Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Great Creationist Fossil Failure
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 91 of 1163 (786249)
06-19-2016 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by jar
06-19-2016 10:56 AM


Re: The Redwall Limestone: A Case In Point
No, you mean YOU and the other apologists take it to refer to the LAND; but it does not say land.
I think that's a reasonable interpretation, though. No-one would read the Book of Genesis and think it meant that all the fish drowned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by jar, posted 06-19-2016 10:56 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by jar, posted 06-19-2016 12:29 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 92 of 1163 (786250)
06-19-2016 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Faith
06-19-2016 10:54 AM


Re: The Redwall Limestone: A Case In Point
"Antediluvian" means pre-Flood. The Flood built ALL the strata, not just the Precambrian rocks.
So why, then, are you explaining lobsters (for example) as creatures that "came later"? There are fossil lobsters. Ergo, there were lobsters living at the time of the Flood, along with the trilobites. So why are they never found in the same fossil beds?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Faith, posted 06-19-2016 10:54 AM Faith has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 93 of 1163 (786252)
06-19-2016 12:17 PM


Why are some fossils bone and some stone?
I think it is interesting that older vertebrate fossils found in lower strata are always stone and younger vertebrates found in upper strata are still bone.
These two animals were supposedly killed and buried by the same flood, so why aren't they both stone? Paleontology has a reasonable answer, but creationists, not so much.
I apologize for the poor quality of the images, they were made with my phone. They were taken at the Wyoming Dinosaur Center in Thermopolis, WY.
This museum was my first experience seeing a whole bunch of dinosaur fossils on display and they have a beautiful collection fossils of every sort imaginable, including an Archaeopteryx lithographica.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 94 of 1163 (786254)
06-19-2016 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Dr Adequate
06-19-2016 11:27 AM


Re: The Redwall Limestone: A Case In Point
DA writes:
No-one would read the Book of Genesis and think it meant that all the fish drowned.
No one would think the fish drowned BUT rather that the story says they would be destroyed, killed.
Genesis 7 writes:
For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights;and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
Not what the story actually says. The god characters says Every Living Thing that I have made I will Destroy. Not just every land animal. Not just animals and not plants, but every living thing I have made.
Seems pretty clear to me that includes what is in the sea.
BUT, as I pointed out to Faith, even if you take it to mean just land animals or just stuff that is on land, it still does not explain the reality of what does exist.
Why are no modern fish, modern crustaceans, modern sea mammals or modern animals every found in the same layer as those critters anywhere in the world?
Why is there a layer above the Redwall that does contain fossils of winged insects, vertebrate animals, ferns and other land plants but none of the critters found in the Redwall formation?
And then why above that layer is there a layer that has sand dunes and tracks of scorpions and millipedes and lizard like critters.
And then even higher there is a layer with corals and terrestrial plants and other animals and shark teeth?
If this is all the result of some flood, how did the flood sort the critters it buries in exactly the order expected if each layer represents what would have been living at the time the layer was put down?
If the flood is burying and killing what is living at the time, how does the flood you assert happened sort the various fossils into different types of materials and different layers?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-19-2016 11:27 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 95 of 1163 (786259)
06-19-2016 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by edge
06-19-2016 11:12 AM


Re: The Redwall Limestone: A Case In Point
It seems like you are saying that lobster-like creatures evolved during the fludde.
WHy does it seem like I'm saying that?
I don't know why you asked about lobsters anyway, so I just pointed out that they occur higher in the geo column than the Pre-Cambrian.
Or are you saying that there are not rocks that are pre-fludde so that you don't have to provide evidence for your statement?
What? I don't know what you are saying. Creationists believe the flood deposited everything from the Cambrian up, but I think it had to have deposited all the strata including pre-Cambrian strata. But I have no idea what you are saying or insinuating.
Well, it turns out that we do have marine fossils older than the Jurassic, so where are the precursors from which the Jurassic creatures micro-evolved?
What?
The only thing I said microevolved is TODAY's creatures, that evolved from pre-Flood creatures. I didn't say anyting about Jurassic creatures microevolving. Like all the rest of the fossils in the entire geo column they all died in the Flood and that's what we see in all the strata -- creatures that died in the Flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by edge, posted 06-19-2016 11:12 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by edge, posted 06-19-2016 2:23 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 96 of 1163 (786260)
06-19-2016 1:55 PM


The last dozen or so posts to me are utterly incomprehensible. I have no idea what anybody is saying. I'm not going to answer each one just to say that and that's all I have to say. None of it makes any sense. Lobsters, nothng.

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-19-2016 2:42 PM Faith has replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(1)
Message 97 of 1163 (786264)
06-19-2016 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Faith
06-19-2016 10:54 AM


Re: The Redwall Limestone: A Case In Point
By the Carboniferous, all the other major groups of crustaceans are present except for the Eucarida.
'Group' is, of course, a fairly vague concept. The quote above may leave you thinking that there is only one small, obscure group of crustaceans we don't find in Carboniferous rocks. Eucarida is, however, a vast and enormously diverse group. It includes almost every animal the average person would think of when you said 'crustacean' - crabs, lobsters and shrimps are all Eucaridans. And none are ever found in pre-Jurassic rocks, anywhere in the world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Faith, posted 06-19-2016 10:54 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Faith, posted 06-19-2016 2:20 PM caffeine has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 98 of 1163 (786266)
06-19-2016 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by caffeine
06-19-2016 2:08 PM


Re: The Redwall Limestone: A Case In Point
I didn't get why I was being asked about lobsters at all and I still don't and I'm sorry I answered at all because it's utterly irrelevant to anything I've said as far as I can tell.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by caffeine, posted 06-19-2016 2:08 PM caffeine has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 99 of 1163 (786267)
06-19-2016 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Faith
06-19-2016 1:50 PM


Re: The Redwall Limestone: A Case In Point
WHy does it seem like I'm saying that?
Because you said that they came along later than the antedeluvial creatures.
I don't know why you asked about lobsters anyway, so I just pointed out that they occur higher in the geo column than the Pre-Cambrian.
So, where were they when the Precambrian deposits occurred?
What?
The only thing I said microevolved is TODAY's creatures, that evolved from pre-Flood creatures.
And I'm asking what pre-flood creature did the lobster micro-evolve from?
I didn't say anyting about Jurassic creatures microevolving.
The picture you showed was from a Jurassic species.
It wasn't pre-flood.
Like all the rest of the fossils in the entire geo column they all died in the Flood and that's what we see in all the strata -- creatures that died in the Flood.
Or creatures that just died in any body of water.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Faith, posted 06-19-2016 1:50 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Faith, posted 06-19-2016 3:07 PM edge has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 100 of 1163 (786269)
06-19-2016 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by edge
06-19-2016 10:30 AM


Re: conflicting creationist mechanisms
That whole article sounds to me like people setting out to catch Austin in some kind of error or lie, the tone is unpleasantly suspicious. It sounds like all the posts here, all creationists are liars etc etc etc.
And it's still hard for me to believe that he actually meant he hadn't previously been a creationist or catastrophist before Mt. St. Helens. I would assume he misspoke, and she should have given him a chance to correct it or affirm it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by edge, posted 06-19-2016 10:30 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by edge, posted 06-19-2016 2:36 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 101 of 1163 (786271)
06-19-2016 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Faith
06-19-2016 2:26 PM


Re: conflicting creationist mechanisms
That whole article sounds to me like people setting out to catch Austin in some kind of error or lie, ...
And it appears that they did so. Most of us don't like to be lied to.
Maybe it's different for YECs.
... the tone is unpleasantly suspicious. It sounds like all the posts here, all creationists are liars etc etc etc.
If there is an alternative, we'd love to see it.
Sorry, but it takes too many leaps of logic to make that case. Just average, run of the mill students don't write articles for ICR.
And it's still hard for me to believe that he actually meant he hadn't previously been a creationist or catastrophist before Mt. St. Helens.
Unless he intended to deceive. If you read his article, you'd see that he rings all the YEC bells long before he became a YEC.
I would assume he misspoke, and she should have given him a chance to correct it or affirm it.
Well, he could have cleared things up right there on the spot.
And no, a PhD in Geology should not misspeak about such things. Are you saying that he is incompetent?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Faith, posted 06-19-2016 2:26 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 102 of 1163 (786272)
06-19-2016 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Faith
06-19-2016 1:55 PM


The last dozen or so posts to me are utterly incomprehensible. I have no idea what anybody is saying.
Did you understand post #77?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Faith, posted 06-19-2016 1:55 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Faith, posted 06-19-2016 3:19 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 103 of 1163 (786275)
06-19-2016 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by edge
06-19-2016 2:23 PM


Re: The Redwall Limestone: A Case In Point
WHy does it seem like I'm saying that?
Because you said that they came along later than the antedeluvial creatures.
Where did I say that?. Please give a link. You had said something about Precambrian lobsters and seemed to be equating Precambrian with pre-Flood. All I did was find an article that showed lobsters much higher in the geo column, but ALL Of the geo column is during the Flood. I wouldn't say "later," though perhaps the article did. To me "later" is simply higher in the strata.
I don't know why you asked about lobsters anyway, so I just pointed out that they occur higher in the geo column than the Pre-Cambrian.
So, where were they when the Precambrian deposits occurred?
How on earth could anyone answer such a question? How would anyone know where they were? I guess they were being carried in the water waiting to be buried a few layers above the Precambrian. Sheesh.
What?
The only thing I said microevolved is TODAY's creatures, that evolved from pre-Flood creatures.
And I'm asking what pre-flood creature did the lobster micro-evolve from?
This whole conversation needs to start over. Dr. A posted a bunch of challenges about fossils that are related to "modern" living creatures but are very different from them as if that fact somehow contradicts the Flood. I said on the contrary it's exactly what we'd expect: that creatures living before the Flood would be different versions of creatures living today, and my explanation is that we expect them to have changed, or microevolved, from whichever of them survived the Flood. It's a perfectly reasonable general statement. Why you are now coming along and demanding that I account for lobsters makes no sense, has nothing to do with my answer to Dr. A. which is that we WOULD expect the pre-Flood creatures to be different from today's living "modern" versions. (Not all, but most: I'm aware there are some living today that look like the fossil versions, but his list was only about the ones that are different.)This has nothing to do with any SPECIFIC creature like the lobster.
I didn't say anything about Jurassic creatures microevolving.
The picture you showed was from a Jurassic species.
I showed a picture? Besides I don't recognize a "Jurassic species." All the fossils were living before the Flood, all died in the Flood, the Flood conditions being perfect for fossilization.
It wasn't pre-flood.
Like all the rest of the fossils in the entire geo column they all died in the Flood and that's what we see in all the strata -- creatures that died in the Flood.
Or creatures that just died in any body of water.
I'm trying to explain the Flood point of view.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by edge, posted 06-19-2016 2:23 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-19-2016 3:22 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 104 of 1163 (786277)
06-19-2016 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Dr Adequate
06-19-2016 2:42 PM


I believe I answered Message 77 adequately. You thought that since there are only "ancient" versions of the creatures you list represented in the Redwall collection of fossils, none of which looks like the "modern" versions thereof, that this can't be accounted for by the Flood.
I believe I accounted for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-19-2016 2:42 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 105 of 1163 (786278)
06-19-2016 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Faith
06-19-2016 3:07 PM


Re: The Redwall Limestone: A Case In Point
This whole conversation needs to start over. Dr. A posted a bunch of challenges about fossils that are related to "modern" living creatures but are very different from them as if that fact somehow contradicts the Flood.
But these modern living creatures are also very similar to dead fossil creatures, which would have lived in the Flood. But these, living and dead, are markedly different from the fauna of the Carboniferous.
Let's try it again.
We have fossils of trilobites and lobsters --- both arthropods, both living (you would say) at the time of the Flood.
We have fossils of blastoids and sand-dollars --- both living (you would say) at the time of the Flood.
We have fossils of rugose coral and stony coral --- both living (you would say) at the time of the Flood.
And somehow, the flood waters managed to sort the trilobites, the blastoids and the rugose corals together, distinguishing them from the lobsters, the sand-dollars, and the stony corals. How? How did the Flood never ever get muddled and put a lobster alongside a rugose coral, or a sand-dollar in the same bed as a trilobite? How did this inanimate water sloshing around conspire with radioactive decay to construct the illusion of the Carboniferous?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Faith, posted 06-19-2016 3:07 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Faith, posted 06-19-2016 3:26 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024