Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fossils, strata and the flood
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 31 of 163 (558408)
05-01-2010 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Vacate
05-01-2010 3:37 AM


Re: It is said: There is plenty of strata on Mars...
Hi Vacate,
I remember reading about the discovery of what appear to be sedimentary layers on Mars, and I had seen the image you linked to before:
But I also have a vague recollection that one the Mars rovers lucked out into wandering by an outcrop that showed evidence of sedimentary layers. Does that sound familiar at all, or am I maybe misremembering?
No, I think I'm right. I just poked around on the net a bit and this Wikipedia article appears to allude to this in passing: Gusev (Martian crater). Couldn't find the rover image of the layers.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Vacate, posted 05-01-2010 3:37 AM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Vacate, posted 05-01-2010 7:11 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 05-01-2010 8:21 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 51 by Kitsune, posted 05-01-2010 3:52 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 50 of 163 (558468)
05-01-2010 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Flyer75
05-01-2010 2:18 PM


Re: Flood evidence is everywhere you look
Hi Flyer75,
The author of your article (Should Fragile Shells Be Common in the Fossil Record? by John Whitmore) misunderstood Olszewski's paper. I'm not sure why he misunderstood it because he quoted the portions of Olszewski's paper that make clear what he was actually saying.
Olszewski was addressing the mystery of why we find shells that are "10s, 100s, or even 1000s of years old" in settings where they should have been destroyed. The shells he's talking about aren't fossilized shells that are millions and millions of years old. They're just shells in what he calls the TAZ, the "taphonomically active zone," which he defines as "the interval where shells are likely to be destroyed." This is a higher layer than the DFB, the "depth of final burial," which he defines as the level "below which shells can no longer be reworked into the TAZ."
So a shell in the TAZ level should apparently be destroyed in a period less than years, while a shell that makes it lower down into the DFB level is protected and should get fossilized. The mystery is why some shells in the TAZ level are so old. Old in this context doesn't mean the millions of years common for fossilized shells that have had the good fortune to be buried deeply and quickly enough to have suffered little or no destruction. Old means from 10s to 1000s of years.
Just as on land, fossilization is uncommon. The fate of most organisms is recycling back into the environment through being eaten, scavenged, eroded, weathered, dissolved, and so on. Only in rare circumstances is an organism buried deeply and quickly enough after death to be preserved. If fossilization were not extremely rare then we would be awash in fossils.
But rare as fossilization is, there are far more fossils than the most number of creatures that have ever been alive all at the same time. The flood couldn't have created all the fossils because the Earth couldn't sustain that much life all at once.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Flyer75, posted 05-01-2010 2:18 PM Flyer75 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Flyer75, posted 05-01-2010 4:44 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 57 of 163 (558491)
05-01-2010 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Flyer75
05-01-2010 4:44 PM


Re: Flood evidence is everywhere you look
Flyer75 writes:
I think what he's asking is, "if these shells can't last along time, even 10 to 100 years, then why do we see fossils of them at all if according to theory, it takes tens of thousands or more years to fossilize?" What am I missing here?
A TAZ level is a destructive environment. Shells that spend any significant time in TAZ levels are unlikely to survive, which I would expect is true of most shells. Shells that become buried in DFB levels, which are preservative rather than destructive, have a much better chance of becoming fossilized.
It would be quite a conundrum if shells had to spend significant time in TAZ levels before reaching DFB levels, but that's not the case.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Spelling, grammer, typos - sheesh!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Flyer75, posted 05-01-2010 4:44 PM Flyer75 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Flyer75, posted 05-01-2010 6:13 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 101 of 163 (558587)
05-02-2010 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Faith
05-02-2010 9:22 AM


Faith writes:
It is what MUST have happened if you actually LOOK at the depth of the strata all over the earth, their neat horizontality and parallel form, and then THINK for a change.
Relative to your belief that strata all over the Earth exhibit "neat horizontality and parallel form," here are some images. Click on them to enlarge.
First, just to make sure you understand there's no claim that there's no such thing as horizontal and neatly parallel strata, here's an image of strata from the Grand Canyon. Obviously these strata are largely undisturbed by tectonic forces:
Now here are some images of strata that do not exhibit "neat horizontality and parallel form" and that have been greatly affected by tectonic forces like uplift, faulting, shearing and so forth:
Perhaps we could discuss this picture evidence and its implications for the viability of flood geology.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Faith, posted 05-02-2010 9:22 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-02-2010 6:17 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 106 by RAZD, posted 05-02-2010 6:43 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 113 of 163 (559287)
05-08-2010 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Architect-426
05-07-2010 10:56 PM


Re: "Geology" is jacked-up... Stratification = Massive Volcanism
So many errors, so little time, so I pick this one:
Architect-426 writes:
"I read a bio of Hutton too...."
What is even more pathetic than this so called science of geology, which has its roots in evolution...
Hutton and the science of geology preceded Darwin and the theory of evolution:
James Hutton 1726-1797
Charles Lyell 1797-1875
Charles Darwin 1809-1882
Darwin took Lyell's books with him on the Beagle before he'd even thought of evolution.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Architect-426, posted 05-07-2010 10:56 PM Architect-426 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by anglagard, posted 05-09-2010 2:49 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 122 of 163 (562490)
05-29-2010 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Architect-426
05-29-2010 12:33 AM


Re: Oh Lord...save us from wacky "geology" theories...
Hi Architect-426,
Though I'm curious about the origin of your beliefs, such as what evidence leads you to chose "intense volcanism" as responsible for the formation of the British Isles, perhaps we should return to the original topic. What evidence in the geological layers leads you to see a flood as responsible for the particular distribution of fossils we find in the geological strata?
By the way, since you're an architect, what do you think about the possibility of multi-story reed structures such as those on the ark? Perhaps you can help out Greentwiga over in the That boat don't float thread.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Architect-426, posted 05-29-2010 12:33 AM Architect-426 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 126 of 163 (562740)
06-01-2010 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by roxrkool
06-01-2010 1:07 AM


Re:
roxrkool writes:
It's obvious you have not read much about geology as this "simple fact" is known by all. Rocks on the surface/near-surface tend to behave in a brittle manner. However, rocks subjected to increased temperatures and/or pressures will often behave in a ductile manner. Try Googling "brittle-ductile transition zone."
Rhetorical question: How could a real architect be unaware of such simple facts about the strength of materials?
Combine this with the known inverse relationship between confidence and knowledge and what do you get? That's rhetorical, too.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by roxrkool, posted 06-01-2010 1:07 AM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-01-2010 6:43 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 128 by RAZD, posted 06-01-2010 8:53 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 130 by roxrkool, posted 06-02-2010 12:49 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 129 of 163 (562808)
06-01-2010 9:50 PM


Dr Adequate and RAZD
I'm going to let Architect address whether architecture curriculum coursework covers the strength of materials (which includes the effect of temperature), and why he didn't retain any of that information himself.
--Percy

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 142 of 163 (564111)
06-08-2010 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Architect-426
06-08-2010 12:44 AM


Re: Oh Lord...I need forgiveness...
Architect-426 writes:
The dessication of this material can clearly be read in the topography of the Highlands as these mountains were formed by intense volcanism; ballistic and intrusive and are NOT a plate tectonic crumple zone. The fact that there is very little topsoil on these monoliths is evidence of a recent event.
Your use of the term "monolith" makes me uncertain what you're referring to, but if you mean mountains then you do realize, I hope, that mountains are areas of net erosion, not deposition? That in general the higher you go on a mountain the less topsoil you'll find? And that the topsoil on the sides of a mountain is in the midst of a slow journey to the valley below? And that the rivers flowing through upland valleys are carrying the topsoil further downstream and eventually to the sea?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Architect-426, posted 06-08-2010 12:44 AM Architect-426 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by ICANT, posted 06-09-2010 1:40 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 152 of 163 (564438)
06-10-2010 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Architect-426
06-10-2010 12:30 PM


Re: Geology of the real world OR is it geo-fantasy???
Hi Architect,
At one point you dismiss the possibility of millions of years ago because there were no witnesses, but what about this:
Architect-426 writes:
These plutons are massive remnants of powerful eruption processes and typically rise after intense episodes within or near a volcanic epicenter.
There were no witnesses of this, either. How do you know when it happened?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Architect-426, posted 06-10-2010 12:30 PM Architect-426 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 156 of 163 (564660)
06-11-2010 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by ZenMonkey
06-11-2010 1:40 PM


Re: Geology of the real world OR is it geo-fantasy???
And if you read Geikie's forward you'll see that he doesn't argue for a volcanic origin for the British Isles. His book is about the role of volcanoes in the geological history of Great Britain. He doesn't propose that volcanoes formed the British Isles. He also knows that the volcanoes he writes about occurred millions and millions of years ago, and he knows the difference between volcanic basalt and sedimentary layers.
In other words, Geikie is one of us, or would be if he were still alive.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by ZenMonkey, posted 06-11-2010 1:40 PM ZenMonkey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by ZenMonkey, posted 06-11-2010 6:10 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024