Fossil Sorting in the Great Flood Part 2

quote:

---

Is it simply that fossils thought older in evo fantasy land are underneath ones though younger?

---

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.

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.

---

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:

---

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?

---

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:

---

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"

---

If you feel this supports your position, then give us some details and we can talk about it.

quote:

---

Sometimes younger on top, sometimes older on top, you should say.

---

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:

---

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?

---

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:

---

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?

---

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:

---

quote: Loudmouth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps you could actually show some numbers or data that show how a flood is the only possible explanation for the fossil record.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Arkathon:

​

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!

---

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.

quote:

---

AdminAsgara has treated Kendm with more consideration and patience than his behaviour has deserved.

---

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

quote:

---

this post seems to be a reply to one of mine. It quotes something I never heard of, and talks about links which I don't think I've used in a coon's age. Must be some mistake.

---

In message 7 of this thread you mentioned Rundle formation. I am not sure what that is in regards to, but it is the only piece of evidence that you have even hinted at that would support your position. I was hoping you could expand on this so that this doesn't turn into an "Am no, Am too" sort of debate.

quote:

---

Selective data with absolutely false assumptions.

---

Could you be specific about the data that is being ignored and the assumptions that have been shown to be false? Empty assertions are hard to argue against.

quote:

---

Are you admitting evolution is supported only by your personal beliefs?

---

Nope, evolution is supported by the data, not my personal beliefs. My only personal belief is that the scientists have been honest in how they ran their experiments and how they collected the data. However, given that science is based on objective observations, at any time the experiments or observations of any scientist can be checked for repeatability.

quote:

---

Fossil record and lineage don't neccasarily jive, I don't think

---

They do. I even gave you an example. Do you want more examples, or are you going to handwave those away as well?

quote:

---

Besides is it impossible that God made several similar creatures that ended up on different continents after the flood? After all many feel the continents were together at one time.

---

There was a supercontinent that included most of the land mass we see today. The Australia complex broke away first, and so we would expect the most DNA dissimilarity between australian species and the rest of the species across the globe regardless of morphology. This is exactly what we see. Or are you just saying that it happened by chance?

quote:

---

Yes, there are. And it can be considered also that their arrangement of the evidence and facts are in error, and that there are less subtle reasons-like maybe it isn't really older!

---

But we can tell if there has been an inversion separate from the fact that the layers display non-conformity with other geologic columns. It is no different than detecting evidence tampering at a crime scene. If one crime scene is tampered with, do we have to let all of the criminals go?Added in edit:

quote:

---

What if grass never used to be reproduced by pollen? Is this a possibility?

---

What if grass used to walk around and have sex like humans? What if the stork was resposible for each new seedling? Every single angiosperm uses pollen, why should grass be any different, either now or in the past? And while your at it, try and explain why the pollen and the grass, which weren't connected at the time, end up in the same layers and nowhere else.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 06-25-2004 06:51 PM

quote:

---

I was looking for a specific area to zoom in on, rather than the worldwide scale all encompassing answers Ned seemed to be crying for.

---

Go into detail. I would love to hear a few arguments that support your position instead criticizing evolution. Even if evolution is shown to be wrong, young earth creationism still has to be supported by the data. Creationism doesn't win by default.

quote:

---

To be honest, I was thinking about the cosmos. Selective data being ignoring the world of evidence and witnesses for supernatural, and spiritual, such as spirits able to go faster than light-and assumptions like nothing can go faster than our light, and it was billions of years in the travelling etc.

---

This would be a better fit for the "Is It Science?" forum. If we both try we can keep on topic. If you start a new thread in another forum on what evidence science should entail I will contribute a few posts.

quote:

---

Well, if many creatures were killed in the flood and fossilized, what would it have to do with their 'lineage'?

---

That is exactly the point. If they were all killed in the flood dinosaurs, bunnies, and grass should all be in the same layer of sediment. Why aren't they? Why, instead, do the fossils and their order in the geologic column reflect evolutionry theories?

quote:

---

Now fit [the supercontinent] within a framework of time only about 6000 years and you get an idea of the type of disaster the flood would have been!

---

People have already done that. The energy released would have been enough to cauterize the earth 2 times over. No life would have survived, including that on the ark. The energy would have been enough to vaporize all of the flood waters. (edited to add: the calculations were in reference to the supercontinent breaking apart to their present positions during the flood and not spread over 6,000 years. But you have to admit that it is peculiar that as soon as man starts to measure the continents they are moving at a snails pace).

quote:

---

So what caused the inversion so that the young rock sits atop older rock? You know you need millions of years to come up with a swallable story for that one!

---

Tectonic movement of plates. The same mechanism causes uplift of mountains and the subduction of land that replenishes the magma deep in the earth. I fully realize that this explanation is insufficient, I will try and get more info for you later (I have to leave real soon). I will try to get back to you on this. Like I said before, my geology background isn't that great but I am pretty sure I can find the info you are looking for.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 06-25-2004 07:22 PM

quote:

---

Now, support the flood by data is the name of the game. First we have to know what the flood was like. Also we need to know what the pre flood world was like. Do you know these things?

---

But no one knows what it is like. All explanations that I have heard have been made up whole cloth. To find out what the supposed flood was like, you have to use evidence from reality, not dreamt up fantasies.

quote:

---

So simple fossils in any one area just represent that area before the flood.

---

So on the bottom layers we should find a mix of angiosperms (flowering plants) and gymnosperms (spore forming plants). However, in every case we only find gymnosperms in the bottom most layers. Why is that? Not only do we only find gymnosperms, but we only find gymnosperm pollen and the total lack of angiosperm pollen. Again, why is that? Can you name one environment today that is solely populated by gymnosperms?

quote:

---

There are no sequences. Just local area fossilization.

---

You might as well claim that there are no fossils. Turning a blind eye will not make the fossil sequence, a fact first discovered by CREATIONISTS in the 1700's no less. If there isn't a sequence, then why don't we find one blade of grass intermixed in the same layers with dinosaurs.

quote:

---

All rocks and fossils were created at once. Not one type of rock at one time with fossils and then another rock with fossils at another time.

---

What evidence led you to this conclusion?

quote:

---

We must all remember that this rock/fossil evidence is just a pile of stuff in a field. And the humans make interpretations.

---

Ahh yess, the famous "just a bunch of bones in mud" argument. Guess what, science happens to think about things in a little more detail than you. The problem is that the order of the fossils in the field negate the theory that they were buried by a violent, turbid flood. There is no way to get around this.

quote:

---

I never said the fossil layers were a miracle. Are you used to bullying people who fall for it, or something?

---

In message 72 of this thread you wrote: If the fossil layering is not a miracle, then how did a flood that created almost all of the sediment, igneous, and metamorphic layers, sort fossils to such a fine degree that evolution is able to predict where fossils will be found.Oh yes, I see, animals huddled together according to kind. Never mind that rabbits all huddled in such a way to be stuck in mud above dinosaurs IN EVERY CASE. That pollen was feeling buddy-buddy and only gathered with its friends the grass blades. Again, a creationists complaining about the fantasies that evolutionists supposedly dream up while spinning tales of his own that explain nothing in an attempt to construct the illusion that creationism is actually supported by evidence.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 06-30-2004 12:29 AM

quote:

---

I am never surprised by the presumptions of evos.

---

Not a presumption, but data, something you lack. We can track fault movements, which are slow. Never has anyone measured plate movements that would even approach what Brown and others have hypothesized. Again, you are trying to hand wave away falsifying evidence by claiming that there is nothing to support it when in fact there is. This tactic is dishonest in the extreme and the only tactic left to young earth creationists. Lying really is their last hope.

quote:

---

Why should they if they are already more or less finished moving much?

---

They have NEVER moved fast, NEVER have they been observed to move that fast, and NEVER has anyone found ANY evidence to show that they have moved that fast in the past. Of course, this is a subject for another thread. I may actually start one on the Hawaiian islands if you think I need to show the evidence for the slow movement of tectonic plates.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Never mind that rabbits all huddled in such a way to be stuck in mud above dinosaurs IN EVERY CASE
  —Loudmouth

---

​

Every case? I never said a thing about every case. I raised one new possibility to potentially add in the mix. Why would bunnies get to higher ground than dinos? Could they hop there quicker? ha.

---

But this is the case EVERY time we find modern, fossilized mammals and dinosaurs. Modern mammals are ALWAYS ABOVE dinosaurs, EVERY TIME. You must explain how a roaring flood, rain falling at feet per hour, continents moving at 35 miles and hour, jets of super heated water spraying into space, and violent waves were able to delicately sort fossils such as dinosaurs, rabbits, grass, grass pollen, and myriad of other organisms into an order that DOES NOT HAVE EXCEPTIONS. It didn't sort a few of the fossils, it sorted every one of them without exception in every place we dig up fossils. The best you can do is claim that rabbits run faster than dinosaurs, ignoring that at least a few dinosaurs could have ran faster, or that grass didn't use pollen but rather some other unknown type of reproduction. Very poor logic if you ask me.

quote:

---

Does this mean that grass pollen and fossilized grass were found together? How much? For example say is it mostly the pollen that is usually found?

---

Not sure on the ratio of grass vs grass pollen found, but I would think that the pollen may be in a position to be fossilized easier. Just as today, you would expect grass pollen to fall into lakes and become part of the bottom sediments. It would seem that pollen would be more likely to fossilize given its numbers (thousands of pollen grains per plant) and its transportability. What you have to explain is why we only find grass pollen in sediments devoid of dinosaurs and filled with organisms that are quite modern in morphology. Either grass came about after the ark, and therefore a product of macroevolution, or grass was around previous to the flood and the flood was able to sort small pollen grains, such as ferns and grass, so well that there are no known expceptions to the sorting. Care to venture how such a devastating, powerful, destructive flood was able to sort miniscule pollen grains without exception?

quote:

---

I actually find both stories to be inspired!

---

And that is where you are wrong. Evolution and current geologic theories are derived from the evidence in the earth while the Noachian flood is only evidenced in the Bible and nowhere in the earth. They are far from being comparable. One is supported by evidence while the other is solely supported by faith.

Thanks Ned. For right now I want arkathon to explain how sorting of miniscule particles such as grass pollen can happen while plates millions of square miles in area are scooting across the earth at 10 mph, possibly underwater, with jets of superheated water shooting into space, rain coming down at feet per hour, etc. I would like to focus on that for now, but if your admin counterpart thinks we are venturing too far into tectonics let us know and we can start up a new sister thread (the one you linked to is perfect, but it is probably too long to start a fresh discussion with a new participant).

Coragyps,This is such a great point that it deserves to be a thread on its own. If corroboration of mythical stories by geologic findings is a way to judge the "Trueness" of a religion, then it would seem that a few creationists would have to start worshiping Pele.