Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Post Volume: Total: 918,044 Year: 5,301/9,624 Month: 326/323 Week: 170/160 Day: 6/38 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do creationists try to find and study fossils?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 121 of 182 (698300)
05-05-2013 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by jar
05-05-2013 10:02 AM


Re: a great example of how creationists do not study fossils.
Change leaves evidence.
Dig a trench and observe the layers of soil.
Dig a second trench a few yards away and observe the layers of soil.
First trench shows uniform soil top to bottom.
Second trench shows a series of alternating layers.
This is not something one would actually find in reality a few yards apart. As usual you are making stuff up rather than giving actual evidence, you the master complainer about others not giving evidnece. You're always the worst offender. In fact I don't think you even know what evidence is.
You can see from that that different processes happened at the two locations over time.
Even if such a situation did occur -- show me one -- the idea that one could see from it "different processes happening over time" is absolutely without warrant. Where are you getting such idiotic ideas?
You most certainly can date materials found in the two trenches, particularly if the material is only 10-50,000 years old.
Oh master of unsupported assertions. Good grief jar that's ALL you do assert assert assert. Where's your evidence?
PS: IF PERCY WANTS THIS THREAD TO STOP BEING ABOUT THE FLOOD HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO CALL OFF THE ANTI-CREATIONIST DOGS.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by jar, posted 05-05-2013 10:02 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by jar, posted 05-05-2013 10:21 AM Faith has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34116
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 122 of 182 (698301)
05-05-2013 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Faith
05-05-2013 10:04 AM


Re: a great example of how creationists do not study fossils.
Well folk can read the Grand Canyon thread and see if a Flood could explain what is presented or if it was an "idiotic thread".
But I note that you never presented the model or mechanisms to explain what is actually seen.
How does the Biblical Flood produce granite layers?
How does the Biblical Flood produce igneous layers and intrusions?
How does the Biblical Flood produce limestone layers?
How does the Biblical Flood sort the fossils by type?
How does the Biblical Flood produce alternating layers?
See this is the issue Faith, you answer to all that is just "the Flud Didit".

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 10:04 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 12:16 PM jar has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34116
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 123 of 182 (698302)
05-05-2013 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Faith
05-05-2013 10:10 AM


Re: a great example of how creationists do not study fossils.
Faith writes:
jar writes:
Change leaves evidence.
Dig a trench and observe the layers of soil.
Dig a second trench a few yards away and observe the layers of soil.
First trench shows uniform soil top to bottom.
Second trench shows a series of alternating layers.
This is not something one would actually find in reality a few yards apart. As usual you are making stuff up rather than giving actual evidence, you the master complainer about others not giving evidnece. You're always the worst offender. In fact I don't think you even know what evidence is.
Again, that is simply false; what I described is exactly what you find on the edges of any flood plain. It is something found all over the earth, time and time again.
AbE: this is a great example of how Creationists do NOT examine fossils or evidence.
Edited by jar, : see AbE:

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 10:10 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 12:19 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 124 of 182 (698304)
05-05-2013 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Faith
05-05-2013 9:02 AM


Re: Steve Austin Nautiloid Article
Well, Austin is the one who did the research on the orientation of the nautiloids so who else is he going to reference?
Umm, the purpose of a reference is to give someone a link to a source of more information. Referencing a person is done (e.g. "Fred Hemmerstein, 4 May 2013, personal communication"), but it's not encouraged. Referencing himself for the claim of orientation of the nautiloids is definitely inappropriate. If he wants to make that claim, he should present the evidence (photographs, etc.) in the paper in which he's making the claim or reference a source other than himself. If there's no source other than himself, there's no reason to make a reference, and then there's no excuse for not presenting the data in the paper.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 9:02 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Coragyps, posted 05-05-2013 11:36 AM JonF has not replied
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 12:21 PM JonF has replied
 Message 129 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 12:37 PM JonF has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 840 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 125 of 182 (698309)
05-05-2013 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by JonF
05-05-2013 10:34 AM


Re: Steve Austin Nautiloid Article
Yeah - "cuz I said so" would not fly, even here in the oil industry, where we are sloppy as hell with references/peer review.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by JonF, posted 05-05-2013 10:34 AM JonF has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 126 of 182 (698312)
05-05-2013 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by jar
05-05-2013 10:14 AM


Re: a great example of how creationists do not study fossils.
But I note that you never presented the model or mechanisms to explain what is actually seen.
How odd, I'm sure I did but I'll have to check later.
How does the Biblical Flood produce granite layers?
It doesn't, the volcano beneath the canyon did that in conjunction with the enormous weight of the stack of wet sediments above which at that point was at least two miles in depth or height.
How does the Biblical Flood produce igneous layers and intrusions?
Again, the volcano beneath the canyon did that.
How does the Biblical Flood produce limestone layers?
By transporting and deposting bazillions of sea creatures, coccoliths for instance, or crinoids, in a layer which is then pressed down by the weight of other layers that accumulate over it as the Flood progresses.
How does the Biblical Flood sort the fossils by type?
Presumably by some hydraulic principle that has nothing to do with the "type" as understood by evolutionists.
How does the Biblical Flood produce alternating layers?
The same way rivers do.
See this is the issue Faith, you answer to all that is just "the Flud Didit".
Oh no it's not and it never was, I do have answers and I gave them above, and not only now but many times in the past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by jar, posted 05-05-2013 10:14 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by jar, posted 05-05-2013 12:41 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 127 of 182 (698313)
05-05-2013 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by jar
05-05-2013 10:21 AM


Re: a great example of how creationists do not study fossils.
Oh I see, bait and switch, or do you still beat your wife?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by jar, posted 05-05-2013 10:21 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 128 of 182 (698314)
05-05-2013 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by JonF
05-05-2013 10:34 AM


Re: Steve Austin Nautiloid Article
Perhaps you are correct about the most proper form, but he referenced his own book because that's where he discussed the research he did to show the directional orientation of the nautiloids. Referencing books is standard scholarly procedure as I've always understood it. Most likely his space was limited in the article.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by JonF, posted 05-05-2013 10:34 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by JonF, posted 05-05-2013 1:16 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 129 of 182 (698316)
05-05-2013 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by JonF
05-05-2013 10:34 AM


Re: Steve Austin Nautiloid Article
It's funny how creationists are so often given the ad hominem treatment here, finding fault with something, anything at all, about them personally or how their work was presented, instead of any attempt to deal with the argument itself. Surely Austin described his conclusions from the nautiloid orientations in the article and if they demonstrate what he claims for them why not address that? Because you can't stand it if a creationist is ever right about something, you have to hope to find out that he's wrong and that's all you care about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by JonF, posted 05-05-2013 10:34 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by JonF, posted 05-05-2013 1:31 PM Faith has not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34116
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 130 of 182 (698317)
05-05-2013 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Faith
05-05-2013 12:16 PM


Re: a great example of how creationists do not study fossils.
Faith writes:
jar writes:
How does the Biblical Flood produce granite layers?
It doesn't, the volcano beneath the canyon did that in conjunction with the enormous weight of the stack of wet sediments above which at that point was at least two miles in depth or height.
Again, if you had actually looked honestly at the evidence you would know you are simply making shit up again.
Faith writes:
jar writes:
How does the Biblical Flood produce igneous layers and intrusions?
Again, the volcano beneath the canyon did that.
Except once again, the evidence shows you are just full of shit. What we see is that there was no single volcanic even or that the igneous layers were laid down from below.
Faith writes:
jar writes:
How does the Biblical Flood produce limestone layers?
By transporting and deposting bazillions of sea creatures, coccoliths for instance, or crinoids, in a layer which is then pressed down by the weight of other layers that accumulate over it as the Flood progresses.
More really stupid bullshit.
How does the Biblical Flood transport and deposit a layer of just one type critter?
Faith writes:
jar writes:
How does the Biblical Flood sort the fossils by type?
Presumably by some hydraulic principle that has nothing to do with the "type" as understood by evolutionists.
So again you are just making shit up.
Faith writes:
jar writes:
How does the Biblical Flood produce alternating layers?
The same way rivers do.
Rivers produce layers by happening over and over and over again. Rivers do not produce layers in one event.
Again, you are simply showing that like all Creationists you do not honestly examine fossils look for evidence, you just make shit up that suits what you want reality to be.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 12:16 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 1:13 PM jar has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 131 of 182 (698318)
05-05-2013 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by jar
05-05-2013 12:41 PM


Re: a great example of how creationists do not study fossils.
I have a different theory from yours, jar, you don't like it but that's the way it is. I've argued for the formation of the granite and the igneous intrustions and the schist as well by the volcanic eruption beneath the canyon, for which all that is evidence, but also the fact that the whole area is raised in a mound is further evidence for it. I also believe that eruption caused the breaking up and washing away of the upper strata above the current Permian rim, the scouring effects of the chunks of strata being what carved out the canyon to such a prodigious width and depth.
It's my analysis of what I see on the diagrams. I can just as well say that establishment geology "makes up ...." as you can of my theory, and with better justification.
How did the Flood sort the sediments at all is what you are asking? I don't know. How does the ocean lay down sand grains to make beaches? I figure the sorting done by the Flood must have a lot to do with the fact that ocean water is naturally sorted into layers, and also currents and also wave action. The Coconino sandstone extends almost all the way across the North American continent from west to east, suggesting it was deposited by waves, or one great wave. Other layers show a similar if not quite as extensive formation.
As you point out, rivers don't produce layers in just one event, and Neither would the Flood have produced layers in just one event. Even one layer may be laid down by a succession of waves, but certainly the different sediments are carried on successive waves. The Flood would have had many stages, and the deposition of the fossil-laden sediments was probably in the end stage.
I believe I've come to my theory honestly, from reading up on various aspects of geology and studying diagrams of the Grand Canyon among other thingsl.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by jar, posted 05-05-2013 12:41 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by jar, posted 05-05-2013 1:22 PM Faith has replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 132 of 182 (698319)
05-05-2013 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Faith
05-05-2013 12:21 PM


Re: Steve Austin Nautiloid Article
Perhaps you are correct about the most proper form, but he referenced his own book because that's where he discussed the research he did to show the directional orientation of the nautiloids. Referencing books is standard scholarly procedure as I've always understood it. Most likely his space was limited in the article.
He didn't reference his book. It is perfectly fine to reference a book, but he didn't. As Percy first pointed out, the reference for nautiloids at Were Grand Canyon Limestones Deposited by Calm and Placid Seas? is "[13] Observation of Steven A. Austin in Nautiloid Canyon, April 1989."
Yeah, probably his space was limited. If he couldn't present the supporting information there, he should have referenced something that contains the information, or skipped the claim entirely.
At Nautiloid Mass-Kill Event he claims to have measured the orientation of 71 nautiloids. But he doesn't give any statistics; were all of them oriented in exactly the same direction, or was there some variation? He says that several things led him to conclude catastrophic deposition, but he doesn't provide any data.
At Another Visit to the Grand Canyon Prof. Steve S. Steve writes:
quote:
We evaluated a number of creationist arguments on the trip. For example, in his book, Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, Steve Austin claims that the long axes of nautiloid fossils are disproportionally oriented in the same direction, and in papers he has presented at geology conferences, he says that this is evidence for their having been the result of a catastrophic, mass kill. But when we looked at nautiloids on Seven Cave Shelf and in Nautiloid Canyon, Gish pointed out that even if there was a tendency for the fossils to be oriented the way Austin says they are, they could be that way just because the current carried them there; there is no necessity for catastrophic burial nor evidence for a mass kill. Gish pointed out that, in fact, these fossils looked like they had died normally rather than catastrophically. Their body chambers and distal ends had dropped off, leaving the central, body portion intact — which is what happens when a nautiloid dies, floats, and disintegrates over time. Had they been buried catastrophically by the Flood, they would have been smashed into bits. I think they are pretty fossils:

Too bad the picture doesn't clearly show the fossils.
Of course, that is also lacking in scientific data, but isn't a scientific paper and it does give us some reason to believe that catastrophic deposition isn't the only explanation. Austin has much more work to do if he wants to establish his claim. So far his scholarship looks pretty shoddy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 12:21 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 1:29 PM JonF has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34116
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 133 of 182 (698321)
05-05-2013 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Faith
05-05-2013 1:13 PM


Re: a great example of how creationists do not study fossils.
No Faith, you don't have a theory. Again, that is simply another example of the dishonesty of Creationists.
I believe you actually think you are being honest; I don't doubt you believe you are actually studying things or have a theory or have offered explanations.
What you believe is unrelated to either the truth or reality.
And the Biblical Flood was one event according to the Bible.
I asked how the Biblical Flood could produce layers of limestone. Not just one layer but a series of layers of limestone. Unless you can produce the mechanism that does produce a series of layers of limestone separated by layers produced by other processes you have no theory.
Creationists do not try to find and study anything. Period.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 1:13 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 1:31 PM jar has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 134 of 182 (698322)
05-05-2013 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by JonF
05-05-2013 1:16 PM


Re: Steve Austin Nautiloid Article
The orientation of the nautiloids was only one factor discussed to demonstrate the catastrophic nature of their deposition. The fact that every size and age of nautiloid is represented is another piece of evidence, showing that the whole population of nautiloids died at the same time, not just the aged or whatever would have occurred randomly and normally. Also the huge number of them, in a limestone layer spread over thousands of square miles in the canyon and out to Nevada and California, is evidence for catastrophic burial.
No evidence for catastrophic burial or a mass kill? He must be joking.
All this is covered in that video by Paul Garner I linked back a ways.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by JonF, posted 05-05-2013 1:16 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by JonF, posted 05-05-2013 1:40 PM Faith has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 135 of 182 (698323)
05-05-2013 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Faith
05-05-2013 12:37 PM


Re: Steve Austin Nautiloid Article
Surely Austin described his conclusions from the nautiloid orientations in the article and if they demonstrate what he claims for them why not address that
See my message above. In this particular case, I didn't engage his arguments because there isn't enough data available. Perhaps it's available in his book, but I don't have it and (at least in several articles) he didn't reference it.
It's not ad-hominem to point out sloppy scholarship. And sloppy scholarship is a reason to question (not disprove) unfounded claims.
Ar Bibliolatry Revisited: Review: Grand Canyon (to which Percy linked previously, we find a good example of specific detail:
quote:
...Austin has devoted considerable effort in recent years to the study of a decidedly non-random fossil occurrence in the Grand Canyon, the nautiloids near the top of the Whitmore Wash Member, the lowest unit of the Mississippian Redwall Limestone.
These nautiloids were free-floating, chambered cephalopods, similar to the modern nautilus, but they were straight (orthocone) instead of coiled, and averaged about 45 cm long. They occur in an approximately 2 m thick horizon, overlain by a chert-rich zone of the Thundersprings Member of the Redwall Limestone (Beus and Morales 2003: 115). Austin (GCDV, p 52) writes, ... this fossil bed occupies an area of at least 5700 square miles and contains an average of one fossilized nautiloid per square yard. He interprets this as having been caused by a catastrophic event of regional extent, resulting in a mass-kill of an entire population of nautiloids, an event caused by a massive sandy debris flow. In oral presentations (Austin and Wise 1995; Austin and others 1999), Austin described this debris flow as a hyperconcentrated flow that he likened to a pyroclastic density current or ignimbrite, moving over a very gentle gradient, and he also stressed the common association of the nautiloids with vertical structures he calls water-escape pipes. All this he takes as a manifestation of Noah’s Flood (GCDV, p 53).
It would take a great deal of space to discuss fully Austin’s ideas about this interesting occurrence. Such a discussion would have to consider the following issues: (i) Is the number of nautiloids exaggerated and is extrapolation to such a large area justified? (ii) Is the interpretation of a mass-kill event warranted? (iii) Why are such fossil concentrations usually attributed to accumulation over long intervals during which sedimentation was restricted? (iv) Is the mechanism of a high velocity hyperconcentrated flow that moved enormous distances over a low gradient probable, and is it required by the structural and textural nature of the deposit? Austin knows these occurrences better than anyone and should answer these questions.
I have examined these nautiloids in only a few localities within the Grand Canyon National Park, to which he was kind enough to direct me, where I noted that a nautiloid fossil occurred about once every 4 or 5 square meters. From this I infer that either Austin has collected most of the samples from these localities or the abundance of nautiloids claimed is exaggerated. However, unlike Austin, I hesitate to extrapolate from observations at a few isolated localities to a huge area. Furthermore, most of the nautiloid fossils I saw, and that Austin illustrates, were intact. Could they have survived the turbulence that must occur in a fast moving, subaqueous, debris flow? In nature, mass-kill events certainly occur by red tides, volcanic eruptions, and storm-induced processes flows, for example. However, in order to recognize a mass-kill, we need to understand the population structure of the animals concerned, and to consider factors such as episodic spawning, variable growth rates, the complex diurnal behavior of cephalopods, and so on.
Evidence bearing on the question Did this nautiloid assemblage accumulate instantaneously or over many generations? should be present in the deposit itself. Do the dolomitization and the prominent chert horizon overlying the nautiloid bed represent diagenesis during a hiatus in deposition? Similarly, are Austin’s water escape tubes actually poorly preserved animal burrows (Skolithos)? High concentrations of fossil nautiloids occur elsewhere, for example, in Morocco and in the Czech Republic. Ferretti and Krz (1995) describe several such examples in the Silurian of the Prague Basin and attribute them to the effects of surface currents or re-deposition in shallower environments by storm events during broad scale fluctuations in sea level. Why not the same in the Grand Canyon?
None of this disproves Austin's claim, but there certainly a lot of questions that are answered only in his book, if at all, The fact that he didn't reference his book makes it seem as if there's no place that the data and answers to these pretty obvious questions aren't there.
But I'll find out. I'll have the book on Wednesday (used from Amazon, so I'm not supporting the ICR). We'll see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 12:37 PM Faith has 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