2013 11:29 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 104 of 182 (698268)
05-05-2013 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Faith
05-04-2013 10:38 PM


quote:
In other words you don't have a clue how long it takes either.
In other words the time taken is variable, and your assertion that all fossils were formed in the time your beliefs allow is unsupported.
quote:
The idea that it takes millions of years is nothing but an artifact of Old Earth assumptions and evolution theory, you have no actual evidence for it.
I never said that it took millions of years, but even if it takes only tens of thousands in some cases, the evidence is against you.
quote:
Even if it takes different amounts of time for different kinds of fossilization to occur, there is NO reason to assume great aeons of time.
Indeed, "great aeons of time" is NOT assumed - it is concluded from the evidence. The idea that the fossil record is the product of a single catastrophic event, on the other hand, IS an assumption - and one that does not sit well with the evidence (try explaining how a continent-stripping catastrophe can preserve relatively delicate surface features !) .
quote:
In the permineralization example that is caused by minerals precipitated out of water, if you have bones compressed within wet sediments and all the water-borne minerals needed to do the work why should it take so long?
Again, the question is study and evidence. Do you have the evidence, or are you just assuming that conditions were right ? In the examples you gave another important point was that the water was flowing, so that there was a constant supply of calcium carbonate. I'm not sure that we should expect water coming IN in your scenario at all!
quote:
Give it a few hundred years if you want, I don't think it should take that long, even give it a few thousand, you aren't going to need more than that. More likely 50 years would be more than enough. AT THE VERY LEAST, the time since the Flood is MORE than ample for fossilization of ALL KINDS to have occurred.
I am aware that that is your opinion, but where are the studies backing it up ? That is the question of this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Faith, posted 05-04-2013 10:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 7:10 AM PaulK has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 105 of 182 (698281)
05-05-2013 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by PaulK
05-05-2013 2:02 AM


In other words you don't have a clue how long it takes either.
In other words the time taken is variable, and your assertion that all fossils were formed in the time your beliefs allow is unsupported.
On the contrary, I believe I've made a decent case for it.
The idea that it takes millions of years is nothing but an artifact of Old Earth assumptions and evolution theory, you have no actual evidence for it.
I never said that it took millions of years, but even if it takes only tens of thousands in some cases, the evidence is against you.
But like all the numbers, that's one you simply pulled out of a hat. There is no reason why it should take more than a few years for any of the kinds of fossilization, hundreds max.
Even if it takes different amounts of time for different kinds of fossilization to occur, there is NO reason to assume great aeons of time.
Indeed, "great aeons of time" is NOT assumed - it is concluded from the evidence.
No, as I said, it is nothing but an artifact of the theory, there isn't one shred of actual evidence that demonstrates how long any form of fossilization takes.
The idea that the fossil record is the product of a single catastrophic event, on the other hand, IS an assumption - and one that does not sit well with the evidence (try explaining how a continent-stripping catastrophe can preserve relatively delicate surface features !) .
The Flood explains the vast majority of the facts better than evolution; there will always remain some questions, but even those are usually answerable when discussed in some detail and not just thrown at a creationist in passing during another discussion.
In the permineralization example that is caused by minerals precipitated out of water, if you have bones compressed within wet sediments and all the water-borne minerals needed to do the work why should it take so long?
Again, the question is study and evidence. Do you have the evidence, or are you just assuming that conditions were right ?
Again, NOBODY has that kind of evidence of what happened in the prehistoric past, the best that's possible is reconstructing it imaginatively, and what I described is a very likely reconstruction, far more likely than those fantastic scenarios preferred by evolutionists. YOU have no way of studying how a particular layer formed EITHER, it's all pure speculation, so don't give me this "study and evidence" song and dance.
IF the strata were formed by the Flood, THEN what I described is extremely reasonable: ...bones compressed within wet sediments and all the water-borne minerals needed to do the work ...
In the examples you gave another important point was that the water was flowing, so that there was a constant supply of calcium carbonate. I'm not sure that we should expect water coming IN in your scenario at all!
Which examples? At the links? But everybody kiboshed those, NOW you want to accept them?
Stack of wet sediments, under pressure from the weight of those above, would have a constant supply of water trickling down from the upper levels and running between the layers until the whole stack dried out, and some underground sources may have remained as well.
Give it a few hundred years if you want, I don't think it should take that long, even give it a few thousand, you aren't going to need more than that. More likely 50 years would be more than enough. AT THE VERY LEAST, the time since the Flood is MORE than ample for fossilization of ALL KINDS to have occurred.
I am aware that that is your opinion, but where are the studies backing it up ? That is the question of this thread.
Where are YOUR studies since you insist on studies? You have none. There is no way to study what happened in the prehistoric past, all you have is conjecture just as I do, and mine is very reasonable, can't say the same for yours.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by PaulK, posted 05-05-2013 2:02 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by PaulK, posted 05-05-2013 7:51 AM Faith has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024