|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Fossils, strata and the flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi subbie,
Fossils on mountains are only evidence of a Noachian flood if you assume that the mountains have always been that high. And that the flood lasted for hundreds of years, so that the multiple strata could be built up, generation after generation after generation. Along with the slow change in species from layer to layer, perfectly sorted. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Faith, it's a matter of simple logic, yes?
There were no high mountains before the Flood. Everything points to a worldwide Flood on Earth for a rational person who just looks at the evidence. So we agree that the mountains grew in height, and that the land that became mountains was underwater before the mountain growth occurred. The fossils on mountains show complete ecosystems that have grown to maturity, with layer after layer of deposition of shells and other remnants as individuals died of old age at different times. Each undisturbed layer of mature ecosystems takes hundreds of years to form with the complexity shown in the evidence, with almost all of the organisms in the fossils being more than a year old. Many of the fossils are of mature organisms that were 30 to 40 years old (as shown by their shells) when buried. Many of the fossils of are organisms that grow in one place, attached to the bottom. Some corals are hundreds of years old, forming layers over layers of coral shell. Corals, sea fans, brachiopods, oysters, mussels and many other forms of sea life grow attached to the bottom. Layers of such fossils that are many feet thick are common, accumulated from many generations of organisms living one after the other, with the shells of dead organisms becoming part of the bottom ecology for the next generation to grown on. Fossil Shell Beach
quote: Multiple layers growing on top of each other as old individuals died and new generations were born, grew to maturity and died, generation after generation.
quote: And we see that the same kind of fossil shell evidence exists for fresh water species as for salt water species. Did the flood somehow segregate water into fresh and salt areas while these organisms grew? Perhaps Leonardo da Vinci figured it out: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/vinci.html
quote: This evidence shows that this growth occurred over periods of hundreds to thousands of years. If the growth occurred during the flood, can you explain how multiple generations of decades old individuals happened in less than a year? Can you explain how anything can be more that 1 year old in no more than one layer (or less if there are multiple layers)? Note that many of the organisms are intolerant of silt in the water, many are fragile. Flickr
If the growth did NOT occur during a relatively brief flood, can you explain how any of this is evidence of the flood? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clrty we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Flyer75,
I'll admit, I don't know allot about the author other then that he's a professor of geology at Cedarville University. Not that it matters much.
Dr. John Whitmore
| Answers in Genesis
quote: An MS from the ICR?Institute for Creation Research - Wikipedia quote: And that's in bible friendly Texas. Loma Linda University - Wikipedia
quote: Not what I would call a hot school for getting a degree in biology, certainly not for a PhD with "emphasis" on Paleontology (what ever that means). Apparently all he has written is four articles for AIG (in four years), and a childrens book. Not a stellar curriculum vitae if you ask me, however who he is does not mean what he writes is hooey. What makes it hooey is statements like what you quoted:
"In modern oceans, shells gradually dissolve in sea water or are consumed by other organisms. Experiments have shown that many shells, especially thin and fragile ones, disappear completely in a short period of time. If the fossil record formed slowly, with individual rock layers taking hundreds or thousands of years to accumulate, you would expect fragile shell material to be relatively uncommon. Most of what we find should be thick and durable." Any instance that would cause local burial of shells would preserve the shells buried, and curiously, there are many instances of silt and sand slides every year, particularly at deltas, where shells of shallow ecology organisms would be abundant. This would preserve thick and thin shells in relatively similar proportions to their proportions in life. He makes this statement:
quote: Note that the actual measured age of the shells is ignored, and the quote is picked to suggest that "Taphonomist Thomas Olszewski is puzzled by the apparent discrepancy between modern studies and the fossil record" ... a typical ploy for a quote mining creationist. The paper this is quoted from is available on line athttp://palaios.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/full/19/1/39 Let's look at the conclusions of this paper:
quote: No puzzlement left, no discrepancy, just normal stochastic processes. Not surprising, as what was quoted by Dr. John Whitmore was from the introduction, rather than the conclusion. Introductions frequently set out the issue that the paper then proceeds to explain.
quote: The biggest problem facing Dr. John Whitmore is that his model is completely incapable of explaining the fossil shells of different ages - in his model there cannot be shells that are "10s, 100s, or even 1000s of years old" - they could only be the same age for a single event burial. Thus we have a failure to show that normal processes can explain why the shells in question are fossilized, and we have a total failure to explain all the evidence.
So RAZD, wouldn't this make sense. If the fossils (former sea shells) were fragile and little, wouldn't they stand a better chance of being fossilized quickly in a catastrophic event as opposed to over thousands of years where yes, they would fall victim to the ocean silt and predators? I'm not an expert on this so I'm really just presenting the other side and throwing it out for discussion. It makes sense that the shells are buried, it does not make sense that only one burial event occurred, and it does not take an extraordinary catastrophic event to cause something that is observed to happen every year, with small silt and sand slides, year after year for billions of years. Nor does the simplistic concept of Dr. John Whitmore explain multiple layers of shells showing undisturbed habitat and mature ecology with the sessile fossils buried in situ, and then covered by another layer of the same, and another, and another .... Nor does the simplistic concept of Dr. John Whitmore explain the gradual change in morphology of shells from layer to layer to layer. Enjoy we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Flyer75, sorry for the delay - yesterday was too nice to spend indoors.
I have zero clue what the age or lifespan of a shell could be. Is that what we are referring to here or is it something else? If it is actual age, why could there NOT be more then one or more generations found together from one major event? There are two basic issues here: the age of the shells when fossilized and whether mature shells on mountains are evidence of a flood. The Age of the Shells
Dr. John Whitmore, in his article Should Fragile Shells Be Common in the Fossil Record? states:
quote: Curiously, the problem Dr. John Whitmore ignores, is that EITHER:
Dr. John Whitmore's simplistic concept does not explain the different ages of the shells prior to burial that are much too old ("10s, 100s, or even 1000s of years old"). The actual evidence shows that shells are of many different ages, often much older than they should be according to the claim that all such shells are "dissolve in sea water or are consumed by other organisms" and that, especially in the case of fragile shells, this normally occurs in less than a year unless the shells are buried and uncovered and buried again. Therefore multiple independent burials occurred. The simple fact of burial does not tell us the degree, scope or extent of the burial in question, as it does not distinguish one event from the other, and thus it is not evidence that it was global rather than local. Further, if there are more than one burial event then ONE at least must be local, and if EACH ONE is indistinguishable from the others, THEN they are all likely events of similar degree, scope or extent. Multiple local burial events explain the evidence much better than one single burial event. Are mature shells on mountains evidence of a flood? The noachin myth says the flood lasted less than 1 year, correct? So any evidence for the flood could only occur during that period of time. The problem once again is that EITHER:
Again, the actual evidence shows that shells of sessile organisms much older than 1 year occur in multiple layers, on mountain after mountain (including Everest). These fossils all show that the organisms involved lived for much more than 1 year, and that generation after generation of such organisms lived in a mature fully developed ecology. The evidence shows that this occurred multiple times in many different locations. Therefore they are evidence that each location was underwater for hundreds to thousands of years, at several different times. Further, if there are different numbers (all more than one)of underwater events in different locations, then ONE at least must be local, and if EACH ONE is indistinguishable from the others, THEN they are all likely events of similar degree, scope or extent. Multiple eon long duration underwater events explain the evidence much better than one single short year underwater event. Conclusions The evidence shows multiple burials has resulted in shells of different ages being fossilized, including shells that are much older than would occur if they were not buried. A single flood of 1 year or less duration does not explain the evidence of shells that are much older than would occur if they were not buried. The evidence shows multiple layers of mature ecosystems along with shells of sessile organisms that are much older than 1 year old, and that they grew over periods of many generations, for hundreds to thousands of years duration. A single flood of 1 year or less duration does not explain the evidence of generations of shell growth, with individual shells that are much older than could occur in 1 year in each generation. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Another good one is Ayers Rock
Which also shows wind erosion patterns similar to those seen in the Grand Canyon upper tiers. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
hi Percy,
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: Except uplift ... and the fact that the whole plateau slopes gently to the south (ie generally perpendicular to the canyon and why the north side is generally higher than the south side) Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Percy,
Rhetorical question: How could a real architect be unaware of such simple facts about the strength of materials? Answer: because they hire engineers to make their designs work. All the architect needs to do is draw pretty pictures and sell the pitch to the client. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Roxrkool,
My main beef with architects is their penchant for ... ... taking rocks for granite? Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024