Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Recolonization Flood/Post-Flood model
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 241 of 252 (234649)
08-18-2005 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by TheLiteralist
08-18-2005 7:23 PM


Re: Uniformitarianism
TheLiteralist writes:
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).
You've asked this question at least several times now, and I think several people have answered this several different ways, so I'm not sure why you keep asking. I, for one, believe I have answered this several times, most recently in Message 208.
Maybe it's your use of the word catastrophe that's causing the problem. In case that's where the ambiguity lies, lets abandon use of the word catastrophe altogether. By the traditional definition of catastrophe, "A sudden violent change in the earth's surface; a cataclysm", most creatures that become fossils were not buried by catastrophes. Geologists and paleontologists looking at trilobytes and brachiopods do not believe they were buried by catastophes. A passing denizen sweeping a foot of sediment over a few dozen trilobites and burying them for our future discovery is not a catastrophe. The burial is sudden, but it is not a catastrophe. The accumulation of sediment above the buried trilobites and brachiopods will continue gradually, usually at a few feet per thousand years, but occasionally faster when something happens to sweep more sediment onto the area, and sometimes in the reverse direction when sediment is somehow swept away.
Geologists assume that, for the most part, fossils created in the distant past were created by the same processes that exist around us today, so all you have to do is imagine what might be going on on any sea floor today within a dozen or so miles of coastline. Sediment is constantly being poured into the sea from the continents, and so sea floor is always going to be an area of net deposition. But at any particular point on the sea floor it could range from dozens of feet all at once because of the collapse of an overhanging cliff, to the more normal few feet per thousand years, to negative deposition when sediment is swept away, perhaps by currents or a nearby undersea landslide.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by TheLiteralist, posted 08-18-2005 7:23 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 242 of 252 (234660)
08-18-2005 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by edge
08-09-2005 8:54 PM


Re: fossils in fine-grained sediments
Edge,
Do you see that I am not trying to force the Flood view on people here?
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.
Yes, I fear the "spirit of debate" throws a wrench in things sometimes. I might later wish to debate this issue in one way or another, but right now I just wish to get a view from the evolutionists on the board about the subject.
The main inspiration for my "questions" are comments in two books in my possession. One book entitled THE CONCISE DINOSAUR ENCYCLOPEDIA says, of fossilization, on page 18:
The process of fossilization begins when something dies and is quickly covered up, for example by sediment or by an avalanche of underwater mud.
Stretched across pages 18 and 19 are a series of five illustrations demonstrating visually the process of fossilization (an ammonite is the creature involved). Each of the five illustrations has an accompanying explanation. The explanation for illustration two says:
The ammonite's shell rests on the seabed, where it is soon covered by fine particles of sediment that drift down from the water above.
Even though the book uses the term "soon" in the explanation, I see the process of being "covered by fine particles of sediment that drift down from the water above" as a slow process. The illustrations show the ammonite covered by three different sedimentary layers...whatever that is supposed to indicate.
The book, imo, contradicts itself. It's as though it wants the layers to have formed slowly by the fraction-of-an-inch-per-year process and, yet, it wants the fossils to have been quickly covered up.
The other book I have is a 10th grade biology textbook published in 1990. On page 374 the book briefly discusses fossils. On page 375 the book presents six illustrations and an accompanying explanation of the process of fossilization. The explanation mentions nothing of how quickly or slowly the sediments must cover a creature's remains. However, the illustrations, in my opinion, make it very clear that the normal, fraction-of-an-inch-per-year sedimentation process is meant. These illustrations are particularly humorous because the creature in question is a fish and its articulated skeleton appears to settle to the bottom and be very slowly covered up by settlements (abe: that should be "sediments" not "settlements"...thank my voice recognition software) -- and it stays articulated until erosion uncovers the petrified skeleton some eons later. Not only that, but the six illustrations also appear to explain bent layers because illustration four shows "uplift" bending the originally flat layers.
It is just silly to think that fish fossils formed this way, but when I was in 10th grade I lacked the ability to evaluate the illustrations in this manner. I consider this either sloppy work by the publisher Heath, or I consider it propaganda. Either way, I question the goals of our public school system and an organization called "BSCS"...whose endorsement is stamped all over and throughout the textbook.
Thus my questions. I am trying to understand the evolutionists' viewpoint concerning fossilization and layer formation, which STILL seems a bit contradictory and not very cohesive. That doesn't mean that a cohesive view doesn't exist (and the fact that a view is cohesive doesn't mean that the view is correct, of course), but I haven't gotten an understanding of the cohesive view, if it exists.
For this reason, I have granted latitude concerning the idea of "catastrophe." I'll grant the creeping oceans, too, or whatever. Just for argument's sake...that way you can present your view without worrying about me going "Aha!" (not that I could do that anyway).
I am not the most learned person on geological subjects...so my questions might seem inane, but I think mainly what is/was happening is that people were misunderstanding my questions (a bit)...or more likely, the questions were not specific enough...thus the "changing" nature of my questions.
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?
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.
Would you be able to provide a link to this discussion...it slips my mind.
--Jason
This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 08-18-2005 08:29 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by edge, posted 08-09-2005 8:54 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by roxrkool, posted 08-19-2005 5:38 PM TheLiteralist has not replied
 Message 246 by Nuggin, posted 08-23-2005 3:38 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 243 of 252 (234910)
08-19-2005 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by TheLiteralist
08-18-2005 8:23 PM


Re: fossils in fine-grained sediments
Jason, the problem you're having is in assuming everything we know about fossils is found in your books, especially textbooks. Books are wonderful resources, but are not all that comprehensive.
The reason you find contradictions is probably because the author is only giving a few examples to make a point. Science is so extraordinarily complex and dynamic that it's almost impossible to keep up with new findings on any one subject - unless you actually work in the field. And even then it's hard.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by TheLiteralist, posted 08-18-2005 8:23 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by edge, posted 08-19-2005 7:53 PM roxrkool has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 244 of 252 (234931)
08-19-2005 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by roxrkool
08-19-2005 5:38 PM


Re: fossils in fine-grained sediments
The reason you find contradictions is probably because the author is only giving a few examples to make a point. Science is so extraordinarily complex and dynamic that it's almost impossible to keep up with new findings on any one subject - unless you actually work in the field. And even then it's hard.
Exactly. To Jason, it's a 'fast or slow' issue. In reality, there are many complicating factors that make it a 'fast and slow' process. Jason has mentioned the fish being slowly buried and that this is a 'silly idea'. THe problems is that under certain conditions it makes perfect sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by roxrkool, posted 08-19-2005 5:38 PM roxrkool has not replied

Theus
Inactive Member


Message 245 of 252 (235306)
08-21-2005 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by TheLiteralist
08-18-2005 7:29 PM


Re: sediments containing land-dwelling creatures?
Hey!
Are the land-dwelling organisms almost always found fossilized only in land [sediments], swamp [sediments] or lake sediments as opposed to marine sediments?
In terms of bones, no. I've never seen a terrestrial animal in a marine setting, that is extremely rare and would be coveted by many paleontologists in a shrine with small candles and offerings of cereal and ram's blood. Simply put, it is an ecological hole in the paleontological record. Let me illustrate this with the tale of the Sundance/Morrison contact.
The Jurassic of North America is divided (particularly in the Wyoming-Montana-Colorado region) in a very literal way by a huge sea, the Sundance Sea. Where I used to live in particular the Jurassic was represented by 3 formations:
1. The Gypsum Springs that represents the middle Jurassic, terrestrial land with periodic flooding,
2. The mid to late Jurassic Sundance Sea, a large marine formation representing a large sea that divided North America into two halves, and
3. The late Jurassic Morrison formation, a fairly dry environment composed of large tracts of alluvial floodplains resulting from the regression of the Sundance sea.
The sea punctuated the area, resulting in a huge marine layer full of shells (millions upon millions of shells) and Ichthyosaurs, Plesiosaurs, and belemnites (little bullet-shaped squid guys). This was immediately followed by the Morrison, which contained the aforementioned dinosaur sites in this thread. There are no dinosaur bones in the Sundance sea, they are filled with Ichthyosaurs and such, marine reptiles that were distantly related. And, vis--vis, there are no marine reptiles in the Morrison. And the Gypsum Springs doesn't play along and we have no bones from it.
So... marine layers preserve the marine ecology while terrestrial layers preserve the terrestrial ecology. Remember Walking with Dinosaurs, and how they had a chapter on marine organisms? That wasn't just for entertainment... that's chronology! The marine layer represents a hole in our understanding of the Jurassic in the context of the evolutionary history of the dinosaurs. Unfortunately, the zones where these dinosaurs evolved (while the sea covered Wyoming), is not present, so we don't see nascent species of Allosaurus, Apatosaurus, Stegosaurus, etc. This is one of the many reasons why the fossil record is incomplete... the environments on the earth change, and the animals and plants inhabiting them migrate as well.
That being said, every once in a blue moon paleontologists will find the coastal regions of these seas, and find the footprints of dinosaurs. For the Morrison-Sundance boundary this occurs in Shell Wyoming at the Red-Gulch tracksite. Many dinosaurs ran up and down the coastal margins, and it preserved. No bones as footprints and bones don't preserve often, but still evidence of their presence. But... they don't match up perfectly with the footprint zones of the Morrison. There were lots of little dinosaurs running around in the Sundance-Jurassic coastline that weren't around when the big dinosaurs came out to play a few million years later. Sadness.
In reference to the swamp question... those are localized environments, and as such are hard to find in the fossil record. You would be amazed at how these ecological zones move in the geological record. Look at how many times forests have repositioned themselves in the past million years between intermittent ice ages! So when looking at specific areas, keep that in mind. But we do find them. The famed Archaeopteryx comes from such a swamp, in the Shlonhofin limestone in Germany. This was a huge anaerobic swamp that preserved life remarkably. No oxygen means no post-mortem feeding bacteria, which is why the feathers are still present on Archaeopteryx. This holds true for scales on fish, the delicate bones of pterodactyls, and the footprints of horseshoe crabs. Now... here's the kicker for this site... these are not found by scientists! Solhofen is a major roofing-tile factory, the clear white limestone is cut into squares. The fossils are discovered in this process... which makes it one of the most well excavated sites in paleontology. This of course reveals another problem with the paleontological record... funding. But, that's a rant for another day.
שלומ
Theus

Veri Omni Veritas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by TheLiteralist, posted 08-18-2005 7:29 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 246 of 252 (235832)
08-23-2005 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by TheLiteralist
08-18-2005 8:23 PM


Re: fossils in fine-grained sediments
TL,
It seems like you have two questions in most of your posts. A lot of time has been spent futzing over definitions of terms in your questions, so I'm not going to use a direct quote.
I believe you are asking:
"Which process is a more common source of fossils, quick burial by an event (volcano, landslide, flood) or slow burial by normal sedimentation?"
-and-
"How can slow burial by sediment work at all given the great amount of time it would take to bury something and the fact that that corpse would have to be undisturbed?"
The problem with both these questions is this: Not all fossils are the same.
While a fleshy animal (let's say a rabbit) is unlikely to have a body left untouched while sediment is laid down around it, an empty snail shell could easily lay untouched for years.
I would suggest that different kinds of fossils are generated by different kinds of events.
Clearly the most spectacular fossils beds, where we find a lot of information and have remarkable preservation, happen when there has been an event. (The primative birds uncovered from volcanic ash in China are a good example).
But, do these fossils represent "most" fossils?
I have been lead to believe that the most common fossil is shark's teeth. They have a bunch, they drop them like crazy and they've been around a really long time. I would think that the vast majority of sharks teeth fossils are from normal slow processes of burial.
Another part of your post gave a figure for the rate that sediment is laid down as a fraction of an inch per year process. I would assume that this is true as a generalization. Certainly this rate would vary massively. Areas at the base of rain pelted mountain ranges would clearly have a much different rate of sediment than, say, the middle of the Atlantic.
Hope that clears some stuff up

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by TheLiteralist, posted 08-18-2005 8:23 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 247 of 252 (236266)
08-23-2005 6:49 PM


I remember reading of 5000 feet of undisturbed foramin ooze but can`t find the source. Was it in one of Rachel Carson`s books?

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 248 of 252 (361558)
11-04-2006 4:05 PM


Hi all . . and recolonization again . .
Just dropping by to say hi to all! . . and that I'm back to discuss recolonization models again. I'll post my latest research/thinking in the next few days. In summary, similar to before but more concrete in some ways.
TB

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by NosyNed, posted 11-04-2006 4:48 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 252 by Admin, posted 11-05-2006 10:54 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

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


Message 249 of 252 (361577)
11-04-2006 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Tranquility Base
11-04-2006 4:05 PM


Welcome back !!
It's been awhile but I'm sure you'll recognize the regulars (and the discussions ).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-04-2006 4:05 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-05-2006 5:10 AM NosyNed has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 250 of 252 (361786)
11-05-2006 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by NosyNed
11-04-2006 4:48 PM


Re: Welcome back !!
Hi NN . . yes I do recognize some of the names (including yours . .). Nice to be back . . TB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by NosyNed, posted 11-04-2006 4:48 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by nator, posted 11-05-2006 7:56 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 251 of 252 (361801)
11-05-2006 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Tranquility Base
11-05-2006 5:10 AM


Re: Welcome back !!
Hi there, TB, welcome back.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-05-2006 5:10 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 252 of 252 (361809)
11-05-2006 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by Tranquility Base
11-04-2006 4:05 PM


Please propose a new thread
This thread has only 50 messages left, you say there are more recent developments in your research and thinking, plus there's a new audience, so it would probably be a good idea to propose a new thread that reintroduces the topic. Closing this one down.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-04-2006 4:05 PM Tranquility Base 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