Fossil Sorting in the Great Flood Part 2

quote:

---

If they were all killed in the flood dinosaurs, bunnies, and grass should all be in the same layer of sediment. Why aren't they?

---

How much of the world have we dug up? .0000000975234133 of 1%? I think a lot of surprises may await! Grass, no one seems to answer my question on, so we'll leave that out. Bunnies and dinos. Hmm, have we looked in the dino bellies as well?

quote:

---

People have already done that. The energy released would have been enough to cauterize the earth 2 times over.

---

Perhaps the tectonic theory is wrong as currently understood? Lets look at this foe a moment. What if say, earth were covered with a lot more water than they think? I don't know, say an extra mile high, or two brought in from deep space? Could this cool things down? What if the sun was say obstructed a lot to cool things? What if there were a lot more water under the continent than imagined? What if the fountains of the deep had shot out air and water, and the plates floated like an air hockey table for a short while? (ha ha) In other words, how seriously did we look at other Godly scenarios?

quote:

---

But you have to admit that it is peculiar that as soon as man starts to measure the continents they are moving at a snails pace

---

NOW, yes of course!!! If they were still racing apart, maybe australia would be as far away as uranus!

OK, we'll deal with them if and when they show up. Until then, deal with the evidence that we have. Irrelevant. It would heat things up even more, releasing the potential energy difference between that water in outer space and that water at the surface of the Earth (even if the water were at absolute zero when in outer space). It would make no difference, since the Sun is not the source of he heat and radiational cooling is to slow. Then it would be terrifically hot and would heat things up even more when brought to the surface. Then stopping them would release incredible amounts of energy and ... you guessed it ... heat everything up and kill all life. Also, we would see incrediblly large deposits of crumbled rock where they crashed into each other and when they "set down". No such deposits anywhere, hypothesis refuted. Not too seriously, since science isn't interested in complicated made-up stories with no explanatory power, for which there is no evidence, and which do not explain the evidence any better than the simpler theories (i.e. Occam's razor).However, an incredible number of different scenarios that are compatible with th elaw of physics and chemistry have been considered, and every one of them doesn't work. None of them are even close to working.You want to believe it's all a series of miracles, OK, Don't claim that it's science, don't ask that ir be taught as sicence, go discuss it in a fath forum.

Well, of course, if new data comes in things will have to be reconsidered.You're right of course, that we only have a very small sample of all living things that have ever been. Even your little percentage there may be an overstatement.However, what we do have is millions of samples that have been found. And they say the same thing. There is a consistent pattern in the fossil record. You have yet to begin to explain it.You're comments about dino bellies are just stupid. You're not making any progress so far. Now you're saying that new data will support you. We work with the data at hand while finding more. I presume than you would want church money to go to vastly increasing the amount spent on paleontological digs. That will hurry up the findings that will support your view.In the meantime data that hasn't been found yet is not support for any position. It is useless to discuss it.What question hasn't been answered?All the tectonics discussions can be taken to a thread for that. The details of that don't belong here, unless you have something that is directly to do with the fossil ordering.

quote:

---

Hmm, have we looked in the dino bellies as well?

---

Yes, and we found...onyate man!

quote:

---

OK, we'll deal with them if and when they show up. Until then, deal with the evidence that we have.

---

OK let's continue straining at the miniscule less than 1% knat, and ruling out God with that for now.

quote:

---

Irrelevant.

---

Glad you banged the gavel on that one, your honor!

quote:

---

It would heat things up even more, releasing the potential energy difference between that water in outer space and that water at the surface of the Earth (even if the water were at absolute zero when in outer space).

---

So then if freezing water was brought in from space to cover the world, over 40 days, then this is going to heat things up so much as to destroy life? Really, how does that work? What is potential energy difference?

quote:

---

What if there were a lot more water under the continent than imagined?
"Then it would be terrifically hot and would heat things up even more when brought to the surface."

---

Only if the theories about the earth's center etc were accurate.

quote:

---

Then stopping them would release incredible amounts of energy and ... you guessed it ... heat everything up and kill all life. Also, we would see incrediblly large deposits of crumbled rock where they crashed into each other and when they "set down".

---

Again, assuming the theories about the earth's center etc were accurate. Now Walt Brown's theory of this has it that the continents were lifted up, and slid away from each other near the mid atlantic ridge, and glided to their present position, where mountain ranges were pushed up in the process, and great heat was released, such as in the coastal mountains, where much of the sediment was mixed with magma that bubbled and spewed through volcanoes etc. The continents were said to have sat on some of the subteranean water remaining to reduce the friction, and I believe that the current settling in process is what he says are responsible for earthquakes, especially around the pacific.
This is a very different idea than the tectonic approach. other theories have now surfaced I believe to a fast continental split as well. And I guess I should not even mention the hollow earth folks? ha.

quote:

---

You're right of course, that we only have a very small sample of all living things that have ever been. Even your little percentage there may be an overstatement.

---

Ha, I overstated the little we may know!

quote:

---

There is a consistent pattern in the fossil record

---

This pattern, I have heard has nevertheless some 'out of place' fossils at times?!

quote:

---

I presume than you would want church money to go to vastly increasing the amount spent on paleontological digs.

---

Since you brought it up... I would suggest that all churchs be sold and the money be spent right away on something close to the following. 77% on missionaries. 3% on a legal fund to sue and fight the evo pushers on every front. (and those throwing prayer and God out of learning and everywhere) 4% to the poor. 1% to help rent or secure new meeting places, even if it's just on a beach. 2% for radio and tv preaching the gospel.2% for bibles, and gospel material to give to the world. 3% to disaster relief, with the emphasis on preaching at the same time the gospel. 4% to poor christian families around the world. 5% discretionary gospel war chest to be used as needed. 0% to build new buildings. ! {creation science efforts might get a pittance as well)

quote:

---

...fossil record. You have yet to begin to explain it.

---

Your sweeping general statements may impress some. You have yet to say anything about for instance, the billions of flood fossil fragments making up whole formations I brought up! maybe you just like to hear yourself preach, and gloat over imaginary victories?

Am I the only one who gets a severe migraine reading this thread?Kudos to all of you who have the patience to post replies.This message has been edited by roxrkool, 06-26-2004 12:43 AM

Please list the exceptions. Show that they are a significant deviation from the pattern. Calculate the percentage of the whole that are a problem.You know, it doesn't matter what you have heard. You know more or less nothing about geology.There are no unexplained, out of place fossils that I am aware of. Therefore, for the time being, there are none. No, you misunderstand again. We have a very small percentage of all possible living things available for study. We do however have a HUGE number of samples available. They overwhelmingly describe a very specifically ordered arrangement. This arrangement is still unexplained by you. You have yet to explain why these are in any way contrary to the point we are making about the ordering of fossils. I agree there are large beds of fossil fragments. These may well have been fragmented due to water action. What you can't explain is why they are restricted to specific parts of the layers and why they are ordered the way they are. These fossil fragments of yours are just one of the many different layers that exist. They are not uniformly spread, why is that?

quote:

---

Please list the exceptions.

---

What for I don't think you would suggest here that there are none.

quote:

---

I agree there are large beds of fossil fragments. These may well have been fragmented due to water action. What you can't explain is why they are restricted to specific parts of the layers and why they are ordered the way they are. These fossil fragments of yours are just one of the many different layers that exist. They are not uniformly spread, why is that?

---

So you admit to large beds of fossil fragments due to 'water action', good. Uniformly spread? Sorry, I don'rt envision one big wave responsible for all things everywhere, does this surprise you? Do you really think all creation believers are daft?

quote:

---

We have a very small percentage of all possible living things available for study

---

Yes, we know, but the main thing is at least, that you, with the very small percentage, make sweeping Anti Christ creation theories with it. It's not like the little percentage goes to waste!

quote:

---

There are no unexplained, out of place fossils that I am aware of. Therefore, for the time being, there are none.

---

I guess poor little ol me must take that as a sort of near geological expert papal edict, and cower in the shadows now? Tell you what, I'll take a look at you little proclamation, and see if it stands up to a small percentage of scrutiny. Night all.

You still haven't answered the question. Yes. You are presuming to discuss this stuff without even a knowledge of junior-high science? Potential energy is energy that is due to being at a certain position in a gravitational field. It can be measured relative to any position. Let's say we decide to measure relative to the Earth's surface (pretty common). Hold a 2 pound ball 6 feet off the ground; its potential energy is the weight times the height (2 lbf) * (6 ft) = 12 ft-lbf = 16.3 joules. Drop the ball onto the ground. Its potential energy is now (2 lbf) * (0 ft) = 0 ft-lbf = 0 joules. Whenever anything moves vertically in a gravitational field, there is a change in potential energy.Energy is not created or destroyed. The potential enrgy lost by dropping the ball didn't disappear; it "turned into" heat and warmed up the ball. In most day-to-day cases like this, it's pretty hard to measure the change in temperature, but it can and has been done.The calculation is a little more complex when the object (such as your hypothesized water) starts so far away that the gravitational force changes during the movement, but that calculation also has been done. We know how much energy it takes to warm up and/or melt water, so we can calculate the change in temperature of the water. That also has been done, and the answer is in the many hundreds of degrees Fahrenheit.And we haven't even considered the kinetic energy due to difference in velocity between the water is space and the Earth's surface, which makes it even worse!I notice you reference Brown below. He discusses other problems and shows a sample calculation or two at In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Arguments for a Canopy—and Brief Responses. Measurements, not theories. The theories have to do with why it's as hot as it is down there. {emphasis added}Yup, Brown's a pip. He does the calculations for the ice canopy and then doesn't do them for his "model"; because, as I said, the calculations show that the heat released would have cooked everything to a fare-the-well. Yup, that's what he says is responsible for earthjquakes ... but his ideas, including that one, are contradicted by the evidence.

Becasue you have claimed that there are exceptions. We know that you have no evidence and are just making it up as you go along, from an exceptionally poor knowledge of the subject, but we're just trying to get you to admit that.

arkathon, And yet the fossil record so clearly matches evolutionary predictions.http://EvC Forum: The Religious Nature of Evolution, or Lack Thereof -->EvC Forum: The Religious Nature of Evolution, or Lack ThereofMarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 06-26-2004 12:48 PM

You can't answer a single question can you? You evade and pretend to be funny. You miss out the main points raised and answer only part of posts. You supply no evidence or back up for you assertions. There are no exceptions that present any problem for the overall conclusion. You aren't aware of any exceptions at all. It is very clear that some creation believers are daft. Perhaps even a large fraction of them.You were asked to restate the issue in your own words. Just one of the many things you have avoided doing. Many of your posts add to the conclusion that you don't even understand the problem. Let's see if we can clear that up. You left out the rest of the paragraph you are responding to here. Why is that? The rest of it was the main point. We, with a HUGE number of samples draw well supported logical conclusions about the nature of the geology of Earth. You, with a nearly non-exisitant knowledge of the geology of the Earth and with very poor theology decide that the truth about the Earth is "anti-Christ". You must back up your statments. You must show evidence and logic if you wish to be taken seriously at all. You have nothing so far.Take your look at the "proclamation" and scrutinize it. Show where it is wrong. Days have passed, you're produced nothing.Interesting isn't it? There are organizations like AIG and ICR dedicated to issues in this debate. They would, presummably spent considerable effort on these kinds of problems. But they don't have an answer for this. Why is that?

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

And we haven't even considered the kinetic energy due to difference in velocity between the water is space and the Earth's surface, which makes it even worse!

---

Who said God would slam the water on to the planet? Who said there would have been much if any of a temperature difference? (He could cool or heat it as needed, with cosmic forces He controled.What if forces were at work that cahanged the earth's gravitational field? (even briefly, you know the magnetic field can be reversed and affected) So it is not a case of "dropping the ball, but more one of executing a beautiful syncronised feather landing. In a nutshell, you assume God was not in the picture actively, and omit potential forces that are not now in play, and rest utterly on theories such as tectonics, that omit the flood as well.

quote:

---

Measurements, not theories.

---

Measurements of how it is, not was or will be. Measurements largely based on anti young earth assumptions and theories.

quote:

---

He does the calculations for the ice canopy and then doesn't do them for his "model"; because, as I said, the calculations show that the heat released would have cooked everything

---

Yes so you say. But are not the 'calculations based on what we don't really fully know about the earth's guts, except in theory? Does not the 'calculations' ignore any potential flood time effects that could drastically change the formula?

Actually, I simply was surprise to hear a proclamation from Ned that there were no exceptions! I thought you folks might be a little more careful. All I was going on is a vague rememberance of some creation stuff I thought I may have remembered. So I dug a few tidbits up for Ned, and sure enough, this is what creation science folks do say. Here we go
The fossil layers are not found in the ground in the nice neat clean
order that evolutionists illustrate them to be in their textbooks. There
is not one place on the surface of the earth where you may dig straight
down and pass through the fossil layers in the order shown in the
textbooks. The neat order of one layer upon another does not exist in
nature. The fossil bearing layers are actually found out of order, upside
down (backwards according to evolutionary theory), missing (from where
evolutionists would expect them to be) or interlaced ("younger" and "older"
layers found in repeating sequences). "Out of place" fossils are the rule
and not the exception throughout the fossil record. The page you requested cannot be found!
For example, remains of Homo erectus-supposedly an evolutionary ancestor of modern man that lived 1.6 to .4 million years ago-have been found in Australia that have been dated to only a few hundred to a few thousand years ago. Although according to the evolutionary timetable the species is said to have died out several hundred thousand years ago, the remains of at least 62 individuals have been dated as less than 12,000 years old Search | United Church of God
How much more simple and direct it would be to explain the fossil-bearing rocks as the record in stone of the destruction of the antediluvian world by the great Flood. The various fossil assemblages represent, not evolutionary stages developing over many ages, but rather ecological habitats in various parts of the world in one age. Fossils of simple marine invertebrate animals are normally found at the lowest elevations in the geologic strata for the simple reason that they live at the lowest elevations. Fossils or birds and mammals are found only at the higher elevations because they live at higher elevations and also because they are more mobile and could escape burial longer. Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research
Frequently, fossils are not vertically sequenced in the assumed evolutionary order For example, in Uzbekistan, 86 consecutive hoofprints of horses were found in rocks dating back to the dinosaurs Dinosaur and humanlike footprints were found together in Turkmenistan and in Arizona Sometimes, land animals, flying animals, and marine animals are fossilized side-by-side in the same rock Dinosaur, whale, elephant, horse, and other fossils, plus crude human tools, have reportedly been found in phosphate beds in South Carolina. Coal beds contain round, black lumps called coal balls, some of which contain flowering plants that allegedly evolved 100 million years after the coal bed was formed In the Grand Canyon, in Venezuela, in Kashmir, and in Guyana, spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in Cambrian rocksrocks supposedly deposited before flowering plants evolved. Pollen has also been found in Precambrian rocksrocks deposited before life supposedly evolved. A leading authority on the Grand Canyon published photographs of horselike hoofprints visible in rocks that, according to the theory of evolution, predate hoofed animals by more than a hundred million years Other hoofprints are alongside 1,000 dinosaur footprints in Virginia.
Petrified trees in Arizona’s petrified forest contain fossilized nests of bees and cocoons of wasps. The petrified forests are supposedly 220 million years old, while bees (and flowering plants which bees require) supposedly evolved almost a hundred million years later Pollinating insects and fossil flies, with long, well-developed tubes for sucking nectar from flowers, are dated 25 million years before flowers supposedly evolved Most evolutionists and textbooks systematically ignore discoveries which conflict with the evolutionary time scale. (walt's site)
So, Ned's edict was hot air in large part, it would seem.