|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Great Creationist Fossil Failure | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The rift that separated the Americas from Europe and Africa divided them down to the ocean floor and includes the Atlantic RIDGE between them that continuously burps up magma and continues to push them apart. This supposedly occurred during the Permian period. I would expect some disturbance of strata , and so should you.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
The scale has nothing to do with the point I was making. I made it, it's made.
Then you will notice that the dip of the Chalk (on the right) is less than the dip of the Red Sandstone (on the left). The scale exaggeration actually accents this difference. Also, you should look at the more detailed cross-section that I presented, which also shows the Great Unconformity along with some lesser unconformities. And the question still remains, what about the progression of fossils from left to right on either section. How do you explain the definitive differences? Smith made a point, but all you do is ignore it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Your comments about the strata have no bearing on my point as far as I can tell from your utter lack of explanatory comment.
As for the fossil order I already said there isn't yet a clear explanation from the Flood point of view. The explanations that have been tried all have some merit, but none is conclusive and all have problems. So there is no point in focusing on it. There are plenty of other arguments that support the Flood and blast the ToE to smithereens. ABE: Since this is all off topic, and there is no creationist answer to the OP, I think this is my last post on this thread. You should soon run out of things to say with no creationist to bash. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
The rift that separated the Americas from Europe and Africa divided them down to the ocean floor and includes the Atlantic RIDGE between them that continuously burps up magma and continues to push them apart. This supposedly occurred during the Permian period. I would expect some disturbance of strata , and so should you. Yes, the rifting of the Atlantic caused and is still causing the production of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Do you know where, Faith? In the middle of the Atlantic. Hence the name, Faith. This is why it isn't called the Mid-British Ridge. See, the tectonic activity takes place where the tectonic activity takes place, and not somewhere else. The rifting began in the Jurassic, not the Permian, so you're out by about a hundred million years. Don't you ever look anything up? --- Now, would you like to try being wrong about fossils You remember fossils, Faith? Mineralized organic remains that are the subject of this freakin' thread. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes, the rifting of the Atlantic caused and is still causing the production of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Do you know where, Faith? In the middle of the Atlantic. Hence the name, Faith. This is why it isn't called the Mid-British Ridge. See, the tectonic activity takes place where the tectonic activity takes place, and not somewhere else. I'm starting to worry about your thinking processes, Dr. A. When the rift occurred it split the continents exactly where the UK happens to sit, right on the western edge of the European continent. There was no Atlantic ridge as yet because there was no Atlantic Ocean as yet. I looked up the stuff a long time ago. Since there are no millions of years and this is all a hypothetical argument anyway it hardly matters which Fake Time Period it supposedly occurred in --there should be evidence of disturbance whenever it was. It's pretty clear to me that the split ACTUALLY occurred during the end phase of the Flood or shortly thereafter, probably in connection with a lot of volcanic activity at all the rifts between the various splitting continents, that this all occurred after all the strata were laid down, and that it shook things up quite a bit, producing mountains on both sides of the opening Atlantic, causing the deformation of the strata as shown on the cross sections of England posted. And the same shaking-up accounts for ALL the tectonic deformations everywhere on earth, including the cutting of the Grand Canyon. Though I think the Rockies formed later, or at least more slowly, by the continuous tectonic pushing of the continents after the drift was underway. But as this is all off topic I really should leave you and edge to your Cooperative Creationist Bashing enterprise. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
There is evidence of disturbance. It's called the Atlantic Ocean. It's quite big.
Now, would you please try to be wrong about fossils?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
There is nothing to say about the fossil order, why do you keep nagging about it?
The disturbance in question should have occurred to the layers associated with the supposed time the rift occurred. You need to show a distinction between disturbance to the Jurassic layers and those underlying it, and the rest of the strata of England. There is none. I'm trying to respect the topic of your thread by leaving it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
There is nothing to say about the fossil order, why do you keep nagging about it? It's the topic.
The disturbance in question should have occurred to the layers associated with the supposed time the rift occurred. And the rift did indeed tear right through the sedimentary rocks already laid down and then went on into the igneous basement rock. Now try being wrong about fossils.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
IT SHOULD HAVE DISTURBED THE JURASSIC LAYERS ON DOWN, AND NOT DISTURBED THE HIGHER LAYERS BECAUSE THEY WEREN"T LAID DOWN YET. SHEESH.
You're wrong about that and you're wrong about where the rift occurred in relation to the UK.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
IT SHOULD HAVE DISTURBED THE JURASSIC LAYERS ON DOWN, AND NOT DISTURBED THE HIGHER LAYERS BECAUSE THEY WEREN"T LAID DOWN YET. SHEESH.
If anyone is interested, Google 'passive margin' and see what turns up. You're wrong about that and you're wrong about where the rift occurred in relation to the UK. It will explain Faith's confusion on this issue. It turns out that the west edge of the European tectonic plate is a passive margin. In fact, it was so passive that the great Chalk could be deposited during the Cretaceous Period, trillions of tiny coccoliths raining down on a quiet sea floor for millions of years. Impossible, of course, according to YEC dogma. But it is the nature of passive margins to have a minimal amount of deformation compared to other types of plate boundaries. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
And Faith, note edge's use of the word is. The Atlantic is still --- measurably --- rifting. It does so at the Mid-Atlantic Rift. That's where all the tectonic fireworks are, the earthquakes, the volcanoes, the black smokers, the lava flows, and Iceland. The passive margins are passive, in accordance with the expectations of geologists and of people generally who aren't you.
Now say something about fossils. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Just saw your post, haven't seen edge's. The margins are passive NOW, but when the magma rose up THROUGH the supercontinent right on the edge of where the UK is now, which I think was positioned up against where Greenland is now -- both sides of the rift had to have been affected, disturbed, deformed. Tthe continents were TOGETHER then, ONE HUGE SUPERCONTINENT that spanned west to east from California to China oir Siberia or something like that -- the rift SPLIT them, the Atlantic ridge was formed IN THE RIFT, but was not the Atlantic ridge as we know it until the continents were fairly far apart; and the volcanic action was probably a lot of the reason FOR the rift, and it was RIGHT THERE dividing the British Isles from the AMerican continent. There was no Atlantic Ocean until the continents had moved apart sufficiently. Really, Dear Dear Dr. A, there is something wrong with your thinker on this subject.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
WHEN THE CONTINENTS SPLIT, at that very point where the volcanic action was happening at the very rift where it split, any passive margin would have suffered some active disturbance.
Since there is NO sign of any disturbance to a select number of layers from the Jurassic down, but only to ALL of them after they were ALL in place, perhaps it's fair to say that the degree of disturbance we see in the upended strata can be called "minimal." But it is definitely disturbed and not in the "time period" where Geology says the continents separated, but AFTER all of them were in place --which is when it seems to me the Creationist to be somewhere around the last weeks of the abating of the Flood waters, or later or earlier but somewhere in THAT time period. There is certainly disturbance there in those deformed rocks of which Merrie Olde England is composed. The passive margin seems to have nothing to do with the observed phenomena. Your problem is that your brain is locked in to establishment Geology. You don't know how to think outside the box. The Great Chalk was deposited during the Flood, apparently at the level called Cretaceous. It has nothing to do with millions of years of time. The continents did not split until after the Flood so the supercontinent would have been intact when the chalk was deposited as a layer, the rift not forming until ALL the strata were laid down right through the "Recent" time periods. ABE: I agree with Asgara that all this is off topic. I have nothing to say about the fossils as presented in the OP. So I'm gone from this thread. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2331 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
Please tie any more posts into paleontology. The topic is, after all, The Great Creationist FOSSIL Failure.
Geology is fine as long as it has something to do with fossils.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Against my better judgement, ... .
In the past you have proclaimed that where an organism was buried has nothing at all to do when it existed. That defies all possible logic. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It's like the completely idiotic creationist argument that since Niagara Falls is only 9000 to 11,000 years old, then that limits the maximum age of the earth, much as the fact that our family dog is 18 years old limits the maximum age of the earth to 18 years. Please explain your logic, because it is not shared by any other sentient being in existence ... except perhaps for other creationists, but then the consideration of sentience then becomes moot. Please consider these basic questions. If layer A lies atop layer B, is it not reasonable to assume that layer B was laid down before layer A? Regardless of how much time had transpired between the two depositations. If you disagree, then please state your objections. We observe layers A, B, C, and D. A lies atop B, which lies atop C, which lies atop D. Can we not assume that that is the sequence in which they were deposited? If not, then do explain why not. If we find the fossil of an organism within layer B, can we not assume that that organism must have been present when layer B was deposited? If not, then do explain why not. In other words, it does make complete sense that the organisms whose remains are found in the various layers were indeed around when those layers were deposited. It does not matter what absolute time period that happened. Layer A was deposited after B which was deposited after C which was deposited after D. Regardless of any absolute dating of the layers, we know full well what the relative dating of those layers are. So if something was buried in layer D, then that had to have happened when D was being deposited. So when we find something deposited in C, we know that it was buried after that something in D was buried. Relative dating! So then, yes Faith, the presence of a fossil within a given layer does indeed have everything to do with when it existed. Ages do indeed correspond with layers. You may not agree with the ages assigned to a given layer, but you cannot possibly disagree that the age of something buried within a given layer must agree with the age of that given layer. If you disagree, then please explain yourself. Claiming adherence to an inflexible dogma is not an acceptable explanation. Especially considering that that is the explanation for your own untenable position.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024