Recolonization Flood/Post-Flood model

When I say "catastrophic"...please understand that, while in MY mind, I do envision nearly all catastrophes as stemming from the Flood, I can understand that you do not. So, a "catastrophic event" would be an event that could kill and/or bury an organism -- a relatively small "catastrophe" would do for a trilobite...something rather large-scale for a tyrannosaurus rex (maybe a landslide).So, then I am curious as to whether paleontologists consider most fossils to be buried catastrophically or by uniformitarian methods (i.e., the sediments were deposited around a dead organism a fraction of an inch per year).Do you see that I am not trying to force the Flood view on people here? So, I am not meaning "uniformitarian" in its "derogatory" sense that so many YECs use it in...if that makes sense. So, when I asked for a comparison between catastophic and uniformitarian...I am asking in a different way about the burial rates (quick or slow)...that's all.Also, when you say "records of their habitants," I am curious. Are the land-dwelling organisms almost always found fossilized only in land, swamp or lake sediments as opposed to marine sediments?--Jason

You seem to misunderstand uniformitarian methods. A landslide would be uniformitarian. So would a local flood, a volcano erupting and ash burying critters, being trapped in a tarpit, dying and having the bones buried then eroded back to the surface.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Just to add a little bit to what Jar says, uniformitarianism is the short way of saying that the array of forces we see operating on our planet today are the same as those in the past. The uniformity is in the consistency across time of the types of forces operating on our planet. The uniformity is *not* in the rates of the processes themselves. Processes like hurricanes, tsanamis, earthquakes and volcanos are very irregular, and since the term uniformitarianism first came into usage a couple hundred years ago we've added to the array of processes, such as meteor strikes.I forget who said it originally, but the term uniformitarianism sprang out of the understanding that the present is the key to the past. In other words and for example, seek how sedimentary layers are forming today, for that is how they would have formed in the past.That the term uniformitarianism is so open to misinterpretation is probably why it has fallen into disuse. No contemporary geologists use the term except when describing the history of geology. Slow deposition would not be described by geologists as uniformitarian, because rapid deposition is also uniformitarian. In order words, the forces governing slow deposition have existed uniformly across all time, and the forces governing rapid deposition have existed uniformly across all time.And this is because, to repeat myself, uniformitarianism does not apply to the rate of the processes. It refers to the uniformity of the types of processes acting on our planet across time. It means that no special forces need to be called upon to explain what happened to our planet millions and billions of years ago. They were the same forces then that they are today.--Percy

Bill Birkeland had a nice post on uniformitarianism at Message 61.

Actually, it's not clear what your point is. You don't seem to be responding to posts, just altering your questions every time we answer. Catastrophe is part and parcel to uniformitarianism in its modern form. Hence, you question does not make sense to us. YOu create some kind of dichotomy between catastrophe and uniformity that does not exist. Put very simply some geological processes are rapid and others are slow. YEC can only accomodate the rapid processes and therefor ignores slow processes such as radiodecay. I know that we have discussed this earlier. Please have the courtesy of reading the responses to your posts/questions. I begin to doubt your sincerity.

God, I wish I'd said that. I wish I even knew half as much.Literalist, while my post isn't wrong, Bill Birkeland's is much more cogent and informed, placing the concept properly in its historical context and breaking it down into its component parts.--Percy

Hi, TL, haven`t read the whole thread so don`t know if basic fossilisation has been covered. Here`s a good site. Love dem coprolites.
http://www.minerals.nsw.gov.au/...rvices/minfacts/minfact_61To stray off the subject a tad, we know meteorites can be found on the surface today. If we surmise Earth has been subject to a steady diet of space debris since its formation, have any meteorites been found in coal beds?

Hi Nighttrain,
There are a few fossil meteorites in the geologic record, most notably Lake Murray, an iron meteorite found in 110 million year old sandstone.I discuss a few others here, including some Ordovician chondrites:
http://EvC Forum: Catastrophic Plate Tectonics - Fact or Fiction? -->EvC Forum: Catastrophic Plate Tectonics - Fact or Fiction?Coal beds are an unlikely place to find meteorites because coal tends to form in swampy regions. Meteorites are composed of minerals like Fe-Ni alloy (kamacite), iron sulfide (troilite), olivine, feldspar, and pyroxene. These minerals rapidly (in geologic terms) decay in water to form clays and rust. Unless the coal beds were buried and dehydrated a few years after the meteorite fell, we wouldn't expect to see too many meteorites in coal bed.Even in the most dry areas, like Antarctica, most meteorites are destroyed in a few tens of thousands of years. Still, some people are looking for meteorites in those locations.

Hi,Matt, thanks for that. I was sort of groping to imagine a meteorite penetrating into the ooze of a swamp and being fossilised there. Wouldn`t the anaerobic setting tend to slow or stop decomposition? If we get a fairly even spray from the Kuiper Belt transit each year, and we found a much higher figure deposited in the Geologic Column, wouldn`t that disprove the rapid deposition of YEC theory?

Well, the issue isn't so much the amount of free O2 in the surroundings as the amount of water. Water itself can oxidize metal:3Fe + 4H2O --> Fe3O4 + 4H2is strongly exothermic and spontaneous (DG = -66 kJ), and doesn't rely on the presence of atmospheric oxygen. In fact, this reaction happened on meteoritic parent bodies, corroding metal to form magnetite without any atmosphere. Likewise, olivine-->clay is mainly dependent on free water, and not O2.What you propose with the deposition of Kuiper belt objects has been done with Iridium in deep sea clays, and very much disproves YEC theory (like all modern science ).

Once again, I'll have to preface the following statements with "we don't fully understand the process of taphonomy and diogenesis" because few paleontoligists really dive into it, and by it's own nature is difficult to discern. Well, let's look at the larger process first. If the bones lay on the ground and were incrementally buried (let's assume un-rotted), we would expect to find one side of the bone that is heavily weathered. However, as is often the case, the real world is not so kind. An excellent study was done in archaeology (I would love to refference this, but it was an obscure paper taught in class, so take it as a "he said" story). A scientist placed a group of arrowheads on the ground, and marked of a square around them. He then visted every year for 5 - 15 years to watch what happened to them. Well... rocks are very busy. They were buried, re-excavated, and buried, and evidently not by animals but by simple things such as precipitation, frost, etc. In fact, they could literally crawl for a couple of inches each winter, as the ice below them differentially de-frosts compared to the surrounding area, creating a sort of miniture inclined plane, causing them to migrate just a little. However, that's not where our animation of rocks ends. Let's hit the second half.Diogenesis (literally, Dio = second, genesis = begining) is the secondary processes that affect a bone geologically, it's "re-birth" so to speak as a fossil. This involves permineralization but also other geological effects such as warping of the soil. The ground is compressed and expanded as mountains are built and seas form. As such, the relation of the bones to each other changes. They can move up and down just as they did earlier in taphonomy, often times in much more dramatic and vertical fashions. They don't move miles, they move a few inches. But that can make all the difference to an otherwise articulated skeleton! The strata layers don't dramatically change themselves, but the borders can become fuzzy, and ultimately makes the small-scale picture much harder to read.Also, if these normal processes occur during a critical stage in the bone's fossilization, we will see dramatic change in the bones themselves. They can become warped, thinning in some areas and thickening in others. Sometimes they're torn in two, sometimes they are broken and then re-fused. Once again, they aren't moved miles, but the end result are distorted bones, which make it much harder to infer specific species details.Now, rotting only implies that these bones marinated for a year or two, so it won't greatly affect Noah's Flood arguments. However, the above processes do heavily affect it... I've never heard a YEC explanation for the above though, so I don't know how to look at it from your angle.As such, TheLiteralist, it is hard to answer your questions directly without the cliched "sometimes and maybe". The best answer is that there are too many different factors to reduce to yes or no. If you are interested in this sort of thing, register to go dig these things up yourselves! Volunteer and get a feel for how these sites are.All the best,
Theus

---

Veri Omni Veritas

Wow! Haven't read the whole string, because this first post just knocks my socks off.TB, you are FROM AUSTRALIA!!! AUSTRALIA!!! Go look in your back yard!So, Noah landed, let out all the animals, and 99% of the marsupials all huddled together hiding from the dinosaurs until Australia broke off? All the lemurs hide together in what would become Madagascar?Why are the "fast breeding" dinosaurs now extinct? Seems like if they breed fast, they'd have an advantage over, say, humans. Why weren't the animals we know today as fast breeding (Rabbits, rats, etc) able to breed quickly?Why didn't the plants that we associate with dinosaurs die during the flood? Why did they die out after the flood when other plants flourished?How is it that in 500 years, Noah's kids spread across the world and became all the races of the world, forgetting their heritage?I am having trouble believing that you haven't thought of these issues?This whole flood theory is a huge house of cards. It hinges on ideas like "the rate of radioactive decay used to be different".Is it that you're bolstering Flood theory because you need the Bible to be literally true? If so, I suggest rethinking this perspective.The Bible can be morally true even if it's not factually correct. The importance is in the meaning of the words.Additionally, the Noah story is plagerized from earlier Babylonian myths. Kinda makes the idea of it being "fact" suspect. Sorry

Tranquility Base is no longer participating. I began addressing his unresponsiveness by assessing 24-hour suspensions. When he continued the pattern I issued a 1-week suspension, and he has not returned.Tranquility Base was a frequent contributor back in 2002. His well-written and well-argued posts along with his even temperament earned him much respect, and he was made a moderator. Many of us, including myself, spent a lot of time discussing Tranquility Base's ideas with him. Then he disappeared for a couple years.In the time he was away I often reflected on our discussions. Something about them greatly discomforted me, and I would reread the old threads from time to time. I gradually realized that Tranquility Base was using an open, friendly and tolerant style to practice evasiveness and dissembling, and that the length of the discussions was largely due to his inability to connect his theories to any facts. Combined with other experiences in the intervening time I saw the need to more strongly enforce the standards of science at EvC Forum, which we've largely done this year.So when Tranquility Base returned he encountered a much different environment than his first visit. I informed him of this in no uncertain terms - see the original topic proposal thread at Recolonization Flood/Post-Flood model.I was pretty harsh with TB because he claims to be a scientist. I took him at his word and required him to present his case in a scientific manner. He failed miserably.Jar would tell us that we need people like TB here to remind us that such people exist. If TB actually is a numerical analyst in genetics research, then the lesson is instructive. Extremely intelligent people can not only fall prey to illogical and unsubstantiated ideas, but they are also better able to find reasons for holding them. The lesson of TB is that ideas can be powerful enough to sweep aside all the discipline of a trained mind.--Percy

Percy,Your explanation of "uniformitarianism" is fine and helped me to understand what you evolutionists mean when you say "uniformitarian." Of course, I already know what most YECs mean by the term.However, regardless of the terms used, I'm asking whether most fossils are considered to have been buried quickly by some "catastrophe" (and I give wide latitude to the meaning of "catastrophe" for the purpose of this discussion) or considered to have been buried very slowly by normal sedimentation processes (i.e., a fraction of an inch per year).-- Jason

Hi Theus,Thanks once again for your honest and informed reply.I wonder if I could press you a bit more. I had asked earlier: I would be interested in any comments you have about that subject -- that is, IF you have any comments about that subject.Thanks in advance.-- Jasonedited because my voice-recognition software sometimes comes up with very wierd interpretations of my dictations.
This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 08-18-2005 07:30 PMThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 08-18-2005 07:31 PM