Fossil Sorting in the Great Flood Part 2

This is a continuation of topic:
Fossil sorting for simpleThe 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.

Arkathon said in:
Message 307Let 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?

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?

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? 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.

[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. 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). 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??? 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.

Older meaning (in the flood picture you want to support) settled out first. Drowned first? That can't be if the flood formed the deposits now can it? Maybe you now need to specify which layers are flood and which ones are not.If there are layers of sediment or volcanic flow that are horizontal or tipped uniformly together. If they are approximately planar (and not twisted and broken) the conclusion is that older ones are under younger ones (or that ones that settled first are under ones that settled later).Are we on the same page now? Please confirm?It would appear that you are arguing against geology without knowing jack squat about it? That couldn't be could it? Again, you seem to have a focus problem. We are not talking about the origin of life or, for the moment it's evolution. We are talking about the overall geology of Earth, the nature of the rocks and the fossils in them. Let's stick to that shall we? We'll all have fun with other things later. You're not making much progress on this one so far. Just as you say, the odds of the various layers and their fossils settling out of the upheaval of the flood in just this way are too unlikely. This degree of sorting needs a mechanism and you don't have one or haven't elucidated one as yet.

This has been responded to already so I won't go into it directly. However, what it raises to me is the astonishing possibility that you don't actualy don't grasp the issue at hand yet!!!I think maybe you should attempt to restate, in your own words, what the issue of this thread is. It appears that you haven't even begun to understand what it is that you are supposed to be explaining. That would, at least, help us understand why you are going off in all directionds and bringing up irrelevant things every few posts.

Well, of course, if new data comes in things will have to be reconsidered.You're right of course, that we only have a very small sample of all living things that have ever been. Even your little percentage there may be an overstatement.However, what we do have is millions of samples that have been found. And they say the same thing. There is a consistent pattern in the fossil record. You have yet to begin to explain it.You're comments about dino bellies are just stupid. You're not making any progress so far. Now you're saying that new data will support you. We work with the data at hand while finding more. I presume than you would want church money to go to vastly increasing the amount spent on paleontological digs. That will hurry up the findings that will support your view.In the meantime data that hasn't been found yet is not support for any position. It is useless to discuss it.What question hasn't been answered?All the tectonics discussions can be taken to a thread for that. The details of that don't belong here, unless you have something that is directly to do with the fossil ordering.

Please list the exceptions. Show that they are a significant deviation from the pattern. Calculate the percentage of the whole that are a problem.You know, it doesn't matter what you have heard. You know more or less nothing about geology.There are no unexplained, out of place fossils that I am aware of. Therefore, for the time being, there are none. No, you misunderstand again. We have a very small percentage of all possible living things available for study. We do however have a HUGE number of samples available. They overwhelmingly describe a very specifically ordered arrangement. This arrangement is still unexplained by you. You have yet to explain why these are in any way contrary to the point we are making about the ordering of fossils. I agree there are large beds of fossil fragments. These may well have been fragmented due to water action. What you can't explain is why they are restricted to specific parts of the layers and why they are ordered the way they are. These fossil fragments of yours are just one of the many different layers that exist. They are not uniformly spread, why is that?

You can't answer a single question can you? You evade and pretend to be funny. You miss out the main points raised and answer only part of posts. You supply no evidence or back up for you assertions. There are no exceptions that present any problem for the overall conclusion. You aren't aware of any exceptions at all. It is very clear that some creation believers are daft. Perhaps even a large fraction of them.You were asked to restate the issue in your own words. Just one of the many things you have avoided doing. Many of your posts add to the conclusion that you don't even understand the problem. Let's see if we can clear that up. You left out the rest of the paragraph you are responding to here. Why is that? The rest of it was the main point. We, with a HUGE number of samples draw well supported logical conclusions about the nature of the geology of Earth. You, with a nearly non-exisitant knowledge of the geology of the Earth and with very poor theology decide that the truth about the Earth is "anti-Christ". You must back up your statments. You must show evidence and logic if you wish to be taken seriously at all. You have nothing so far.Take your look at the "proclamation" and scrutinize it. Show where it is wrong. Days have passed, you're produced nothing.Interesting isn't it? There are organizations like AIG and ICR dedicated to issues in this debate. They would, presummably spent considerable effort on these kinds of problems. But they don't have an answer for this. Why is that?

The facts have all ready been referenced by others who are more expert than I. I suggest that you have a look at Bill's contribution. Message 258You have managed to read that very wrongly haven't you? The 99% of the evidence isn't omitted. It isn't evidence yet because it hasn't been found. What you are trying so hard to ignore is the huge amount of evidence that is there. (pointed out again above).Once again, you have brought up things which no one else has done yet. The granny bacteria are not part of this discussion. We are simply asking you to show how the flood produced the order we find. We are not saying anything (yet) about evolution.

Well, as they say, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". You're attempt at humour, because you don't know enough about the subject at hand only makes you look foolish. However, we aren't talking about the dating yet are we? So why don't you calm down and try to learn a bit before making very silly statments. A "tiny fraction" you keep repeating. However, you don't seem to grasp the totally huge amount of data this is. Just because the total number of all living things that have every lived is a truly astronomical number we will always only have a very small percentage of that number to study. However, that still gives us a very, very large number of individual pieces of evidence. That is what the current understanding is based on.What evidence do you have? Nothing that you've produced so far. Nothing at all. If you found 1,000 items that appeared "out of place" you'd still only have a tiny, tiny fraction of all the available evidence on your side. My goodness you have a very short memory don't you. We haven't talked about absolute age yet have we? What we are talking about is relative order of the laying down of the layers and the fossils in them.We'll get to age another time. You've not been able to handle what we've been talking about already. You'll have a heck of a time with the absolute age measurements when we get to that. If we ever do. You don't seem to be making any progress at all.You have yet to word the issue in your own words so that we can see if you understand what it is you are supposed to explain if you really want to support the idea that a flood did it. So far all indications are that you don't have a clue.Where exactly are the statments of faith? If you're going to make assertions like that you will have to produce them.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-27-2004 12:24 AMThis message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-27-2004 12:26 AM

An urge to be together? Together with what? The same species as themselves? You have this "funny little thought" that has no evidence and isn't explained in any detail.Could you supply some more detail on what this fantasy is about and how it answers the fossil sorting question? There isn't a clue that it does so far.Plants have an instinct to be together???

Thanks, that's all I need. I only want to defang the creation "scientists". Once your only explanation if "god did it" you are out of the classroom. You may retire to your church and leave education alone.Now, for fun let's give you you "god did it" with miracles. I'd like a bit more detail on:
1) How. Exactly what did God do? He took and sorted the various living things right? He sorted them so that those buried lower have specific characteristics, right? And he sorted them so that the nature of the living things buried at a sequence of depths changes in a very specific way, right?
You explanation that it was a miracle isn't good science but that's not the worst of your problems.2) The really big question is: WHY? Why did God create this specific order? This whole area is very off topic so I will start a thread for you to explain it in.

oops duplicatedThis message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-28-2004 01:33 AM