|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Fossil Sorting in the Great Flood Part 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
This is a continuation of topic:
Fossil sorting for simple The geology of the Earth shows ordering of types of rock and the fossils contained within them. Most or all of the geologic column is attributed to the Noarchic flood my young-earth creationists. The question is just how did the observed order come about in this flood. In answering it seems necessary for an individual to describe what the nature of the flood was since there is some variation within the YEC camp on that. Once that has been done then the way in which this flood produced the order needs to be described.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Arkathon said in:
Message 307 NosyNed writes: It is that you have to explain all the layers for the whole globe. Arkathon writes: See what I mean? Let me summarize: So far we have a large number of big things happening for a year. Somehow the fossil order came from this. What I still don't think I've seen is a clear statment of how these events produced the order. So far I have only two hints: 1) It was just luck.2) God did it. Since the first one is statistically highly improbable I assume that the second is Arkathons explanation. Is that correct?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
A specific question may get a specific answer. We've already raised probably scores of different possibilities, it is too general. Now take a certain thing, say Mt Rundle, and then we can look at the fossils there, and likely possibles causes of formation, etc. Then I can say something like there are crinoids and braciopods galore in the nearby formations, fragments of things like sea lilies, & starfish once mud, hardened with lime, and perhaps in an area of the world that was upheaved with continental sliding, choc full of water deposited sedimentary rock, and ancient sea rippled rock, fish, etc.
What exactly is the big concern here? Is it simply that fossils thought older in evo fantasy land are underneath ones though younger?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: No fantasy about it. It's a FACT that the fossil record matches evolutionary predictions. Within evolution, it is predicted that you will not find a bunny rabbit and a dinosaur in the same layer of sediment. You will only find grass pollen at or above the first layer that has grass. What we want to know is if the order of the fossils is not a result of evolution, then how did they get ordered. As Mark24 showed in the previous thread, the chances of the fossils falling into that order by a mechanism other than evolution is statistically improbable (to put it mildly). And again, at this point this has nothing to do with radiometrically dating rocks. We are only considering the relative ages of the fossils (younger on top, older on bottom (quit laughing)). If God put the fossils in that order through some sort of miracle, why did he make the fossil record support evolution? And next, you must also explain why we can predict DNA similarities between living species based on what we see in the fossil record. So we have three independent variables (the order, changes in morphology, DNA) that all support evolution occuring in the fossil record. So far, all you have given in support of a global flood is a lot of unevidence ad hoc explanations. Perhaps you could actually show some numbers or data that show how a flood is the only possible explanation for the fossil record.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Now take a certain thing, say Mt Rundle, and then we can look at the fossils there, and likely possibles causes of formation, etc. And take El Capitan, the tallest mountain here in Texas, too. How did 1600 vertical feet of reef, with many of its fossils in growth positions, get there in a year, or in 10,000 years? And why are none of the species of critters that left their skeletons in that reef still alive today?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:The point of the sentence you quoted was that the evo fantasy sees creatures evolving rather than being created, not in the order they were deposited, by the way. As far as the designed theory matching the fossil record fairly well, it is no surprise. By the way is this "fact" of the matching absolute? In other words, tere are no exceptions? And then, if an exception were found, the whole thing would burst as false? quote:So then we should surmise what from this what? Could the grass that existed before the pollen you speak of been reproduced some other way? quote:I mentioned I think Rundle formation. Does this count? I proposed it was not evolution that did it. What specifics are we talking about? Sounds kinda like "come on, explain all fossil order in the world right now, no miracles please" quote:Sometimes younger on top, sometimes older on top, you should say. quote:So now God should have been careful in creation, and the flood not to let anything look like some God supplanting deception theory imagined, that men would swallow near the end of their history. I think the better advice is not to believe the lies, even though some truth is mixed in, to make it believable! I mean, that's a little like saying, if God didn't want me punching my neighbor, why did He give me fists? quote:Well, seems to me if the critters in the rock were alive around flood time, they wouldn't be all that dissimilar? The perplexing may come if you assign millions of years in age to them, and then wonder why there are similarities? quote:That's like saying maybe a palestinian could show some reason why the land is not just for the jews, or some catholic to show a protestant why he should convert. For the believers in evolution, you can't show them another way, because they prefer to believe in their own religion. Why try? All I can hope for, is some one just was taught that stuff, and might start to wonder if he or she was deceived. For the dyed in the wool, you have chosen your way, and I'll look forward greatly to meeting you personally if I can in the battle of Armageddon!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
"reef" "growth positions" could this be subject to interpretation? Critters no longer here? So what? Is that supposed to be uncommon? 1600 feet? a drop in the bucket!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Is it simply that fossils thought older in evo fantasy land are underneath ones though younger? Well, maybe we should check on this. Do you think that fossils in rocks under other rocks are older than any in the upper rocks as long as the whole assembly isn't disturbed? Or do you not think so? Your Mt Rundle example. Just why did you pick that? You suggest that there was some upheaval. Ok. How is it that this upheaval and all the millions of others left the pattern that we see? I gave two different possibilities that I've attempted to glean from your posts. Are either of them what you are suggesting? If you refuse to answer the questions I will be forced to presume that you can't. You suggest "scores" of different possibilities. I don't see anything but upheaval droping things in the right order by chance. There are different things causing the upheaval but it still comes down to throwing marbles in the air and haveing them land in just the right pattern. One more time: Is that what you are suggesting?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
"reef" "growth positions" could this be subject to interpretation? And you have another study of this with a different, defensible interpretation? When you do you may offer "could be" until then you have nothing. 1600 feet is of the remains of living things. Are you now suggesting that they were all alive at the same time? Or within a 1,000 years or so?
Critters no longer here. So what? This is one of the details in the patterns you have to explain. The deeper the more different from todays life forms. But I don't think we will get to the details since you can't even begin to explain the big picture.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
[qqs]By the way is this "fact" of the matching absolute? In other words, tere are no exceptions? And then, if an exception were found, the whole thing would burst as false?
[/qs]
Once the order of layers has been determined while making sure not to confuse places where they layers have been torn up and turned over (and, while not a geologist, it seems to me to be pretty obvious when that has happened) then no there aren't exception. And you know there aren't since you haven't been able to get any help with this problem from the creationist sites. They don't answer this question.
Could the grass that existed before the pollen you speak of been reproduced some other way?
So you agree that the "grass" (all sorts of different plants) existed before pollen producing more modern grass? (note just to avoid it again, I'm not saying how much before just before).
Sometimes younger on top, sometimes older on top, you should say.
Only when the layers have obviously been disturbed dramatically. When layers are clearly not disturbed the order is preserved. So it appears that we do have a more fundamental thing to discuss than fossil order. You don't even accept the order of the rock layers???
For the believers in evolution, you can't show them another way, because they prefer to believe in their own religion. Why try? LOL, so you aren't going to try after all? Why didn't you just say so in the first place. Line up on the left where all the others have gone after having a go at this and then giving up as you seem to be doing now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:It may depend on the deposit, and the area. The big picture. 'appear disturbed' we might say in many cases. "older" meaning what? Drowned first? Depends, get more specific. quote:How is it that they didn't? Seems like billions of crushed, and broken and fragmented former sea creatures (not to mention dead) comprising a large formation fits ok with a catyclysm? How is it that the burgess shale sits high up on a mountain? Under it could there be fossils evolution presumes younger? Yes I've heard the convoluted, mind bending mental gymnastics explanation attempts by geologists about it. You might as well say granny bacteria backpacked it all up there. Chance? For someone who seems to suggest life evolved by random happenstance, you would do well to avoid the concept of chance. The numbers are just too utterly ridiculous to really consider it!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: In the oldest layers we see unicellular life. As we go up in the column we see more and more complex life. We never see a mammal before the earliest reptile. We never see a reptile before the earliest fish. This is what evolution proposes, and it is supported by the fossil record. What we want from you is the mechanism, the "how" so to speak, that caused the fossils to be ordered in a way that supports evolution other than slow deposition over billions of years. You have yet to show us the evidence that would lead us to a different conclusion than billions of years and evolution.
quote: If grass was always around it should be in the same layers as dinosaurs. Why isn't it? If it was a habitat thing or hydraulic sorting, then the pollen (which is separate from the plant) and the grass should be in different layers, but they are not. What mechanism, other than evolution and millions of years, can cause this sort of ordering?
quote: If you feel this supports your position, then give us some details and we can talk about it.
quote: Just like anything in life, there are exceptions. There are places where the layers are inverted. However, the inversion can be detected by methods other than just unconformity to accepted sedimentation layering. However, this is rare, and like I mentioned, detectable. Irishrockhound is a user here who has gone into detail before on how this is detected, I could look up the info if you like. My degree is in zoology, so geology is somewhat of a weakness.
quote: The Catholic Church made the same mistake with the fight between heliocentrism and geocentrism. Hopefully you can learn from their folly. The evidence for evolution is so overwhelmingly abundant as to make God look like a trickster, a diety who wants to make us tell lies. If God is omniscient, then he KNEW that evolution would be thought up, and so you are saying he constructed geology and biology to mimic the theories in a way that left us no option but to accept them. Not the kind of God I want to put my faith in.
quote: The above was in response to my point that DNA similarity predictions in living species can be predicted by the fossil record. This happens to be very true. Before the discovery of DNA, fossils were organized into trees reflecting their theoretical evolution through time. After the discover of DNA, the heretible material that drives evolution, these trees could finally be put to the test. That is, the construction of these trees was done independently of the DNA analysis. Using the fossil record, they calculated the span of time since two living species shared a common ancestor. The longer the span of time, the fewer similarities should be present since mutations will accumulate in separate populations/species. This is exactly what they found. An example of how the evolutionary interpretation of the data works and a "common designer, common design" theory fails is in looking at convergent evolution. The tasmanian wolf was a predator in Tasmania that resembled the N. American wolf to a high degree. If you think that a common creator makes more sense, then you should hypothesize that the NA wolf and the tas wolf will be genetically similar. However, through the fossil record, we know that the lineage leading up to the tasmanian wolf was far removed from the lineage that led to the NA wolf. Therefore, evolutionary theory predicts that there should not be a high degree of similarity. Guess what we find? Humans and NA wolves have about the same DNA similarity as the tasmanian wolves and NA wolves have in the cytb gene. Again, these are predictions born out of the fossil record that should have no binding on how they got sorted, other than evolution and millions of years.
quote: Absolutely false. Evolutionary theory is supported by data, not selective editing or a religious belief. Are you then admitting that there is no evidence for a global flood other than your personal beliefs? Are you admitting that evolutionary theory is actually the best explanation given the data we have right now? If not, show us the data that can only be explained by a global flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:That leaves a lot of wiggle room. quote:Thanks for telling me what I "know" and what help you think I havn't been able to find. I didn't know that. quote:As almost anyone would have clearly seen, I simply asked a grass question, not made some big evolutionary ageement in principle! Try just answering the question. quote:I said older ones are sometimes on top. They are. If you mean an evolutionary old age version of worldwide rock layers, involving great time -what do you think? quote:What do you think I've been doing, chopping liver?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: You've been very vague, and continue to be. We understand that you may not have the background information that some of us do. Perhaps we could all hold off and you could present your information about the Rundle Formation that you spoke of earlier. We prefer that you make the argument in your own words, but feel free to link to information where needed. If there is one thing that we really dislike is the use of bare links as support for an argument. This is a debate board, not an internet search engine. Edited to add: I am not accusing you of using bare links, just giving you some advice on how we do things around here. Hope to here from you soon. This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 06-25-2004 06:11 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024