|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence for and against Flood theories | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Okay...so most animals and humans (assuming the humans could somehow know the danger) escaped the initial tsunamis. Tell that to nearly 200,000 people in the South Pacific. Why do we not find human (or other such creatures) mixed in with the shells? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gengar Inactive Member |
quote: Coventional geolgists have no trouble with rapid burial - it happens all the time - storms, floods (small f) and landslides are present day processes which can, *locally*, cause very high sedimentation rates. In fact such deposits are a valuable source of information for palaeontologists, because rapid burial can lead to the preservation of soft tissues, which are usually consumed by bacterial action. But such situations are the exception rather than the rule, so we can just turn the question around. Surely if all sedimentary rocks on the planet are the result of a single burial event (The Flood), most things we see in the fossil record would have been catastrophically buried. Why is most of the stuff in the fossil record disarticulated? Why don't we get extensive preservation of soft tissue?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
And what about coral reefs? Why did they survive a flood that covered the mountains?
Do creationists propose this? I'm not sure. Why do you think they must? Well, we think that creationists must propose how corals survived a flood. Almost all corals die if covered by more than a few meters of water, and all corals die if covered in sediment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Are you referring to the fact that the oysters and clams are usually articulated and closed? And that the fossilized oysters are sometimes found fossilized in thick layers? Are these thick layers actually colonies? Possibly. You would need to ask a biologist about this. However, it is immaterial to the point.
Oysters were fossilized in thick layers? I have no idea. But once again that is not my point.
When oysters die, what usually happens to the shells? Don't they usually open and separate and get broken to bits? So a better question, is how, according to conventional geological concepts, did these numberous closed, articulated fossilized oysters form? I have no problem with sudden events in the earth's history. The question is: how do you manage to grow multiple fossil communities on top of one another while meters of sedimentation occur each day? How do they populate the area (especially sessile organisms), reproduce and grow? Your argument makes no sense when all the facts are considered.
For the oysters' shells to have remained shut, it seems obvious that they must have been buried alive; so some mechanism for rapid burial is required. Of course, we YECers point to the Flood, what do conventional geologists point to? There are many mass kill and mass burial events in the geological record. A few years ago a hundred elk were killed in Rocky Mountain NP in on evening. Are you saying that a flood caused the kill (actually, it was lightning)? Can you not imagine some other event that might have caused a mass kill and/or burial?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
In my mind, I imagine the initial stages of the Flood (it took at least 40 days, perhaps 150 to completely cover the earth) having many events similar to the recent tsunami but perhaps more violent than the recent one. Did you notice how many of the animals vacated the areas? So only mostly sea life and curious humans would be found in the mud there (also the mud is probably not rich in carbonate--limestone in solution, right?--as the Flood waters are thought to have been--there being limestone everywhere today). I have no idea what you are trying to say here. The tsunami mechanism of the great flood has been completely discredited. By the way, more violent tsunamis are documented as having killed many terrestrial creatures.
Okay...so most animals and humans (assuming the humans could somehow know the danger) escaped the initial tsunamis. But they came again and further inland and again and further inland and again and further inland. At some point in time, the animals might well find themselves running across carbonate-rich mud left from a previous tsunami, which partially lithified, only to be covered up by more sediments from more tsunamis. You are reaching here. Why would a tsunami deposit carbonate muds? Why would the muds survive numerous tsunami events? Why would 100% of terrestrial animals survive the first xteen kilometers of sedimentation? Why would flowering plants survive longer than dinosaurs? There is an explanation for all this: there is no evidence whatsoever of a biblical scale flood.
I'm thinking mud-rich tsunamis again. Perhaps these eggs and nests were on the out skirts of the destruction by some of the initial tsunamis so as to get covered by mud but not crushed. Then after covered by that layer of mud another tsunami comes further inland covering that layer of mud, and so forth. So the first dinosaur nests were not covered until the Mesozoic? Even though we have dinosaur habitat, footprints, etc. in coastal swamps?
Actually I am curious how conventional geology posits that dinosaur eggs fossilized, given that eggs are popular fare by most critters and they rot quickly if not hatched (and many are found in the process of hatching or with nearly fully formed baby dinos ready to hatch.) Fossilized dino eggs are not exactly rare, but shouldn't they be? Some are covered by wind-blown sand, just as many organisms are buried today. Considering that any creature might try to select a protected place for a nest, I don't see this as terribly inconsistent with natural processes.
Do creationists propose this? I'm not sure. Why do you think they must? Well, it is a logical conclusion from the YEC premise. Where do the coral reefs come from? How did they survive the flood? How did they grow such immense colonies in just a couple of thousand years? These are questions you need to ask.
I'll give the unconformities a shot. Tsunamis, landslides, etc. occur during the initial 40 - 150 days. In some cases the, layers are layed down at one angle. The global stress causes plate movement of some sort (CPT or not), which changes the angles of the dryish land. The next tsunami, which due to increased water levels is higher might well remove some of the previous sediments (which are now at a different angle) and redeposit at the new angle. And how did those rocks manage to lithify in less than a year at the surface of the earth? Never mind the fact that we do not see any tsunami-type sedimentation. You should be getting the idea that tsunamis have been evoked before by YECs and been thoroughly shot down.
I haven't studied eolian sand dunes, but it does intrigue me that there are lithified "sand dunes" in the layers. I should probably try to do a little research on this, too. I recommend avoiding the YEC literature on this. You will only get part of the picture.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
But such situations are the exception rather than the rule, so we can just turn the question around. Surely if all sedimentary rocks on the planet are the result of a single burial event (The Flood), most things we see in the fossil record would have been catastrophically buried. Why is most of the stuff in the fossil record disarticulated? Why don't we get extensive preservation of soft tissue? Furthermore, all living things in the fossil record must have lived at the same time, also. Where does Literalist see all of these organisms living. I have heard calculations that the biomass must have been kilometers(?) thick.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheLiteralist Inactive Member |
Hi Gengar,
Well, before I answer your questions, may I ask how you are proposing, generally, that most organisms have managed to become fossils? For instance, some people think that the fossil record is recording animals as they died in their natural environments. So, an animal dies, it's flesh rots...maybe it's bones get scattered about a bit, but slowly, over time the remains get covered with the sands of time and eventually fossilize. Is that kind of along the lines of what you're thinking? Maybe you've got some other model, which I've not been exposed to. I'd love to hear it. Thanks,--TheLit
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4155 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
I would be interested about your views on coral.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheLiteralist Inactive Member |
Hi Charles,
Well, it's nice color under most circumstances...it doesn't go with everything, though. I think mint green is nice, too. {just kidding} Well, I don't know much about Coral. Do you have a particular thought about it that you'd like to see my take on? No guarantees that I COULD give a sufficient answer, but I might be able to give a good try. --TheLit
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4155 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Sure - as previously put to you - how does Coral suffer being underwater during the flood.
because
quote: http://tinyurl.com/5uth4 This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 06 February 2005 14:52 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5900 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Careful amigo. If TheLit is a sharp as usual, he's going to counter with examples of deep sea/abyssal corals like Paragorgia arborea and Lophelia pertusa. The truth is there are about 10 species (or was that genera, I can't remember) of deep sea corals currently recognized.
Of course, that doesn't do a thing for the Flud in reality. After all, even if these abyssal organisms survived, there's no way any of the surface corals would have - these guys really DO need shallow, usually warmish, clear water otherwise their photosynthetic symbionts die off - ultimately killing the coral polyp itself. Here's a nice readable article on deep sea corals by NOAA. edited to add link. This message has been edited by Quetzal, 02-06-2005 15:10 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4155 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
All very correct - TheLit mentioned that he didn't know much about coral so I was trying to keep it simple.
Thanks for the clarification.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: But then, it's not just depth either. Turbidity is a very effective killer of corals, and temperature is a major factor. Then there would be the problem of forming the huge reefs that we see today having hyper-evolved from deep water corals in a few thousand years. And THEN there is the problem of fossil coral reefs and how they managed to form during the flood. Ah, I wish it were just as simple as YECs seem to think the world to be...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5900 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Turbidity, temperature, depth, water chemistry, etc. Corals are actually pretty sensitive critters. IIRC, some tropical coral reefs start to die if there's even a small fluctuation in temperature, for instance. Even minor contaminants (say, from ag runoff) can bleach coral reefs (killing the symbionts).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheLiteralist Inactive Member |
Hi Guys (Charles, Edge, & Quetzal),
Okay...I see now. (Quetzal, I AM pretty ignorant in these areas, I'm afraid.) Fossil Corals: why couldn't they have formed in the Flood? How did Corals survive the Flood? My first thought would be as coral larvae, which would then mean that no reef on earth could be older than the Flood event, though. Not very much to go on, I'm afraid. --TheLit
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024