Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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:   Fossil Sorting in the Great Flood Part 2
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 387 of 411 (134741)
08-17-2004 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 386 by MarkAustin
08-17-2004 6:21 AM


Re: Drift rates
Many of your line of questions has been brought up and dealt with before.
It is creationists belief that almost all geologic layers were laid down at once. We don't accept the separation that is now made in geology and so the premise behind yours points negates its strength.
To you British folk a little behind North America on the great debate creationists today are making the strong point that what one sees in the field is where it is for exactlly the reason it is. IT was place there by events all at once.Indeed the old idea introduced by a British dude in geology that the present is the evidence of the past , I forgot his name,called uniformatism is falling to pieces by the accepted ideas of plate teutonics, glacial action, and the new meltwater outbursts sweeping geology today.
I would also add that Darwin's biological idea was based on the premise of a uniformatarian geology idea. Here comes the crash.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by MarkAustin, posted 08-17-2004 6:21 AM MarkAustin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by Loudmouth, posted 08-17-2004 4:58 PM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 389 by MarkAustin, posted 08-17-2004 5:17 PM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 390 by mark24, posted 08-17-2004 8:55 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 395 by Bill Birkeland, posted 08-26-2004 11:06 AM Robert Byers has replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 388 of 411 (134746)
08-17-2004 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 387 by Robert Byers
08-17-2004 4:43 PM


Re: Drift rates
quote:
It is creationists belief that almost all geologic layers were laid down at once.
It is a belief supported by blind faith and by ignoring falsifying evidence.
quote:
We don't accept the separation that is now made in geology and so the premise behind yours points negates its strength.
You don't accept current geology because it runs counter to your pre-conceived religious dogma. However, you have yet to show how it is wrong. It is like a small child claiming the world is flat while ignoring all of the evidence falsifying his position. Creationists can't counter the arguments that current geology makes, so what do they do? They ignore them.
quote:
Indeed the old idea introduced by a British dude in geology that the present is the evidence of the past , I forgot his name,called uniformatism is falling to pieces by the accepted ideas of plate teutonics, glacial action, and the new meltwater outbursts sweeping geology today.
At one time, uniformitarianism was a theory that stated everything proceeded at the same RATE as today. That theory was pretty muched dumped long ago. Today, uniformitarianism says that everything in the past occured by the same MECHANISMS. Therefore, the mechanisms of sedimentation we see today are tested for in the past, and more and more they are finding support for the same active mechanism in the past as the mechanisms we observe now. Therefore, the theory of plate tectonics is extrapolated into the past, and it fits the data. Look at my new thread "YEC Challenge: Hawaiian Islands" for a taste of how well uniformitarianism works.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by Robert Byers, posted 08-17-2004 4:43 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 391 by Robert Byers, posted 08-21-2004 2:29 PM Loudmouth has not replied

MarkAustin
Member (Idle past 3815 days)
Posts: 122
From: London., UK
Joined: 05-23-2003


Message 389 of 411 (134750)
08-17-2004 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 387 by Robert Byers
08-17-2004 4:43 PM


Re: Drift rates
quote:
Many of your line of questions has been brought up and dealt with before.
Then do so. So far all I've seen is handwaving and evasion.
quote:
It is creationists belief that almost all geologic layers were laid down at once.
Then, once again:
Why aren't all the fosssils mixed?
Why are they sorted in an evolutionary manner? Please note that this does not make any assumptions about timescales or evolutionary mechanisms.
It is a simple observation. A relative timescale for virtually all, if not all strata observed has been constructed, so we can tell in what order they were laid down regardless of whether this was done in one year of a global flood or over 4.5billion years.
Another simple observation. As we look at ever older strata, we see older organisms fossilised; we see modern species vanishing and precursor species appearing; we see whole orders vanishing.
Loudmouth's chart of the development of the mammalian jaw is a classic example.
quote:
We don't accept the separation that is now made in geology and so the premise behind yours points negates its strength.
What separation?
quote:
To you British folk a little behind North America...
Far ahead rather, I would have said.
quote:
...on the great debate creationists today are making the strong point that what one sees in the field is where it is for exactlly the reason it is.
This is tautological. Unless of course you are falling back on Goddidit.
quote:
IT was place there by events all at once.
And sorted to give the appearance of evolution. You are getting very close to the "God the liar" argument, or to give it it's more technical name the Omphalos argument.
quote:
Indeed the old idea introduced by a British dude in geology that the present is the evidence of the past , I forgot his name,called uniformatism is falling to pieces by the accepted ideas of plate teutonics, glacial action, and the new meltwater outbursts sweeping geology today.
Sir Charles Lyell, who devloped and was instrumental in the general acceptance of the concept of Uniformatism first proposed by James Hutton.
Remember that the theory he was arguing against was that there had been a series of world wide catastrophic events that destroyed all or virtually all life, after which God recreated life multiple times. The battle for a single creation event and the single catastrophic flood of Noah had been abandoned by then.
As with anyy such debate he over-egged the pudding, and there is a much greater acceptance of essentially local catastrophic events, but Catastrophism is dead in modern geology.
quote:
I would also add that Darwin's biological idea was based on the premise of a uniformatarian geology idea. Here comes the crash.
Only in the sense that his theory removed the last need for catastophic clearance by providing a mechanism for gradual change in life forms, and in that Lyell's uniformatism in geolgy gave Darwin the idea for uniformatism in the development of life.
He too, again, over-egged the pudding in stressing gradualism in Natural Selection. In some writings he accepts pauses and spurts in the rate of evolution, but, again, was arguing against saltation - the sudden emergance of wholly new species.

For Whigs admit no force but argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by Robert Byers, posted 08-17-2004 4:43 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by Robert Byers, posted 08-21-2004 2:46 PM MarkAustin has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 390 of 411 (134800)
08-17-2004 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 387 by Robert Byers
08-17-2004 4:43 PM


Re: Drift rates
Robert,
Paragraphs are our friend.
Mark
This message has been edited by mark24, 08-17-2004 07:55 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by Robert Byers, posted 08-17-2004 4:43 PM Robert Byers has not replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 391 of 411 (135951)
08-21-2004 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 388 by Loudmouth
08-17-2004 4:58 PM


Re: Drift rates
Yes dumped is the word. And like so much in these subjects it was dumped easily for it was never a scientific theory. It was a historical theory and was not testable. Accordingly new historical theories , under pressure of new evidence (not scientific evidence however to distinguish),took thier place. This is an excellent example of what we talk about on the forumns.
I haven't been reading your Hawaii thing because I thought it was too technical for me and the my thing. I just noticed however you put out it to YEC's so I will soon read it.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by Loudmouth, posted 08-17-2004 4:58 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 393 by AdminNosy, posted 08-21-2004 2:52 PM Robert Byers has not replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 392 of 411 (135953)
08-21-2004 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 389 by MarkAustin
08-17-2004 5:17 PM


Re: Drift rates
Why are the fossils not mixed you asked. Dealt with this before and happy too again for you however.
The fossils that are interpretated as to be sorted are just communities frozen in place. creationists see the fossilization event itself as a great pressure event that was extensive and so would freeze in place creatures and also even thier communities. we don't see the choas of a flood as being the norm but the pressure created.
The interpretation of older strata having older fossils is explained as follows. The "older" rock is just rock that was impacted by the events differently because of its original location. The kinds of fossils found were just the kind in the area. They aren't more primitive just suibale to thier area that perhaps was more impoverished.
The separation I referred too was what you call "layers".
Catastropism is rejected today you say!?
This is not so. In fact it is taking over. For example in Canada the old idea of the land having been shaped by slow glacial action is being replaced, though not conquored yet, by the land having been shaped by sudden meltwater outburst so great as to defy imagination. (Post flood event by the way)
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by MarkAustin, posted 08-17-2004 5:17 PM MarkAustin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 394 by MarkAustin, posted 08-25-2004 11:22 AM Robert Byers has replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 393 of 411 (135954)
08-21-2004 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 391 by Robert Byers
08-21-2004 2:29 PM


Topic
It was a historical theory and was not testable.
That is the topic of another thread. In that thread:
Applying Science to Past Events
you make a number of similar assertions, ignore almost all that is posted in response and then still bring it up here.
You may continue the discussions in the other thread you may not continue it here. I might get a reputation as a hanging judge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 391 by Robert Byers, posted 08-21-2004 2:29 PM Robert Byers has not replied

MarkAustin
Member (Idle past 3815 days)
Posts: 122
From: London., UK
Joined: 05-23-2003


Message 394 of 411 (136762)
08-25-2004 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 392 by Robert Byers
08-21-2004 2:46 PM


Re: Drift rates
quote:
Why are the fossils not mixed you asked. Dealt with this before and happy too again for you however.
The fossils that are interpretated as to be sorted are just communities frozen in place. creationists see the fossilization event itself as a great pressure event that was extensive and so would freeze in place creatures and also even thier communities. we don't see the choas of a flood as being the norm but the pressure created.
The interpretation of older strata having older fossils is explained as follows. The "older" rock is just rock that was impacted by the events differently because of its original location. The kinds of fossils found were just the kind in the area. They aren't more primitive just suibale to thier area that perhaps was more impoverished.
The separation I referred too was what you call "layers".
You still haven't answered my question. Regardless of how long it took to lay down the strata layers, it is relatively easy to work out the order in which they were laid down - in other words a relative timescale: this does not in any way depend upon whether it was done in one flood year or 4.5billion years of geologic time.
Once this relative order is established, why is it that the fossils found within the layers are sorted: for the same environments we see different but related species, we see sequences of evolution e.g. the development of the jaw in the proto-mammals: all neatly sorted by the relative order.
Easily explicable from an evolutionary point of view. Over to you.
quote:
Catastropism is rejected today you say!?
This is not so. In fact it is taking over. For example in Canada the old idea of the land having been shaped by slow glacial action is being replaced, though not conquored yet, by the land having been shaped by sudden meltwater outburst so great as to defy imagination. (Post flood event by the way)
Apart from the last sentence, in which you assume your conclusion, do you not see how damaging to your case these axample of local catastrophes are.
We can see the results of the collapse of ice dams at the end of the ice age, the results of tidal waves caused by geological events: all clearly defined local events.
But of a global, all-encompassing, world covering flood, not a trace.

For Whigs admit no force but argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by Robert Byers, posted 08-21-2004 2:46 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 398 by Robert Byers, posted 08-27-2004 2:50 PM MarkAustin has not replied

Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2532 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 395 of 411 (137004)
08-26-2004 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 387 by Robert Byers
08-17-2004 4:43 PM


Re: Drift rates
Robert Byerwrote:
"I would also add that Darwin's biological idea was based on the
premise of a uniformatarian geology idea. Here comes the crash"
This isn't true. In fact, Drawin theory of evolution contradicts two of Lyell's original principles of uniformitarianism, 1. uniformity of state and, in case of mass extinctions, 2. uniformity of rate. In fact, Darwin publically disagreed with the way Lyell originally formulated uniformitarian. How can Darwin's theory of evolution be based upon uniformintarianism when, if true, would refute it as originally defined by Lyell?
Yours,
Bill Birkeland

This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by Robert Byers, posted 08-17-2004 4:43 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 396 by Robert Byers, posted 08-27-2004 2:29 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 396 of 411 (137404)
08-27-2004 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 395 by Bill Birkeland
08-26-2004 11:06 AM


Re: Drift rates
With respect. THIS is just not so. Darwins insisted and said in his book clearly that that the ideas of geology were the great premise behind his ideas of change over time. The fossil sequence was based on a geology sequence. And so as I said the great idea of biological change is conditional on geological change and without it finished. A odd point.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 395 by Bill Birkeland, posted 08-26-2004 11:06 AM Bill Birkeland has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 397 by Loudmouth, posted 08-27-2004 2:35 PM Robert Byers has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 397 of 411 (137407)
08-27-2004 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 396 by Robert Byers
08-27-2004 2:29 PM


Re: Drift rates
quote:
And so as I said the great idea of biological change is conditional on geological change and without it finished.
The theory is that the fossils in a layer of sediment are representative of the species alive at the time the sediment was created. How that sediment, either through uniform or non-uniform rates, does not contradict this fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by Robert Byers, posted 08-27-2004 2:29 PM Robert Byers has not replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 398 of 411 (137411)
08-27-2004 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 394 by MarkAustin
08-25-2004 11:22 AM


Re: Drift rates
OK I understand what your saying. Simple answer. The different layers have different kinds for the very reason that they are different.
A different layers means a different sediment flow/pressure. This would be, usually, because of the lay of the land. and so the different land with a different flow frooze the different communities.
Perhaps off thread but ice dam collapse has been a gain for geology creationism. Most of us see these damsw as post flood event. They have overturned previous ideas that such things had not happened and also they have taught how water greatly affects the lands also not before understood. They are overthrowing everything in some sections of geology as we speak and of which we applaud.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by MarkAustin, posted 08-25-2004 11:22 AM MarkAustin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 399 by Loudmouth, posted 08-27-2004 4:44 PM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 401 by Mike_King, posted 08-28-2004 5:39 PM Robert Byers has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 399 of 411 (137441)
08-27-2004 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 398 by Robert Byers
08-27-2004 2:50 PM


Re: Drift rates
quote:
OK I understand what your saying. Simple answer. The different layers have different kinds for the very reason that they are different.
A different layers means a different sediment flow/pressure. This would be, usually, because of the lay of the land. and so the different land with a different flow frooze the different communities.
Could you please show us the evidence that led you to this conclusion. Could you please show us examples of geologic strata and fossil sorting occuring by the mechanisms that you propose.
quote:
Perhaps off thread but ice dam collapse has been a gain for geology creationism. Most of us see these damsw as post flood event. They have overturned previous ideas that such things had not happened and also they have taught how water greatly affects the lands also not before understood.
Ice dams have shown that violent floods result in a large sedimentary layer without sorting. This is a great problem for creationists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by Robert Byers, posted 08-27-2004 2:50 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 400 by Robert Byers, posted 08-28-2004 4:40 PM Loudmouth has replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 400 of 411 (137668)
08-28-2004 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 399 by Loudmouth
08-27-2004 4:44 PM


Re: Drift rates
Why evidence? You asked how something could be and I answered?
You guys are the ones who claim to be the only authority on these matters. RATHER
You show the evidence that led you to your conclusions. You just relate data and insist on one interpretation. We,like Sherlocke Holmes,say aha there is another interpretation. But regardless you don't show evidence only data/interpretation. (Imean not just you personally but the fields we talk about)
I don't follow why ice dams are a problem for us. I'm sure it's the best news yet in geology. I think however we're off thread. Good new topic.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 399 by Loudmouth, posted 08-27-2004 4:44 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 402 by edge, posted 08-28-2004 10:14 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 403 by Loudmouth, posted 08-30-2004 12:57 PM Robert Byers has replied

Mike_King
Inactive Member


Message 401 of 411 (137704)
08-28-2004 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 398 by Robert Byers
08-27-2004 2:50 PM


Re: Drift rates
quote:
Perhaps off thread but ice dam collapse has been a gain for geology creationism. Most of us see these damsw as post flood event. They have overturned previous ideas that such things had not happened and also they have taught how water greatly affects the lands also not before understood. They are overthrowing everything in some sections of geology as we speak and of which we applaud.
Rob
Off topic, do you have any internet links to this claim?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by Robert Byers, posted 08-27-2004 2:50 PM Robert Byers has 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