|
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: |
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?
Miracles are very scientific. It's just that our science is still quite backward to grasp how God's science does these things. This whole area is very off topic so I will start a thread for you to explain it in.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
oops duplicated
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-28-2004 01:33 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6053 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
How dare an evolutionist say that! Look who's talking. Didn't Margeret Meade say something like, -"Though I am a confirmed evolutionist, I must admit that there is not one iota of proof"! How dare I? What a ridiculous thing to bring up. What does Margaret Meade's opinion have to do with the science behind evolution? Nothing. If I told you that a Christian leader quoted as saying that Genesis should be taken figuratively somehow effected your argument, you'd call me ridiculous too.
Sorry if you thought I was some creation superman with an agenda, and some conclusive Rockies material prepared. I didn't ask for a "superman agenda", I asked for a single piece of evidence - doesn't seem like so much in forum like this. You've admitted several times now that you had no evidence. I'm not sure why you're getting so confrontational now that I've said it back to you.
I don't really value the parts where they fall into the dull mind numbing usual old age senility of trying to fit everything in the religious evolutionary view. Excuse me if I don't believe you that this comment referred to a "senile" fossil record. If you think that it is interpreted this way by readers, you are wrong. Your "analogy" doesn't make sense given the grammar of the sentence, or in general - I suggest you stop using it, along with "granny bacteria" and "cup o soup" creation - none of them make sense, and their use makes you seem rather ignorant. If you recall, I actually came into this thread trying to help you develop your argument so that I could understand it, and potentially have something to debate. For that, I've been grouped in with "hating" and "dull... senile" evos. Excuse me for having the good sense enough to ask you to be sensitive to the members of this forum who have been effected by the many syndromes that fall under "senility," and thus refrain from calling the arguments of the evos as such. I guess sensitivity is not a value common to your brand of Christianity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Fossil full formations are one of the things, generally speaking, I consider evidence of a worldwide catastrophe. As I said, I haven't seem much to get concerned with over the lack of evo facts either. and
Why 'shoot' if there are no ducks? I gave them every opportunity to come out and play. (Oh, better watch out so many in places like Iraq or US cities have really been shot, this might cause them mental anguish You have been given a great deal of evidence by Bill very early in this thread. You have not discussed it or answered it. You haven't even ventured onto the playing field yet and it seems if you do you have only blanks to shoot with. You believe that the crushed shells are evidence of a recent, catastrophic world wide flood. Since they can form and do form without such a flood this is not conclusive in any way. Aside from that, the issue here isn't yet actually whether the flood happened. The issue is: If the flood happened how did it produce the sorted order of the fossils it laid down? You have not answered that other than to say, it appears, that "God did it". You may be surprised to realize this but this is exactly the answer that I want from you. It is exactly the anser that ICR and AIG can not and will not use. It is an admission that all you have is a religious answer and are excluded from having any influence on the content of a science classroom. Thank you. This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-28-2004 10:48 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bill Birkeland Member (Idle past 2562 days) Posts: 165 From: Louisiana Joined: |
In message 9, NosyNed asked:
"Your Mt Rundle example. Just why did you pick that? Yousuggest that there was some upheaval. Ok. How is it that this upheaval and all the millions of others left the pattern that we see?" Mount Rundle is a 2,949 m (9,676 ft) high mountain range with cliffs over a mile high that is visible from the Trans-Canada Highway between Canmore to Banff, British Columbia. I suspect that Mt. Rundle was chosen because it displays a thrust fault that has moved older strata over younger strata. It is an example of the old Young Earth Creationist chestnut, which denies the reality of thrust faulting, in insisting that the occurrence of older fossil-bearing over younger fossil-bearing strata is somehow anomalous in this instance. For some detailed information about Mt. Rundle, a person can look at: 1. Mount Rundle. and The Formation of the Rocky Mountains.Mount Rundle. "The Mississippian and Devonian rocks were carried alongthe Rundle Thrust Fault which lies below the Devonian and above the Cretaceous and Jurassic rocks which are of a considerably younger age." More about thrust faults. How Overthrusts Occur by Glenn R. Mortonhttp://home.entouch.net/dmd/othrust.htm Thrust faults by John G. SolumThrust fault FAQ Geology in Error? The Lewis Thrust by Joel Haneshttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/lewis-overthrust.html Why doesn't the Lewis Overthrust show deformation?Frequently Asked Although the above web pages discuss the Lewis Overthrust / Thrust Fault, the thrust fault at Mt. Rundle exhibits the same obvious evidence of faulting and deformation that the Lewis Overthrust exhibits and young Earth creationists overlook just the same. Given the abundant evidence of deformation and movement along the very well defined fault plane of this thrust fault all Mt. Rundle demonstrates is how deaf, dumb, and blind some Young Earth creationists are to any physical evidence, no matter how obvious it can be, that contradicts a specific interpretation they might be arguing. This claim and the identical claims made by some Young earth creationists about the Lewis Thrust Fault is an example of why I and other conventional geologists lack any respect for many Young Earth creationists as geologists. Yours, Bill Birkeland
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4399 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
I'm new to the coversation but I think I can help my creationist side with new information.
Nosyned makes points that must be answered by the thinking creationist. First to clear up any misunderstanding. Creationists believe most, not all, fossils were created by the processes at the time of the flood. So simple fossils in any one area just represent that area before the flood. As now different kinds for different areas. This sequence matter therefore is not a problem. There are no sequences. Just local area fossilization. The sequences seen are in fact interpretations by evolutionists based on thier rejection of a sudden general crushing fossilization event. 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. In those rare cases where mammals are on top of Dinosaurs etc this just represents a post flood fossil event. Nosyned is right that rabbits and dinosaur fossils were not mixed together for they did not live together. Rabbits were post flood mammalian explosian and never lived with dinosaurs. It was a different world before the flood. As Noah was instructed to bring 7 pairs of clean animals and two pairs of unclean therefore signifying a change in faunal domination. There is no problem for creationists in fossil stratas. As history shows it is evolutionists who must change thier explanations after each fossil expedition. We must all remember that this rock/fossil evidence is just a pile of stuff in a field. And the humans make interpretations. All the bestRobert Byers Toronto, Ontario
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Hi, Robert, and welcome! You wrote:
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.
Post #6 on this thread is just the tip of and iceberg of evidence that flatly contradicts that statement. Would you like to learn a little more about this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Wecome to you Robert.
We must all remember that this rock/fossil evidence is just a pile of stuff in a field. And the humans make interpretations Of course, and we have been asking for the creationist interpretation for months. For one thing you have hinted at the existance of some layers in place before the flood. (some after as well? ) Once upon a time we tried to get someone to supply the breakdown as to which were pre flood and which were post flood and which were flood deposits. Somehow that never gets precisely specified. Maybe you can?
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. That's the question that we are discussing. Since the flood idea has them all being created at once we wondered why there are very specific patterns in the layers. Why do some types show in only some layers. The picture that I have is that the flood would do a lot of mixing. Since you seem interested in the topic, perhaps you can explain this ordering. You need to be aware that some of the major creationist sites accept the ordering. That is why they talk of density and running away and the like. However as you will find in this and it's predecssor thread those explanations don't float.
In those rare cases where mammals are on top of Dinosaurs etc this just represents a post flood fossil event. Uh, you have to get your facts straight. In undisturbed layers the mammals are always on top of the dinosaurs. Many 1,000's of samples all show this pattern. It is not a rare case. I take it from the above that both mammals and dinosaurs survived that flood? Did all animals and plants survive it? If not which did not and why?
There is no problem for creationists in fossil stratas. As history shows it is evolutionists who must change thier explanations after each fossil expedition. I'm afraid you may be making statements about things about which you know very, very little. That's not really a great way to start. We'll leave this one for now since it is not the topic of the thread. I'm sure, if you've been reading over things, that you know you can't make assertions like that without supporting them if asked. You started off saying you were going to supply new information. I'm not sure I see much yet. Be aware that some of the "evos" here know more about the creationist postition than pretty well any of he "creos" including, I would guess, you. You will be hard pressed to come up with something new.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: 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: 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: What evidence led you to this conclusion?
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
As I say now, and may say again, if you try to omit miracles from everything, you will limit your understanding of science! Miracles are very scientific. Sorry, science investigates the natural. Miracles are supernatural an outside the purview of science (althugh science can be used to investigate if purported miracles are actually supernatural). Miracles may occur. Science is not the only way of investigating the world. But mirarcles ain't science.
Prove that things will always be the same and always will, or give up and surrender unconditionally now please. I've never claimed that that things will always be the same and always will, nor do I assume that. When we have evidence (which we do) that things have been the same; and, when we have good reason to believe (whch we do) that they will continue to be the same; then we tentatively accept that things are and will be the same until we find evidence that indicates otherwise. So far, there's lots of evidence that indicates no changes in the fundamental ways the universe works and no evidence that indicates otherwise. You haven't come up with any evidence. Science is based on evidence, not your wishful thinking.
Godless evo miracles are not adequate for all, and trying to claim a monopoly on science for your religion is no longer acceptable. I find it sad that you've totally abandoned your feeble attempts at dicscussion and have gone into full-loonie rant mode.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Do you find many fossilized marine mammals with shellfish and together with fish that are positively from very very recently? Yes.
I somehow think the answer will be very few if any, ... Wrong.
... there may be some doubt about their age? Nope.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
There are no sequences. Just local area fossilization. The sequences seen are in fact interpretations by evolutionists based on thier rejection of a sudden general crushing fossilization event. ROTFL! Look at the literally millions of foraminifera fossils, found world-wide in axactly the same order of gradual changes, and used by oil companies to locate oil deposits. From Microfossil Stratigraphy Presents Problems for the Flood:
and tell me that's not a sequence!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
More on the foramins is on Don Lindsay's website at:
article 8 (site the picture is taken from) the article writes: Tony Arnold and Bill Parker compiled what may be the largest, most complete set of data on the evolutionary history of any group of organisms, marine or otherwise. The two scientists amassed something that their land-based colleagues only dreamed about: An intact fossil record with no missing links. One of my favorite examples of transitions. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bill Birkeland Member (Idle past 2562 days) Posts: 165 From: Louisiana Joined: |
In Message 45, arkathon stated:
"Ned's edict thrown out" ...laundry list of long-discredited Young Earth creationist claims deleted. " So, Ned's edict was hot air in large part, it would seem." The alleged evidence presented by Mr. arkathon does nothing to demonstrate that Ned is full of "hot air". This so-called evidence fails to discredit Ned in anyway because they are pseudo-factoids that comprise the typical "Gish Gallop". The typical Gish Gallop consists of an odd assortment of misinformation, misrepresentations, misquotations, and factually-impaired and wrong-headed interpretations presented in text-bite size bits. This is done in such volume that it is impossible for any opponent have any chance to discuss what is wrong with every piece. The text-bites are flung on an opponent, as in a mud fight, with hope that some of it will stick no matter how factually bankrupt the alleged evidence might be. Actually, many of the items, of which my time and message board space allows only a few examples to be discussed in detail, mentioned by Mr. arkathon have been discussed in great detail on the Talk.origins newsgroup and on various web pages. A person often can find discussions, which dispute, even refute in great detail, many of the examples of alleged Out-of-Place fossils by conducting a search of USENET posts using the Google newsgroup search engine at: Error 404 (Not Found)!!1 Also, there are web pages on the Internet that completely refute other examples of Out-of-Place fossils mentioned by Mr. arkathon. Specific examples are: 1. Horses and Dinosaurs For example, in message ID Mr. Littleton noted: "This is a rather remarkable case of an Evangelical Christianciting a Communist (Soviet) newspaper as if it was the "gospel truth" instead being "Soviet truth". :-)" If a person was to look over what "Moskovskaya Pravda (Moscow Truth) has had to say about the United States, capitalism, Christianity, and topics, he or she would quickly find that this newpapers has serious problems distinguishing between fact and fiction. It is quite certainly an unreliable source of factual information that is useless as a cited as source of scientific information. As further noted in the post: "Even if a person disregards the credibility problems inherentwith public newspapers published in the Soviet Union under the strict control of the Communist Party, there are significant problems with using any newspaper as a primary source of information. Unfortunately, many newspaper editors and reporters lack the experience to evaluate the validity of scientific claims that are made in the stories that they write. As a result, they all too often either angle the facts or accept unquestionably as fact erroneous conclusions made by the people that they have interviewed." This alleged research is also problematic because that nobody has been able to find a formal scientific publication, which either discusses or illustrates this spectacular find. A plausible explanation for this absence of any scientific documentation is that after further analysis or during peer-review, as discussed later in this post, the alleged horse prints turned out to be nothing more than either the foot prints of some reptile or sedimentary features called current crescents. Without detailed descriptions and photographs published in a reliable source, there is no proof that these horse prints exist outside the imagination of either the reporter or the person being interviewed. 2. Turkmeniac and tuba City Footprints Next, Mr. arkathon mentioned "Dinosaur and humanlike footprints have been foundtogether in Turkmeniac and in Arizona". In case of the Turkmeniac footprints, Mr. Littleton noted: "Again, we have the strange spectacle of an Evangelical Christian,Anonymous (1985), citing a Communist (Soviet) publication, the 1983 "Moscow News" as if it is believed it to be as infallible as the Bible." Again, as noted by Mr. Littleton, we have a newspaper of highly suspect reliability being cited as if it was a reliable and authoritative source of scientific observations. Again, we have a source that provides nothing in the way of pictures, data, or observations, which substantiate the claim being made about human prints in Turkmeniac. Without this documentation, it is impossible to determine if the features reported as human footprints are indeed human footprints or nothing more than a whole range of features that have been misidentified and misreported in the popular press as human footprints as discussed in detail by Monroe (1987). In fact, as discussed by Kuban (1989a, 1989b), dinosaur footprints have even been misidentified as human footprints. As a result, a single vague newspaper article proves nothing about the presence or absence of human footprints with dinosaurs. Again, without detailed descriptions and photographs published in a reliable source, there is no proof that the Turkmeniac footprints exist outside the imagination of either the reporter or the person being interviewed. As noted in the talk.origins post, Kuban (1992) examined the Tuba City (Arizona) tracks. This article stated: "When Ron Hastings and I visited Site 1 in 1988 we saw many definitebipedal dinosaur tracks nearby (as had during a previous trip), but nothing that strongly resembled a genuine human footprint. The so-called "humanoid" markings looked no more convincing in person than they later did in the CRSQ photographs. The CRSQ report did not begin explain how multiple dinosaur tracklayers fit their young-earth, Flood geology model. A crucial question is how these and many other vertebrate track layers (like those in the Glen Rose Formation) were formed during the midst of a violent worldwide Flood--if indeed such layers are interpreted as Flood deposits. Particularly in need of explanation is how the track-makers survived while thousands of feet of sedimentary material were being deposited under the track layers or while extensive sediments between the track layers were being deposited. .... " References Cited: Anonymous (1985) Russian Paluxy Source. Creation Ex Nihilo. vol. 7,no. 3, p 4. Kuban, G. J. (1989a) Elongate dinosaur tracks. In D. D. Gilletteand M. G. Lockley, eds., pp. 57-72, Dinosaur Tracks and Traces: Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/elong.htm http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/paluxy.htm Kuban, G. J. (1989b) Color distinctions and other curious featuresof dinosaur tracks near Glen Rose, Texas. In D. D. Gillette and M. G. Lockley, eds., pp. 428-440, Dinosaur Tracks and Traces: Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/color.htm Kuban, G. J. (1992) Do Human Footprints Occur in the Kayenta ofArizona? Origins Research. vol. 14, no.2, pp. 7,12,16. http://members.aol.com/Paluxy2/arizon.htm Monroe, J. S. (1987) Creation, human footprints, and flood geology.Journal of Geological Education. vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 93-102." 3. More Out of Place Fossils Mr. arkathon further commented: "Sometimes, land animals, flying animals, and marine animals arefossilized side-by-side in the same rock." According to the primary source of this statement, this claim is documented in Snelling (1985), Armstrong (1985), and Shipman (1987). None of these articles is a scientific article. Instead they are all popular articles written for the lay public, including newspaper articles. About these articles, Mr. Littleton Stated: "First, based only on articles from local newspapers, and a nationalnewsmagazine, Armstrong (1985) discussed the occurrence of fossil bones found in either an unnamed shell pit or unnamed shell pits near Tampa, Florida consisting of a mixture of 80 percent the fossil bones of land animals mixed with the bones of birds, sea turtles, salt water fish, fresh water fish, and turtles. The article was only five paragraphs long. Because of its shortness, the articles failed to discuss any of the details about the site and was far too vague for anyone to make any decision about whether this bone bed (or bone beds ?) was in anyway anomalous in terms of conventional geology. Armstrong (1985) failed to provide enough to give either Brown (2001) or Derek any support for their conclusions. Second, Snelling (1985) discusses the catastrophic implications offossiliferous sandstone beds that outcrop at Fossil Bluff near Wynyard, Tasmania in Australia (Vickers-Rich and Rich 1993). Not only is Snelling (1985) unable to tell the difference between a "breccia" and gravelly, fossiliferous sandstone, he concludes without any real evidence that the beds of marine shells that the are the result of a "watery catastrophe" that "overwhelmed, washed, sorted, and buried all of these animals and plants together." Snelling (1985) doesn't seem to understand that there is nothing anomalous about shark's teeth and whales bones being found in marine sediments. At Fossil Bluff, the only nonmarine vertebrate fossil consists ofonly a single partial (upper) eroded skull of the possum-like marsupial Wynyardia bassiana (Vickers-Rich and Rich 1993). Such fragmentary and rare remains of nonmarine animals is readily explained by the fact that nonmarine animals occasionally drown in rivers and lagoons and are swept out to sea where their bones are scattered and buried in marine sediments. Similarly, nonmarine plant material, is frequently swept out to sea and incorporated into marines sediments as found by Snelling (1985) (at) Fossil Bluff. The shell beds found at Fossil Bluff near Wynyard, Tasmania fail tobe any evidence of any "watery catastrophe as argued by Snelling (1985). The shelly sandstones observed by Snelling can be created by a variety of noncatastrophic processes, e.g. bottom winnowing by storms, as discussed by Kidwell (1986, 1991) and Kidwell et al. (1986). The fossiliferous sandstones are no different from the shelly sands accumulating on modern continental shelves, e.g. Anderson and McBride (1996) and McBride et al. (1996), except for genera and species of shells found within them. Finally, Brown (1995, 2001) cites a discussion by Shipman (1987) ofthe world famous fossil site at Mesel, Germany as an example of a fossil deposit created by the Noachian Flood. However, there is simply no evidence of the fossil deposits at Messell being created, as implied by Brown (1995, 2001) by a global catastrophic Noachian Flood. The fossil deposits are extremely local in nature in that they are restricted entirely to a fault bounded depression just over 1000 long and 700 meters wide. Thus, they lack the regional extent that a person would expect from a global catastrophe and theirdistribution is perfectly compatible with many modern lakes found in tectonic depressions. The sediment containing the exceptionally well preserved fossils are found in a bituminous shale, locally called "oil shale" / "Olschiefer". This is type of sediment that accumulates only within stagnant waters, such as found in many lakes, but not within a global flood claimed moved and deposited masses of sediments several kilometers thick all over the world. In addition, the high organic content of the shale is the result of massive blooms of a green, freshwater alga, Tretraedon, which grew in large numbers, died off, and accumulated along with mud at the bottom of a stagnant water body. The lack of ccocoliths, formanifera, radiolarians, and other marine microfossils, although perfectly consistent with accumulation in a stagnant lake, is quite remarkable for sediments deposited during the late stages of a global flood that mixed all of the oceans of the world/ Finally, none of the vertebrate fossils, as Brown (1995, 2001) incorrectly implies, in the Messel fossil deposits are fossils of marine vertebrates. In fact, the fossils found in the Messel deposits reflect the animals found in a specific terrestrial ecosystem and limited period of geologic time. Nobody has found any fossil, that is obviously out-of-place, e.g. dinosaurs, humans, trilobites, that would be indicative of the mixing of animal remains which is implied by Brown (1995, 2001). References Cited: Anderson, L. C., and R. A. McBride (1996) Taphonomic andpaleoenvironmental evidence of Holocene shell-bed genesis and history in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico shelf. Palaios, vol. 11, pp. 532-549. Armstrong, C. (1985) Florida fossils puzzle the experts. CreationResearch Society Quarterly. vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 198-199. Brown, W. (2001) In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence forCreation and the Flood. Agards, Catheys Valley California. Kidwell, S. M. (1986) Models for fossil concentrations:paleobiologic implications. Paleobiology. vol. 12, pp. 6-24. Kidwell, S. M. (1991) The stratigraphy of shell concentrations.In P. A. Allison and D. E. G. Briggs, eds., pp. 211-290, Taphonomy, Releasing the Data Locked in the Fossil Record (, eds.). New York: Plenum Press. Kidwell, S. M., F. T. Fursich, and T. Aigner (1986) Conceptualframework for the analysis and classification of fossil concentrations. Palaios. vol. 1, pp. 228-238. McBride, R. A., M. R. Byrnes, L. C. Anderson, and B. K. Sen Gupta(1996) Holocene and Late Pleistocene sedimentary facies of a sand-rich continental shelf: A standard section for the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions. vol. 46, pp. 287-299. Schaal, S. and W. Ziegler, eds. (1992) Messel, An Insight intothe History of Life and of the Earth. Oxford University Press. Shipman, P. (1987) Dumping on Science. Discover. vol. 8, no. 12,pp. 60-66. Snelling, A. (1985) Tasmania's Fossil Bluff. Creation Ex Nihilo.vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 6-10. Vickers-Rich, P. and T. H. Rich (1993) Wildlife of Gondwana.Reed, Chatswood, NSW, Australia." 4. Of Dinosaurs, Whales, Elephants, Horses, and Humans (South Carolina) Mr. arkathon further noted: "Dinosaur, whale, elephant, horse, and many other fossils, pluscrude human tools, have reportedly been found in phosphate beds in South Carolina." Mr. Littleton commented: "In case of the South Carolina claims, they are based on papersthat date to the early 1800s and a person of unknown expertise. The older citations can be questionable because in the 1800s, paleontologists were often quite lax about noting exactly where the fossils found and ascertaining the exact stratigraphic unit from which it came. What then was called "the phosphate beds" designated a thickness of strata now known to consist of separate, well-defined stratigraphic units ranging from Miocene to Pleistocene age. Given the lack of any accurate mapping and knowledge of the geology of the area and rather lax collecting policies of the 1800's, fossils of widely different locations and strata were mixed together as simply coming from the "the phosphate beds". The mix of fossils are an artifact of how these fossils were collected instead of actually being contemporaneous in time or coming from the same unit. In addition, the material was collected from phosphate mines,including spoil piles, in which fossil bones from all sorts of strata would be mixed together along with artifacts left behind on the ground surface in prehistoric times. Thus, the material collected from these mines would be a mixture of fossils from a wide range of time and include even human artifacts. Finally, none of the published citations provide by Brown (1995)fail to provide any convincing evidence that any dinosaur fossils have been found in these deposits. There is simply not any documented evidence that fossil dinosaurs have been found in these deposits." References Cited Brown, W. (1995) In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creationand the Flood. Agards, Catheys Valley California. 5. Coal Balls and Out-Of-Place Angiosperms Mr. arkathon mindlessly repeated: "Coal beds contain round, black lumps called coal balls, some ofwhich contain flowering plants that allegedly evolved 100 million years after the coal bed was formed." Mr. Littleton commented: "An angiosperm, described and named "Angiospermophyton americanum"from a single coal ball from the O'Gara Mine No. 9, Coal Seam No. 5 near Harrisburg, Illinois by Hoskins (1923) and noted by Noe (1923). Brown (1995) cites Noe (1923) as a source of the claim for coal balls "which contain flowering plants which allegedly evolved 100 million years after the coal bed was formed." There exists an exaggeration of the facts as only one coal ball containing one specimen of "Angiospermophyton americanum" was reported. The impression that numerous coal balls containing specimens of "Angiospermophyton americanum" exist is certainly false. Also, Brown (1995) overlooks an article, Seward (1923), in which it is argued that the single fossil described by Hoskins (1923) is not an angiosperm and is just an example of "Myeloxylon," a non- angiosperm, Medullosan pteridosperms (seed fern). It appears that "Angiospermophyton americanum" was just one of many plants fossils ranging in age Carboniferous to Jurassic in age that were argued to be either an angiosperm or displayed angiospermid characters. In this case, both Dr. Brown has overlooked the fact that later research has refuted the identification of this alleged out-of-place fossil as the "flowering plant", which it was claimed it to be. References Cited: Brown, Walt (1995) In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence forCreation and the Flood. 6th ed, Center for Scientific Creation, Phoenix, Arizona. Noe, A. C. (1923) A Paleozoic Angiosperm. Journal of Geology.vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 344-347. (May-June 1923) Seward, A. C. (1923) A supposed Paleozoic angiosperm [from thecoal measures of Illinois]. Botanical Gazette vol. 76, no. 2, p. 215." 6. Out-Of Place Pollen: Mr. arkathon aimlessly repeated, once again: "In the Grand Canyon, in Venezuela, in Kashmir, and in Guyana,spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in Cambrian rocks-rocks supposedly deposited before flowering plants evolved. Pollen has also been found in Precambrian rocks-rocks deposited before life supposedly evolved." In this case, Mr. arkathon has badly garbled the facts. The **metamorphic rocks**, from which pollen has been reported in the Grand Canyon and Venezuela and Guyana, are Pre-Cambrian rocks, not Cambrian rocks. Thus, they are part of the various claims of pollen found in Precambrian rocks noted in the last sentence. Only the pollen from Kashmir has been alleged to occur in Cambrian strata. The case of the pollen found in Precambrian strata of the Grand Canyon has been discussed in great detail by: 1. Precambrian pollen by Morton, Glenn (1997)http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/199709/0101.html 2.Out-of-Place PollenCC341: Out-of-place pollen and 3. "Modern Pollen in the Proterozoic Hakatai Shale: Disproof ofPlant Evolution?" in " Strata of the Grand Canyon - Grand Staircase" at: http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grand.htm Finally, an old earth creationist Arthur V Chadwick disputed the claims of out-of-place pollen in Grand Canyon rocks in: Chadwick, Arthur V. (1981) Precambrian Pollen in the Grand Canyon -A Reexamination. Origins vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 7-12. Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that... For the Venezuela, and British Guiana pollen, Mr. Littleton noted: "The report of pollen being found the Precambrian Roraima Formationof Venezuela, and British Guiana come from Stainforth (1966). The rock from which Stainforth (1966) claims to have extracted well- preserved pollen are what is described by him as "highly metamorphosed" quartz and muscovite and quartz, muscovite, and biotite hornfels that were severely "cooked" by thick dolerite sills. Stainforth (1966) stated that one of the geologists, who processedthe pollen sample, noted it to be characterized by "an uncompressed preservation highly unusual except in young sediments." At the time of publication, the pollen assemblage had (not) been matched against many known suite although ages from Cretaceous, Miocene, and younger have been proposed by various palynologists. In the thread "Re: Pollen," Message-ID:<4tcia9$pl0@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>, Dr. Andrew Macrea, about the Roraima pollen, wrote: "Another classic example is pollen, including angiosperms,from the Precambrian Roraima Formation (spelling?) from the Tablelands of Venezuela. Like the Grand Canyon example, they are also likely to be introduced, in particular because the rocks are moderate metamorphic grade, and yet the pollen grains were nearly unaltered and colorless. They should have been baked crispy brown or black if they were in place in a rock of that grade." The preservation of pollen is completely inconsistent with the degreethat the rock from which they were allegedly has been altered by metamorphism. It is impossible for highly metamorphosed strata to contain the three-dimensional, well-preserved pollen that Stainforth (1966) allegedly recovered from the Roraima Formation as discusses by Dr. Macrea noted above. References Cited: Stainforth, R. M. (1966) Occurrence of Pollen and Sporesin the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guinea. Nature, Vol. 210, no. 16, pp. 292-294. (April 1966)" Finally, if a person goes back to the primary literature, a person would find that there are major problems with reports of pollen having been found in Cambrian age strata of the Salt Range of Kashmir. The main problem is that the strata, from which the samples were collected, have been badly mangled by folding and thrust faulting. Younger and older strata have been tectonically interfaulted within the exposures from which the samples were collected. When the samples were collected for analysis, the presence of younger strata faulted within the Cambrian strata was not recognized. As a result, the samples of presumed Cambrian rocks analyzed easily could have included samples of much younger sedimentary rocks. As a result, the pollen bearing samples could have come from sedimentary rocks much younger than Cambrian in age. Unfortunately, information concerning the specific layers from the samples came from wasn't published and possibly not even initially noted. Thus, it is impossible using the information has been published in the literature to unequivocally demonstrate the specific age of the rock from which the pollen were collected given the complex geology of the outcrops. 7. Pseudo-Hoofprints in the grand Canyon Mr. arkathon also claimed: "A leading authority on the Grand Canyon even published photographsof horselike hoofprints visible in rocks that, according to the theory of evolution, predate hoofed animals by more than a hundred million years." Mr. Littleton explained: "McKee (1982) did call these features "hoof-like". This is onlydescriptive terminology that only described their semi-oval form. This is a case where the Young Earth creationists have mistaken taken a metaphor for reality. These alleged hoof-prints, are not even animals tracks, but rather inorganic structures called "current crescents ". If a person is to assume, for sake of argument, that these featuresare even animal tracks of some kind, the penknife in Figure E23 of Mckee (1982) shows they are far too small to have made by a hoofed horse. In the figure, they are strikingly oriented all in the same direction and quite clearly inorganic current crescents. Discussing these pseudo-tracks, Lockley and Hunt (1995) stated: "... But careful studies show that most areinvertebrate traces or features produced by currents. A review of all known reports of this type suggests that a surprising number of invertebrate traces have been misinterpreted as vertebrate tracks. We conclude that, in most cases, the vertebrate track interpretations are dubious at best and that each example should be examined carefully and judged on its own merits. In the case of the Supai Formation, of course, we agree with Gilmore that the markings are not vertebrate tracks-and they were definitely not made by horses!" Later, talking about similar alleged horse tracks, Lockley and Hunt(1995) stated: "Another example of controversy over tracks wasintroduced in chapter 2 in our discussion of horseshoe-like markings, of uncertain origin, found in Paleozoic rocks of the Grand Canyon region. Similar horseshoe-shaped markings have been observed in the Mesozoic Moenkopi Formation (figure 3.7). These particular tracks were studied by Frank Peabody, who identified them as "current crescents" caused by the scour of currents around a small pebble or other obstruction on the sediment surface. Peabody was aware of claims that such features, also found in Triassic rocks in Germany and in Jurassic rocks in the northeastern United States, were of vertebrate origin, and he was anxious to make a correct interpretation for the Moenkopi occurrences. We ourselves have seen such features in Moenkopi sediments and agree with Peabody that they are current crescents, not tracks. There are, however, other horseshoe-shaped markings found in other sedimentary rocks elsewhere that are not current crescents." References Cited: Lockley, M., and A. P. Hunt (1995) Dinosaur Tracks: and Other FossilFootprints of the Western United States. Columbia University Press, New York, New York. McKee, Edwin D. (1982) The Supai Group of Grand Canyon. UnitedStates Geological Survey Professional Paper no. 1173, United States Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia." 8. More Pseudo-Hoofprints Mr. arkathon also claimed: "Other hoofprints are alongside 1,000 dinosaur footprints in Virginia." Mr. Littleton noted: According to Brown (1995), these other alleged "hoof prints" werereported by Monastersky (1989) to have been found by Dr. Weems in Triassic strata exposed by quarrying near Culpepper, Virginia. Although described as "hoof-shaped," Brown (1995) overlooked observations by Monastersky (1989) that stated: "With left and right legs spread about 4 feet apart inan extremely wide stance, this lumbering quadraped left hoof-shaped prints in mud." Such stance precludes this animal from being a horse. Dr. Robert E.Weems, who studied these fossil prints infers that they actually belong to a large reptile that looked like a flattened crocodile with horns. Again, hoof-like prints are automatically regarded as belonging to a horse regardless of contrary facts. Also, for further discussion and pictures that refutes the "hoof-prints" claim by Brown (1995), a person can go read Weems (1987). References Cited: Brown, Walt (1995) In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence forCreation and the Flood. 6th ed, Center for Scientific Creation, Phoenix, Arizona. Monastersky, R. (1989) A Walk along the Lakeshore, Dinosaur-Style.Science News. vol. 136, no. 8, pp. 21. (July 1989) Weems, R. E. (1987) A Late Triassic footprint fauna from theCulpeper Basin, Northern Virginia (U.S.A.). Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 1-79." It is revealing in that the case for the Virginia footprints having been made by a horse was largely created by the omission of observations that readily disprove this claim. 9. To Bee Or Not To Bee Mr. arkathon also claimed: "Petrified trees in Arizona's petrified forest contain fossilizednests of bees and cocoons of wasps. The petrified forests are supposedly 220 million years old, while bees (and flowering plants which bees require) supposedly evolved almost a hundred million years later." In this case, Mr. Littleton argued: "These are real scientific discoveries although the source citationused by Young Earth creationists is a popular newspaper article, Hasiotis (1995), instead of any of his original published research. The main problem with this argument is that there is nothing that would preclude bees from having collected pollen, resin, and sap from plants and coniferous trees prior to the development of flowering plants. As noted by Hasiotis in Anonymous (1995): "Many gymnosperms, a plant group that includes conifers and ferns, also produce pollen. The ancient bees could have found sugars and nutrients - which they find today in the nectar of flowers - in coniferous plants or even in animal carcasses." Given that fossils of the actual bees (hymenopteran insects) whomade the fossil nests found and described by Hasiotis et al. (1995) (haven't been found), Young Earth creationists completely lack any sort of evidence or proof that the "bees" which made the fossil nests within the Triassic strata of Petrified Forest National Park were same exact type of bees that are found associated with flowering plants. The type of "bees", which made the Triassic nests, quite likely were a different and earlier type of bee adapted to either gathering spores from gymnosperms, such as conifers and ferns or sugars and nutrients from either coniferous plants or other sources. About these fossil nests, Hasiotis et al. (1995) stated: "Late Triassic ichnofossil insect nests record veryearly, yet advanced behavioral and morphological characteristics of the Hymenoptera. These trace fossils shed new light on hypotheses regarding the timing of insect diversification and its co-evolution with plants in terrestrial ecosystems. Insect ichnofossils better constrain the age of origination of numerous groups because they have a greater preservation potential than do body fossils, which are typically much rarer. Triassic ichnofossils of derived hymenopteran insects extend the ages of these insects by more than 100 million years (Hasiotis et al., 1995, 1996). Hymenopteran ichnofossils reveal more information about behavior than do body fossils, which can be used to interpret behavior solely through functional morphology. The highly organized nest configurations of Triassic hymenopteran ichnofossils imply that complex behavior reflecting primitive socialization and pollenization, was established long before the advent of angiosperms; these organisms were acting as pollinators in the Triassic terrestrial ecosystems. The pre-established plant foraging and feeding strategies of early Mesozoic hymenopterans constitute a pre-adaptation for a later origin of pollination mechanisms in early angiosperms, thus favoring rapid angiosperm radiation and diversification. Through time, these and other insects probably switched plant resources (from gymnosperm- cycadeiod to angiosperm) as they co-evolved with the rapidly diversifying angiosperms to form the intricate ecological relationships exhibited by insects and angiosperms today." One major headache that these fossils provide Young Earthcreationists concerning their ideas about the Noachian Flood is that the bee cocoons and wasp nests, along with innumerable fossil soils, called "paleosols", and the lack of any marine fossils clearly show that the strata exposed within the Arizona Petrified Forest accumulated on dry land and was not deposited underwater during Noah's Flood. References: Anonymous (1996) Busy Bee. Campus Press. vol. ?,pp. ??-??, (January 25, 1996) at: BCN: Page Not Found Hasiotis, Stephen T. (1995) Fossilized Combs HaveScientists Abuzz. The Arizona Republic, 26 May 1995, p. B7. Hasiotis, S. T. R. F. Dubielz, P. T. Kay, T. M. Demko,K. Kowalskal , and D. McDaniel (1995) Research Update on Hymenopteran Nests and Cocoons, Upper Triassic Chinle Formation, Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona. NPS Paleontological Research vol. 3, pp. 116-121." Some interesting web pages: http://www2.nature.nps.gov/...ontology//pub/grd3_3/pefo2.htm A Secret History of Life on LandCarl Zimmer/(c)1998. Reprinted with permission of Discover Magazine. USGS.gov | Science for a changing world A person can go on forever seemingly in an analysis of the text bites of alleged evidence of Out-Of-Place Fossils presented by Mr. arkathon. However, a search of USENET posts using the Googles search will find similar detailed rebuttals demonstrating the scientifically bankrupt nature of many of items presented by him as taken from Young Earth creationist web pages. Yours, Bill Birkeland
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:I don't go to church. You still got nothin but hot air. quote:I never said the fossil layers were a miracle. Are you used to bullying people who fall for it, or something? You are the miracle man, You believe in bacteria relatives, and I think a little cosmic soup our universe sprung from. Do you think also it was a miracle all your missing links are missing still? ( transitional ones in particular). Make your evolution religion private, and get it out of public education.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024