Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,284 Year: 5,541/9,624 Month: 566/323 Week: 63/143 Day: 6/19 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do creationists try to find and study fossils?
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
(1)
Message 101 of 182 (698264)
05-04-2013 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Faith
05-04-2013 10:50 PM


This has been answered before over and over. First the idea that what is on the bottom is less "complex" is wrong, but as for the general principle concerning supposed "modern" creatures being on the top, which is already a tendentious lie from the ToE ...
Though curiously enough, as well as being "a tendentious lie from the ToE", it's also a fact discovered before the ToE was even thought of. In the real world, that is, the one with the fossils in it and in which time doesn't run backwards.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Faith, posted 05-04-2013 10:50 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 1:16 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
(1)
Message 137 of 182 (698326)
05-05-2013 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Faith
05-05-2013 1:31 PM


Re: a great example of how creationists do not study fossils.
All the layers were produced by the SAME process and not different processes ...
Then why do they look different? For example, why did the SAME process produce fossil footprints in some formations but not others? If magic water produces dinosaur footprints in mud, why doesn't it produce similar footprints in all mud? It's the same water and the same magic, is it not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 1:31 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 10:02 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 158 of 182 (698382)
05-06-2013 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Faith
05-06-2013 11:17 AM


Re: Steve Austin Nautiloid Article
Everything in the Grand Canyon I think demonstrates the Flood ...
Apart from the things that don't, but you can pretend they don't exist.
The sedimentary layers themselves ought to be regarded as evidence of the Flood ...
Should sedimentary layers being deposited today be regarded as evidence of the Flood?
If yes, why?
If not, then why should we regard identical sedimentation in the past as being evidence of the Flood? (Note that: "Because I really want to") is not really a reason.)
The extent of the layers across many states and most of the continent in some cases shows deposition by water, a huge amount of water covering the whole continent ...
Your evidence does not support your assertion.
As for nautiloids in particular, Austin simply found a lot of them in one layer in the Grand Canyon, extending the length of the canyon and beyond, and did studies to show that they don't represent random individual deaths but the death of the entire population at once in a mass kill by a catastrophic event.
But Austin's own (claimed) data disprove that. He says there's 1 nautiloid per square meter. But that makes it ecologically impossible for them to represent a single "mass kill": no predator that big can have that population density.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Faith, posted 05-06-2013 11:17 AM Faith has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
(1)
Message 160 of 182 (698385)
05-06-2013 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Faith
05-05-2013 10:02 PM


Re: a great example of how creationists do not study fossils.
They only "look different" in the sense that the alphabet blocks in the collection have different letters and there's a stain on one and the dog's tooth marks on another, but otherwise they are identical.
Yeah, if you ignore the differences, they're identical. Consider the Coconino Sandstone and the Muav Limestone. One is sandstone, the other is limestone. They are different colors. One has footprints in it, the other has no footprints in it. One exhibits cross-bedding, the other does not. One contains no marine fossils, the other contains many. They're as different as two sedimentary rocks can be, but apart from that, they're identical.
The sedimentary layers are all originally horizontal, remarkably flat-topped, remarkably without the sort of erosion one finds on surface land, and so on and so forth, showing their having been produced by the same processes having roughly the same history.
As you know, this is not true. We showed you photographs.
And your ridiculous remark that the water would have produced such phenomena really is beneath you or ought to be
It was you who claimed one process. I believe that there were several. Now it appears you are willing to admit at least two: that water covered all the land, and that land animals walked about on it. Did they breathe while they were doing so?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 10:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Faith, posted 05-06-2013 7:25 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
(1)
Message 172 of 182 (698418)
05-06-2013 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Faith
05-06-2013 7:25 PM


Re: a great example of how creationists do not study fossils.
As I said they are identical AS TO THE PROCESSES OF THEIR DEPOSITION.
And this is obviously untrue. Hence the cross-bedding in one and not in the other.
Those have nothing to do with the mechanism of deposition.
A number of them have a bearing on the mode of deposition. For example, marine limestone is invariably deposited underwater, whereas sediments with the footprints of land animals in them are invariably not deposited underwater.
YES, IDENTICAL IN THAT THEIR MANNER OF DEPOSITION WAS THE SAME ...
No, obviously not.
Nor are they identical in the sense that they are identical, this being the usual meaning of the word "identical".
And their general appearance shows that, their horizontality, their relatively flat uneroded surfaces, etc, which show that they were both deposited by a huge quantity of water. This general appearance of ALL the otherwise different strata is obvious to the naked eye.
This "general appearance" is something that you made up in your head and have continued to lie about even after being exposed to the facts. And what makes this behavior even more ridiculous and disgraceful is that you are reciting this witless lie to people, such as myself, who are perfectly aware that you were mistaken and that you are lying.
Your photographs were undecipherable as I recall ...
You recall wrong. But if what you mean is that you, personally, were too blind, too stupid, or too dishonest to see what I waved right in front of your nose, then that is not a criticism of the evidence, but a confession of your blindness, stupidity, or dishonesty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Faith, posted 05-06-2013 7:25 PM Faith has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
(1)
Message 173 of 182 (698419)
05-06-2013 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Faith
05-06-2013 7:29 PM


Re: Steve Austin Nautiloid Article
They aren't dunes. If they WERE dunes then their sand grains were nevertheless transported by the Flood waters and deposited in the Coconino layer. But they may never have been dunes, the shape of the grains might have been formed in the water itself, which I believe is what Garner argues. I personally like the idea that dunes were transported and the crossbedding reflects the shape of the grains as formed at that time.
It's idiotic to think they were ever dunes in their current location, however, absolutely idiotic to think that slow deposition would have flattened them into a horizontal layer beneath the layer above. That tiook water deposition. It also took an enormous weight of strata above.
If you don't know how cross-beds are formed, I suggest you look it up. I mentioned it in my "introduction to geology" thread, y'know. And is common knowledge to anyone remotely interested in geology, which you evidently are not.
The fact is that the Coconino sandstone looks exactly like what you see today if you take a cross-section through sand dunes, and like nothing else. It is therefore not "idiotic" to think that the Coconino sandstone was deposited by the only process we know of which deposits things which look exactly like the Coconino sandstone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Faith, posted 05-06-2013 7:29 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Faith, posted 05-06-2013 9:36 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
(1)
Message 179 of 182 (698434)
05-06-2013 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Faith
05-06-2013 9:36 PM


Re: Steve Austin Nautiloid Article
Cross bedding is the result of the shape of the sand grains.
What on Earth gave you that idea? I'm guessing magic mushrooms, but I'd also believe peyote ... or creationism, I hear that causes bizarre hallucinations too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Faith, posted 05-06-2013 9:36 PM Faith 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