Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Great Creationist Fossil Failure
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 496 of 1163 (787833)
07-22-2016 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 493 by ringo
07-22-2016 1:14 PM


Re: So, oh well, we're still off topic.
Hi ringo
ringo writes:
Are you suggesting that most of the fossils were formed quickly by the Flood?
No I don't believe any fossils or strata was formed during the Genesis flood.
I do believe that events of the early earth took place which buried creatures quickly that produced fossil's, as I believe the early earth grew by accretion of materials supplied by asteroids, such as the one that produced the crater in the Gulf of Mexico.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 493 by ringo, posted 07-22-2016 1:14 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 500 by NoNukes, posted 07-22-2016 2:05 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 510 by ringo, posted 07-23-2016 11:39 AM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 497 of 1163 (787834)
07-22-2016 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 495 by Faith
07-22-2016 1:23 PM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
quote:
...but that requires imagining a very complex scenario in which such a landscape ends up as a sedimentary rock, EVERY landscape of EVERY time period ends up as a sedimentary rock.
Why can't we accept that some landscapes would have been lost to erosion ? Only landscapes in areas of net deposition are going to be preserved. So the idea that EVERY landscape has to be preserved is not only something we do not have to imagine, it is something that we should reject.
quote:
For every sedimentary deposit that contains terrestrial fossils we have to conjure this supposed environment and then suppose it was eventually all reduced to a flat sedimentary rock. The rocks as observed in the strata, where they haven't been tectonically deformed, are pretty flat, often with pretty tight contacts between them, and yet we are to imagine that there was once a whole landscape on their surface somewhat like the landscape on the surface now? And that makes sense to you? That makes sense to Geologists?
Since we do find fossil landscapes - river channels, sand dunes, soils - then to the extent your claim is true (the existence of river channels itself is a deviation from flatness - and we have seen other examples) - it does make sense, add in the requirement for net deposition and it makes more sense. The flood plain of a river - for instance - is flat.
The other question is does it really make sense to you to expect us deny this evidence in favour of your assumptions ? Surely it does not.
quote:
Oy. Interpretive madness it seems to me. You're talking about ROCKS here, that you are calling the "geological record" in which you supposedly can see all those events with water and silt and debris? Oy.
I don't see any madness in it. We can examine rocks and understand the nature of the particles that make them up - their size, shape and chemistry. If we find rock including particles like silt - in size shape and chemistry - on a flat surface adjacent to a fossil river channel it seems perfectly reasonable to suppose that the material the rock includes material that was silt spread by the river flooding. How could that be considered "mad" ?
Surely it would be madness to reject it out of hand.
I'll consider the Grand Staircase later after I have done the research.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 495 by Faith, posted 07-22-2016 1:23 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 498 of 1163 (787835)
07-22-2016 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 492 by ICANT
07-22-2016 1:05 PM


Re: So, oh well, we're still off topic.
You are not understanding anything.
Material goes down via subduction.
Material comes up via volcanos and diverging boundaries.
The processes balance each other.
How the Earth came to be is an interesting field of study unrelated to finding fossils deep underground.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 492 by ICANT, posted 07-22-2016 1:05 PM ICANT has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 499 of 1163 (787836)
07-22-2016 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 494 by ICANT
07-22-2016 1:23 PM


Re: So, oh well, we're still off topic.
They are not now where they lived and died.
The surface of the Earth is constantly in motion. Stuff goes down, stuff comes up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 494 by ICANT, posted 07-22-2016 1:23 PM ICANT has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 500 of 1163 (787838)
07-22-2016 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 496 by ICANT
07-22-2016 1:31 PM


Re: So, oh well, we're still off topic.
as I believe the early earth grew by accretion of materials supplied by asteroids
That's certainly what science predicts for some definition of the word, early. But if you believe that there has been a substantial accretion on earth since the time of say, dinosaurs walking on earth, there simply isn't any evidence of that level of asteroid bombardment.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 496 by ICANT, posted 07-22-2016 1:31 PM ICANT has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 501 of 1163 (787839)
07-22-2016 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 495 by Faith
07-22-2016 1:23 PM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
You keep saying erosion is a problem for me and I don't get what you mean.
I know.
... What erosion has to do with this escapes me completely.
Erosion has everything to do with creating landscapes.
Some landscapes are buried in younger sediments.
This isn't rocket science.
For my "concept of a concentrated geological record?" You mean for my concept of rapid deposition? Exactly what erosion is a problem for that?
Because in terrestrial deposits erosion is the rule, and it removes much of the geological record. It also reduces landscapes to flat planes over geologic time.
I look at strata in hundreds of pictures from all over the world and I don't see any problem. Sometimes there is some loose gravel or rubble between strata. Is that what you mean by erosion?
In part. So, where does it come from?
How would it be a problem if it is? There are lots of ways such loose rubble could occur. But I may not be getting what you have in mind.
Good. Name some.
"Landscapes and streams" is simply what is suggested by the idea of the surface of the strata having once been the surface of the earth which could support living things as represented by the fossils within the layer. What erosion has to do with this escapes me completely. It seems to be what is implied by the whole Geologic Timescale.
Yes, and all of that time in erosion, the landscape is being leveled and cleared of fossils, soils, gravel etc. Then it can be inundated and covered by later sediment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 495 by Faith, posted 07-22-2016 1:23 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 502 of 1163 (787840)
07-22-2016 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 491 by ICANT
07-22-2016 12:26 PM


Re: So, oh well, we're still off topic.
Are you referring to the flood recorded in Genesis or the one that is argued by YEC'S that came from the imagination of Ellen G. White?
The flood described in Genesis is not the flood that has been argued in all the flood threads on this web site.
I don't see a distinction. Geologically speaking, neither can be resolved in the record.
As to the moving of the plates and one plate diving under another plate, in subduction zones effect's would only appear in subduction zones.
And 'fossil' subduction zones.
Or am I missing something there?
Likely. The thickest crust is either on the overiding edge of a convergent boundary (Chile-Peru), or in very old continental crust that has cooled to greater depths, like southern Africa.
By the way 4.3 miles is not all that terribly deep. Before it blew up, the Deepwater Horizon drilled a well to 35k feet in the Gulf of Mexico (in and additional 4k feet of water). Still in sediments ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 491 by ICANT, posted 07-22-2016 12:26 PM ICANT has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 503 of 1163 (787841)
07-22-2016 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 495 by Faith
07-22-2016 1:23 PM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
For every sedimentary deposit that contains terrestrial fossils we have to conjure this supposed environment and then suppose it was eventually all reduced to a flat sedimentary rock.
That would be the ultimate effect of erosion.
But often erosion is not complete and we end up with Shinumo Quartzite islands in the Tapeats sea (that would be a landscape). These islands would be the 'monadnocks' mentioned earlier.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 495 by Faith, posted 07-22-2016 1:23 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 504 of 1163 (787842)
07-22-2016 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 495 by Faith
07-22-2016 1:23 PM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
Well, the implication is that since these landscapes are subaerial, they are subject to erosion.
Fossils are extremely difficult to preserve in that regime. They are constantly moving to the sea or are otherwise destroyed.
And what better way to erode/eradicate fossil and soils, etc.; as well as to level the land, than by the crashing of waves related to a marine transgression?
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 495 by Faith, posted 07-22-2016 1:23 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 509 by Faith, posted 07-23-2016 3:03 AM edge has not replied

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


Message 505 of 1163 (787849)
07-22-2016 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 495 by Faith
07-22-2016 1:23 PM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
That isn't my argument at the moment, although it represents my viewpoint, yes. But at the moment I'm focused on the strata of the Geo Column each as forming the surface of the earth in its own time period, and since their fossil contents are supposed to have lived in that time period on the very site where they are buried, a whole landscape, or ecology perhaps, is supposed to have existed on that spot and yet all that actually exists on that spot is the sedimentary layer itself. You have to imagine there having been a landscape there originally in which the fossil creatures lived, but that requires imagining a very complex scenario in which such a landscape ends up as a sedimentary rock, EVERY landscape of EVERY time period ends up as a sedimentary rock. This isn't particularly a problem for marine creatures since their habitat is in the water and doesn't form a landscape on the surface, but when we get to the terrestrial creatures their supposed environment becomes something more akin to the surface of the earth we are living on. For every sedimentary deposit that contains terrestrial fossils we have to conjure this supposed environment and then suppose it was eventually all reduced to a flat sedimentary rock. The rocks as observed in the strata, where they haven't been tectonically deformed, are pretty flat, often with pretty tight contacts between them, and yet we are to imagine that there was once a whole landscape on their surface somewhat like the landscape on the surface now? And that makes sense to you? That makes sense to Geologists?
Yes, Faith, the idea that "pretty flat" sheets of sediment "with pretty tight contacts between them", end up as "pretty flat" strata of sedimentary rocks "with pretty tight contacts between them" makes perfect sense to us and to geologists.
What we cannot grasp is why you find such a thing bizarre and outr.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 495 by Faith, posted 07-22-2016 1:23 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 506 of 1163 (787850)
07-22-2016 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 495 by Faith
07-22-2016 1:23 PM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
I have NO idea what a "fossil landscape" could possibly be but this scenario seems reasonable to you? Era after era landscapes form and get buried by sediments? Which harden into rock with flat surfaces on top of which eventually another landscape forms and gets buried and so on and so forth? This IS what Geology seems to be saying, which is such a monumental absurdity it is extremely hard to account for how you all fail to see it.
No. Era after era, sediments are deposited in depositional environments. At any given point the sedimentary layer on top is the landscape. The sediments lower down eventually lithify. As long as this process keeps going, anything which once was the landscape of a depositional environment will one day be rock.
Where is the absurdity?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 495 by Faith, posted 07-22-2016 1:23 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 507 by edge, posted 07-22-2016 5:28 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 507 of 1163 (787851)
07-22-2016 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 506 by Dr Adequate
07-22-2016 5:02 PM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
No. Era after era, sediments are deposited in depositional environments. At any given point the sedimentary layer on top is the landscape. The sediments lower down eventually lithify. As long as this process keeps going, anything which once was the landscape of a depositional environment will one day be rock.
Where is the absurdity?
I think what Faith is not getting is that as water rises across the landscape, that landscape is eroded and washed clean by wave action. In this way the landscape can be smoothed and cleared of such things as soil and fossils, etc. She is not taking into account all of the geological processes in going from marine to terrestrial and back again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 506 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2016 5:02 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 508 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2016 5:57 PM edge has not replied

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


Message 508 of 1163 (787854)
07-22-2016 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 507 by edge
07-22-2016 5:28 PM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
Well I was talking about terrestrial deposition without unconformities. Let's start with the easy stuff. (OK, it's all childishly easy, but apparently not if you're Faith.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 507 by edge, posted 07-22-2016 5:28 PM edge has not replied

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


Message 509 of 1163 (787884)
07-23-2016 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 504 by edge
07-22-2016 2:49 PM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
I'm posting this just to point out that I've been quoted saying something I didn't say. I tracked it back and can't find where it originated. What I think happened is that quotes got put around your own statement by mistake:
Well, the implication is that since these landscapes are subaerial, they are subject to erosion.
I couldn't have said this because at the time I didn't get what erosion you were talking about. It's not a big deal, it's just that I didn't happen to say it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 504 by edge, posted 07-22-2016 2:49 PM edge has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 510 of 1163 (787898)
07-23-2016 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 496 by ICANT
07-22-2016 1:31 PM


Re: So, oh well, we're still off topic.
ICANT writes:
... I believe the early earth grew by accretion of materials supplied by asteroids, such as the one that produced the crater in the Gulf of Mexico.
The earth grows a very small amount because of the occasional asteroid and much more frequent meteorites. It also shrinks from various causes. I don't know if there is a net growth or a net shrinkage but in either case the amount is very small and can not account for the vast majority of the earth's mass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 496 by ICANT, posted 07-22-2016 1:31 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 511 by NosyNed, posted 07-23-2016 9:30 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024