Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fossil sorting for simple
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 271 of 308 (118447)
06-24-2004 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by simple
06-24-2004 10:03 PM


Evidence
Drop the "what ifs" and talk about things for which there is evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by simple, posted 06-24-2004 10:03 PM simple has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 272 of 308 (118448)
06-24-2004 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by mark24
06-24-2004 9:00 PM


Re: Simple reply
quote:
A global flood should leave global evidence, right? A global flood responsible for the majority of the geologic column should have a start & a stop point
Says you. We may see certain general patterns, but there was a world of possible differences. You can't shove a life ending worldwide cataclysm into such a little box!
quote:
Why club mosses should be found in Devonian strata to present, yet grass & oaks are only found relatively recently destroys the efficacy of such an argument.
I guess your idea of the flood was trying to leave intact the idea of great age differences in the layers! Lose that, and you have a good start in the right direction!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by mark24, posted 06-24-2004 9:00 PM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by NosyNed, posted 06-24-2004 10:17 PM simple has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 273 of 308 (118449)
06-24-2004 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by simple
06-24-2004 10:03 PM


Ordered
Whole formations in the Rockies, as a quick example are composed largely of limestone hardened crushed, and broken fragments of say, crinoids. (like starfish) in the trillions. "mightily ordered" you say? Relative to what?-old age reasoning?
Nope, there is no absolute age being used in this discussion. The issue is the relative positions of the various layers. Older ones underneath undisturbed newer ones. That is what it is relative to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by simple, posted 06-24-2004 10:03 PM simple has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 274 of 308 (118450)
06-24-2004 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by simple
06-24-2004 10:12 PM


Age differences
I guess your idea of the flood was trying to leave intact the idea of great age differences in the layers! Lose that, and you have a good start in the right direction!
Ok, no one has brought up the absolute ages but you. Let's leave that for later. The issue, as noted already, is the relative ages of the layers.
Where do you think we get to if we "lose the great age differences". With less differences (which you can defend later) how does that explain the ordering of fossils we see? In fact, it seems it makes your problem worse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by simple, posted 06-24-2004 10:12 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by simple, posted 06-24-2004 10:36 PM NosyNed has replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 275 of 308 (118452)
06-24-2004 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by simple
06-24-2004 9:47 PM


Re: Simple reply
I'm going to propose a thread ...
This message has been edited by JonF, 06-24-2004 09:28 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by simple, posted 06-24-2004 9:47 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by simple, posted 06-24-2004 10:29 PM JonF has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 276 of 308 (118453)
06-24-2004 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by JonF
06-24-2004 4:09 PM


Re: Simple reply
quote:
Exactly how does "laid down within a year or so, and really jiggled up" produce the observed ordering of the fossil record? Especially moss, ferns, grasses, flowering plants, trees, and pollen?
It was very big jiggles that carried lots of stuff in the massive moving mud. As it settled all you need is someone to imagine the little creatures were the 'parents' of other creatures buried later, and that the whole exercise took millions of years.
Now, as for pollen, I can easily see how God may have used a different reproduction method pre flood, for example! (Or visa versa in some cases). So, if something appears out of nowhere in the fossil record, maybe it got washed in later, or was even adapted, or made later! --Strange? Not as strange as sharing relatives with cockcroaches!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by JonF, posted 06-24-2004 4:09 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by JonF, posted 06-24-2004 10:36 PM simple has replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 277 of 308 (118454)
06-24-2004 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by JonF
06-24-2004 10:20 PM


Re: Simple reply
quote:
There are no witnesses of police psychics, because there are no police psychics. Psychics have claimed to have aided the police; there has never been any evidence of such aid other than the (obviously biased) claims of the psychics.
Hey, would you brag about something like that? Or consulting an astrologer to see when a good time for an attack in a war was? (or election). I never said I believe these things 99%!! Should I then say you believe in them 1%?
The supernatural is widely known to exist. Every continent, and city will attest to this. Ghosts, angels, and on & on. Both good and bad. I have been, for example, years ago, in an exorcism, and it is no joke. To deny everything supernatural, while at the same time embracing granny bacteria, and the cosmic cup o soup 'creator' is it seems to me things that should go hand in hand!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by JonF, posted 06-24-2004 10:20 PM JonF has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 278 of 308 (118456)
06-24-2004 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by simple
06-24-2004 10:22 PM


Re: Simple reply
As it settled all you need is someone to imagine the little creatures were the 'parents' of other creatures buried later, and that the whole exercise took millions of years.
Except the order of the fossil record is not compatible with the way things settle out of water. Things that would settle first are found on top, in the middle, and on the bottom; things that would settle last are found on the top, in the middle, and at the bottom. But they are found in a definite but different order. An example is dolphins and some of the marine dinosaurs; same size, same habitat, same basic body shape ... very different parts of the fossil record.
Now, as for pollen, I can easily see how God may have used a different reproduction method pre flood, for example
This is a science forum. You want to discuss miracles, do it in a faith forum. In here, ad-hoc made-up explanations for which there is no evidence (not even Biblical evidence) are not welcome.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by simple, posted 06-24-2004 10:22 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by simple, posted 06-24-2004 10:43 PM JonF has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 279 of 308 (118457)
06-24-2004 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by NosyNed
06-24-2004 10:17 PM


Re: Age differences
quote:
Ok, no one has brought up the absolute ages but you.
I don't blame them for not bringing it up! I'd try to use my best arguements first, if I were on the other side of the issue as well!
quote:
The issue, as noted already, is the relative ages of the layers.
Yes, and relative to the flood, their ages are very fine.
quote:
Where do you think we get to if we "lose the great age differences".
I'd say that would pretty well bring you round to a young earth!
quote:
how does that explain the ordering of fossils we see? In fact, it seems it makes your problem worse.
I think I touched on a few such things in the last few posts. (pre flood differences in plants, and a very very big jiggle)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by NosyNed, posted 06-24-2004 10:17 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by NosyNed, posted 06-25-2004 12:31 AM simple has replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 280 of 308 (118458)
06-24-2004 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by JonF
06-24-2004 10:36 PM


Re: Simple reply
quote:
An example is dolphins and some of the marine dinosaurs; same size, same habitat, same basic body shape ... very different parts of the fossil record.
Which clearly shows that even the same critters you would expect to see float in some nice pattern of burial were subject to different forces of the flood!! One dolphin may have got caught in a massive undertow current, and/or burial in some muck at the same time. Another might have got caught in a hurricane and blown into a lake, or hill. Yet another may have encountered some sort of sulfuric acid (or chemicals in water) that destroyed it's potential for getting fossilized. Another may have died in it's natural sea, pre flood. Another may have been following the ark, therefore in a good area, and so lived well beyond the flood. Another may have got caught in a fountain of the deep spurting, and ended up in some hot volcanic water. etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by JonF, posted 06-24-2004 10:36 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by NosyNed, posted 06-25-2004 12:18 AM simple has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 281 of 308 (118504)
06-25-2004 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by simple
06-24-2004 10:43 PM


Ordering
So it seems your argument comes down to this:
There was a huge amount of random things going on. The global pot was stirred and stirred. 100,000's of creatures died and were preserved.
And somehow they all ended up ordered in a very specific way just by good luck.
Is that the whole of your reasoning? I haven't seen a teensy thing that is anything but that.
Care to calculate the odds?
(added in edit)
I think you just don't grasp the amount of material you have to explain. It isn't a dolphin fossil up there and a icthyosaur fossil down there. It is whole layers of one kind of mollusc from billions and billions of animals all within one layer and under others. It is 100's of millions of trilobites with detailed gradual changes in layers of different relative positions.
All of these things, all the plants, everything has to be organized very very well with very very few exceptions.
All this just happened? Is that all you can say?
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-24-2004 11:22 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by simple, posted 06-24-2004 10:43 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by simple, posted 06-25-2004 12:38 AM NosyNed has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 282 of 308 (118514)
06-25-2004 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by simple
06-24-2004 10:36 PM


Re: Age differences
I'd say that would pretty well bring you round to a young earth!
That is not under discussion. What I asked was what difference does it make to the ordering problem? Does it matter one way or the other? How does it matter?
(btw, if you think the earth is young there is a Dates and Dating forum if you are brave enough to venture there. You case is even weaker there)
I don't blame them for not bringing it up! I'd try to use my best arguements first, if I were on the other side of the issue as well!
Nope, I think it is more fun to leave the big guns out at first. We're just discussing flood for now. We can worry about dates another time and in a thread where they are on topic too.
Yes, and relative to the flood, their ages are very fine.
Oh good! When it becomes necessary you can give us the details. Which layers are flood, which are not etc. Somehow that gets so very confused by many creationists. But I don't think we need to go into that at the moment.
You agree then, that the relative ages are correct as determined by the ordering of undisturbed layers?
As I see it, your "very big jiggle" would produce a rather random order and get things pretty well. Why do you think it doesn't?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by simple, posted 06-24-2004 10:36 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by simple, posted 06-25-2004 12:57 AM NosyNed has replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 283 of 308 (118517)
06-25-2004 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by NosyNed
06-25-2004 12:18 AM


new order
quote:
It is whole layers of one kind of mollusc from billions and billions of animals all within one layer and under others. It is 100's of millions of trilobites with detailed gradual changes in layers of different relative positions.
So one kind of mollusc in certain layers would indicate what? billions of animals (often broken to bits and fragments) in one layer under others? So what? A lot of things died! In some cases a lot of things washed into same area, or, if the continents did slide, uppiled together as well in places. trilobites with 'gradual changes'? Gradual in what way? time? No sir, don't think so. Gradual in the burial pattern in several layers all flood lain? Maybe. It seems the big thing is in how you look at these things, and the ages you imagine, because, I think, of evolutionary conditioning! No wonder you almost choke on these things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by NosyNed, posted 06-25-2004 12:18 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by NosyNed, posted 06-25-2004 1:06 AM simple has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 284 of 308 (118525)
06-25-2004 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by NosyNed
06-25-2004 12:31 AM


Re: Age differences
quote:
That is not under discussion.
By you, no. ha. Seems to me I remember Simple didn't have much to do with this thread either!
quote:
What I asked was what difference does it make to the ordering problem? Does it matter one way or the other? How does it matter?
Because by removing the old age assumptions it leaves us to look at things for an explanation within the context of the flood.
quote:
As I see it, your "very big jiggle" would produce a rather random order and get things pretty well.Why do you think it doesn't?
Well one measly 'jiggle' could wash most of the way around the planet, swishing enough mud, and limestone, or sand, or, whatever the massive movement carried, to lay down huge formations! Add hundreds of these babies, and you got a lot to work with. So then each jiggle was not so random, since it could make a different formation altogether. For example, jiggle your foot, while pressing it forward in some wet sand, and as it pushes forward, it pushes up some little hills, or ripples in front of it. Put the foot on a world scale, say a sliding continent, and you got a mountain range. Hold a beach ball sized globe in your hand, covered with a muddy muck, blow as hard as you can on a little area, and you blow most of the muck away from a little spot. Imagine a great flood drying wind, and maybe we could dry out a ten mile, or more patch of drying mud limestone, help it harden quickly, and maybe even get a bunch of dolomite patches as well! (Dolomite, I've read can be formed in the evaporation process. Anyhow this would just be another little jiggle in a year of the jiggles!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by NosyNed, posted 06-25-2004 12:31 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by jar, posted 06-25-2004 1:05 AM simple has replied
 Message 288 by NosyNed, posted 06-25-2004 1:11 AM simple has replied

Steve
Inactive Member


Message 285 of 308 (118526)
06-25-2004 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Bill Birkeland
06-24-2004 3:24 PM


Re: Biostratigraphy was "Re: Simple reply"
The columns in the rock strata are actually made up from different regions of the world. The full rock strata is found nowhere in the world. It is made up of columns superimposed from different regions all over the world. The whole strata is 100 miles thick but there is no locality more than one mile and even this locality is the Grand Canyon
Rock strata is far better explained by a universal flood rather than millions of years.
A catastrophe such as a universal flood is necessary for fossils to form. "Fossils of animals, for example, are formed when animals are buried quickly and under tremendous pressure so that their bones or imprint are preserved in rock. If living things are not buried quickly and under enormous pressure, they will not be fossilized. Most of the many millions of fossils in the world are found in rock which has been affected by water, and, therefore, the fossils of these animals were formed as a result of the animals being buried suddenly and quickly under tremendous water pressure." ([22], p.27)
An event of a universal flood is accounted for "...by hundreds of reflections of this...great event handed down in the legends and historical records of practically all nations and tribes in the earth."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Bill Birkeland, posted 06-24-2004 3:24 PM Bill Birkeland 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