|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Great Creationist Fossil Failure | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Many non-marine sediments are deposited by water, i.e. sediments deposited in rivers and lakes. I fail to see how any of the strata, which are so uniform to the naked eye, as to general form, could have had completely different sources of deposition. Yes I know if you peer at the details you can come up with these differences, but deposits in rivers and lakes just can't look the same as the strata all look.
Many sedimentary layers do not have flat bottoms, because they were deposited on top of a non-flat surface. Yes but there aren't many of these in the Geo Column.
Some of them do not have flat tops: for example, the foreset beds of a delta lie on a slope. No doubt, but there are no strata such as in the GC that could have been deposited in a delta.
Volcanic ash lies more or less flat because it is evenly distributed, there is no reason why it should pile up more in one place than some directly adjacent spot. True but you'd have to show me a layer of ash that looks like the strata I'm talking about.
Lava flows lie flat because lava when liquid is self-leveling. Same answer as above for ash.
The mechanics of sand dunes and their lithification has been explained to you at some length and with references. If you don't show me where this explanation was given I have no reason to take you seriously when you keep saying stuff like this. No matter how you explain it I remain unconvinced that dunes could ever be compressed into a slab of rock like the Coconino sandstone with its flat top and bottom. Lithified yes, but shaped like a layer of sandstone among other layers of the geo column, no.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Sweeping generalizations detector has kicked in...
Amongst other things:
Lava flows lie flat because lava when liquid is self-leveling. Gee, how did those Hawaiian islands form? Moose
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I fail to see how any of the strata, which are so uniform to the naked eye, as to general form ... Wrong. Stop making stuff up. Look, here's a picture of river sediment. Even you would not think it has the same "general form" as a lake.
Yes but there aren't many of these in the Geo Column. There are in fact quite a lot. Stop making stuff up.
No doubt, but there are no strata such as in the GC that could have been deposited in a delta. There are in fact quite a lot. Stop making stuff up. They are of particular interest to oil geologists, because they make great oil traps. And example is discussed here.
True but you'd have to show me a layer of ash that looks like the strata I'm talking about. I don't know what you're talking about, but I'm talking about the geological record, which has layers of volcanic ash in it.
Same answer as above for ash. And here's some basalt lava flows.
If you don't show me where this explanation was given I have no reason to take you seriously when you keep saying stuff like this. No matter how you explain it I remain unconvinced that dunes could ever be compressed into a slab of rock like the Coconino sandstone with its flat top and bottom. The strata are not "compressed into a slab of rock", Faith. This has been explained to you. Repeatedly. We discussed the lithification of aeolian sand. Read from here to where you stop being stupid about it.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Gee, how did those Hawaiian islands form? A bit at a time.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
But Faith, now you explain. How did the Flood produce such perfectly level flat strata as we see in these photographs? Do tell.
Oh, wait, they're not all that level and flat are they? So when you're done explaining why the Flood must produce level strata with flat tops and bottoms, you can then start thinking up excuses for why it didn't. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
This one really, really was funny
faith writes: Duh. Those hundreds of thousands of living geologists from all over the world are not all as stupid as you pretend they are, Faith. ...but deposits in rivers and lakes just can't look the same as the strata all look. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You've actually outdone yourself here, actually transcended your usual level of rank misrepresentation. The reference to flat strata of course refers to their condition when deposited, not their condition after being deformed by tectonic forces. This is one of those posts of yours where I really don't know if you are just determined to be as obnoxiously difficult as possible, twisting the obvious meaning of at least my posts and perhaps others, or you really think you are responding honestly. Which strikes me as too absurd to take seriously but anyway...
Just to give my explanation of these tectonically deformed strata, most of them are angular unconformities which you know I interpret as occurring after the entire stack of strata was in place, so that where you see only a layer or two across the buckled or tilted lower section that would represent what is left from what originally was a very deep stack of strata above them. In these pictures the upper layers tend to sag, but that would be due to their not having been completely hardened into rock at the time of the tectonic disturbance. I figure the remaining layers got sort of stuck to the buckled section by the friction caused by the movement between the levels, plus the effect of the weight above that had compacted them some as well, and the strata that had been above them were broken up by the tectonic movement and washed away in the receding Flood waters, or whatever standing water might have remained after the Flood. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Faith writes: Just to give my explanation of these tectonically deformed strata, most of them are angular unconformities which you know I interpret as occurring after the entire stack of strata was in place, so that where you see only a layer or two across the buckled or tilted lower section that would represent what is left from what originally was a very deep stack of strata above them. Except you have never provided a model, method, mechanism, process, procedure or thingamabob to explain how that is even possible. But a bigger issue is that even if it were true it is irrelevant to this topic and just another attempt to avoid addressing the insurmountable problem of there not being any flood model, method, mechanism, process, procedure or thingamabob to explain how your asserted flood sorted the fossils in the order found in the world of reality.My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2332 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
While I personally find the geology discussion fascinating, the topic is fossil sorting. Can we turn the discussion around to the fossils found in these formations and how they are sorted?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I had not responded to this post earlier as we got off on the stratigraphy topic for a while, but maybe to revive the conversation I might comment.
My guess would be that circumstances did a lot of the sorting too: It's pretty clear that the land animals were caught up in the Flood later, as the water kept rising on the land, while mostly marine creatures were deposited in the earlier stages.
But there are clearly marine creatures in late 'flood' sediments. Why are they different from the earlier representatives? Why did pelecypods occur later than trilobites?
But of course there's no way to know any of this.
Well, there is such a thing as evidence. One piece of evidence is the lack of flowering plants in the lower part of the record and yet some other plants were common in the early part of the Paleozoic Era.
It's the same case with us as it is with you: there's no way to know for sure what happened and no way to prove any guesses.
Well, we can't 'prove' it to you, of course, but most reasonable people would go with what the evidence shows.
It's all a matter of which interpretation seems most plausible to you.
Here is some data. If you have anything to add, like mammals in the Cambrian rocks, please feel free to present your data.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You know, I think if the order of, say, the amphibians and reptiles were reversed, or the mammals and birds changed places, or ferns and flowering plants, you'd explain that order as proving the same point, because it's all a subjective classification system. The substitutions would still suggest the same evolutionary order. You'd probably explain the order as increasing complexity or whatnot. Because although amphibians would seem to follow fishes and precede reptiles, it's because that IS the order that leads to that conclusion, but there's nothing really obvious about that, you could just say something like, "amphibians are obviously more complex than reptiles."
That one might not be as obvious though, but there's nothing obviously more complex about birds over mammals, and you could emphasize the seeming relationship between reptiles and birds if they occurred in the fossil record between reptiles and mammals, the way you do dinosaurs and birds. And it seems to me flowering plants could easily be seen as more primitive than ferns, if that was the actual order instead of the one we have. I can't prove it, but I suspect it. There's simply nothing objectively obvious about the order you all make so much of as proving evolution up the chart. Not just any substitution could be made of course, because there is something plausible about the order after all, but I do think that's really all it is, it's just a plausible mental arrangement that has no real objective reality. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
How about explaining the distribution of radiolarians and diatoms? Forget the way individual species are ordered, just tell us for starters why radiolarians are from the Cambrian up, but diatoms do not start till the Triassic. Remember these critters are of similar sizes, and should be randomly mixed by a raging Flood. The Flood was not necessarily "raging" though it may have been at times in some places. In any case I have no idea why radiolarians and diatoms are where they are in the fossil record, is there some obvious accepted explanation for it? Or could they possibly be reversed and you'd find the same meaning in THAT order too?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Radiolarians and diatoms are similarly sized microscopic critters that occur in similar sea environments, though diatoms often live deeper. there are abundant species of both in the fossil record, but while radiolarians are found from the Cambrian up, diatoms are only first found in the Triassic. Possibly because diatoms "often live deeper?" Or, though they live "in similar sea environments", possibly at different locations that determined where they got buried in the strata? Or, they may be similarly sized but perhaps their shape has an influence in how they are carried in the water? In other words, how should I know?
Their sorting in the record is such that they can be used to date rocks, with in some cases the diatoms can refine the date to within 50,000 years. If the order happened to have been reversed, however, you could still use them to date rocks.
One would expect a Flood to mix up these critters, not have them sorted into the layers in which they are found. The Flood sorted things, it didn't jumble them as "one would expect."
Diatoms can produce immense deposits, and when part of sediment flows undersea can entomb other fossils. No idea what the implications of this is suppposed to be.
One could also ask how the Flood spread the Iridium layer around the Earth so that it is found at the end of the Cretaceous, including in the midst of the Deccan traps lava flows which occurred above water Not going to take the time to check out the Deccan traps but it seems easy enough to assume that the iridium was transported around the world on the water that laid down the Cretaceous fossils, probably because the meteor hit at that point in the Flood.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
The order itself is not subjective, so that is one obvious lie. Really, Faith you need to actually find an honest way of dealing with truths you don't like.
Second the fact of the order is enough to kill the Flood, so speculating about how we would handle different orders is pretty much irrelevant. Obviously different orders would have an explanation that differed in some ways.
quote: It's not based on complexity, it's based on comparative anatomy. This is the second time in this thread that you've let your misconceptions about evolution drive your arguments into irrelevance. All you are doing is displaying your ignorance, and we all know how you hate that (although you will doubtless try to blame others, as usual)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Comparative anatomy is also an exercise in subjectivity. I'd say the same thing about that.
As for killing the Flood, hardly. Not being able to explain the fossil record is nothing compared to all the positive evidence we can muster to show that only the Flood could account for the facts while the OE stuff is just silly. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024