Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9174 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,616 Year: 4,873/9,624 Month: 221/427 Week: 31/103 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do creationists try to find and study fossils?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1528 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 166 of 182 (698407)
05-06-2013 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by PaulK
05-06-2013 3:03 PM


Re: Steve Austin Nautiloid Article
Of course the Shunimo was metamorphosed first, which I would suppose took a lot less time than is normally supposed. My question is why the other layers with the Shinumo were NOT metamorphosed in the same time period. So I don't have an answer to that yet. Such unanswered questions don't threaten the overall interpretation of the other phenomena as Flood-caused, they merely need further understanding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by PaulK, posted 05-06-2013 3:03 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by PaulK, posted 05-07-2013 1:09 AM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1528 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 167 of 182 (698408)
05-06-2013 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Taq
05-06-2013 1:07 PM


Re: Steve Austin Nautiloid Article
We are hoping for something like a scientific paper with an introduction, methodologies, results, and discussion section. This is the type of paper that scientists write when they communicate their findings.
If that's the requirement of this thread, and Austin's work doesn't qualify, end of discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Taq, posted 05-06-2013 1:07 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Percy, posted 05-06-2013 10:04 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1528 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 168 of 182 (698409)
05-06-2013 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Dr Adequate
05-06-2013 12:02 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.
As I said they are identical AS TO THE PROCESSES OF THEIR DEPOSITION. What you are discussing is the secondary features, the letters on the blocks and the stain and the tooth marks. Those have nothing to do with the mechanism of deposition.
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.
YES, IDENTICAL IN THAT THEIR MANNER OF DEPOSITION WAS THE SAME, 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.
Garner discusses the evidence for this on the video as well.
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.
Your photographs were undecipherable as I recall, and what I said IS true, which I am repeating above.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-06-2013 12:02 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-06-2013 9:09 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1528 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 169 of 182 (698411)
05-06-2013 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Coragyps
05-06-2013 11:55 AM


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.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Coragyps, posted 05-06-2013 11:55 AM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-06-2013 9:16 PM Faith has replied
 Message 174 by Coragyps, posted 05-06-2013 9:33 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1528 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 170 of 182 (698413)
05-06-2013 7:47 PM


The Garner Video on Steve Austin's Nautiloid studies
I'm repeating this post.
OK, in the video of the lecture given by Paul Garner, which I'll put at the
bottom of this post, the whole section dealing with Steve Austin's study of the nautiloid layer in the Grand Canyon runs from 22:47 to 39:40 on the counter.
22:47 starts with a presentation of the characteristics of the Redwall Limestone.
24:20 history of the nautiloid discoveries in Nautiloid Canyon starting in 1966, with pictures of the fossils.
27:30 says nautiloids had been understood to be quite rare in the Canyon despite the find in 1966 but goes on to say Austin disproved this.
(Picture of Austin in the Canyon at 28:19) First with Kurt Wise in 1995 they documented 71 fossils in Nautiloid Canyon. In March 1999 Austin took a trip along the river stopping where redwall nautiloids were exposed, finding hundreds. Concluded that the nautiloid layer runs the entire extent of the Canyon, some 277 miles, a lot more of them than had been previously supposed.
30:30 Austin's map showing Jeff Canyon 21 nautiloids which he says is typical at 1 nautiloid per square meter, and from this estimates the whole layer could contain a billion or even 10 billion.
31:30 Histogram showing diameters of 403 nautiloid fossils from three locations in the Canyon, demonstrating that they represent an entire population killed at once rather than random deaths
32:43 shows Austin's Rose Diagrams of the orientations of the nautiloids, 185 from one side canyon and another 100 plus from another canyon, which is to demonstrate that they were caught in a rapid flow and not randomly individually buried
35:15 shows distribution within the bed is in the center of the bed which he argues shows rapid flow which is demonstrated with a diagram of the Hyperconcentrated Flow Model at 36:10, showing that high speed flows develop a layered structure.
At 37:45 Garner summarizes the points above.
P.S. I've collected the various articles linked on this thread to read later.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
2Cr 10:4-5 (For the weapons of our warfare [are] not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God...

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 171 of 182 (698416)
05-06-2013 9:07 PM


PLEASE TRY TO HAVE ALL MESSAGES CONNECT SOMEHOW TO THINGS FOSSILS
See subtitle.
Adminnemooseus

Or something like that.

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 368 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(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 (Idle past 368 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
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

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 818 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 174 of 182 (698421)
05-06-2013 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Faith
05-06-2013 7:29 PM


Re: Steve Austin Nautiloid Article
Faith, I challenge you: get a cup of sand. Pile it up under the surface of a pan of water to get a cone with its sides at an angle of greater than fifteen degrees from horizontal. Then get a spider to climb it, while under water, and leave footprints.
I will send you a cup of sand, a Pyrex loaf pan, and a gallon of water if you wish. And a protractor - but you are on your own for the spider.

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 176 by Faith, posted 05-06-2013 9:36 PM Coragyps has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1528 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 175 of 182 (698422)
05-06-2013 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Dr Adequate
05-06-2013 9:16 PM


Re: Steve Austin Nautiloid Article
Cross bedding is the result of the shape of the sand grains.
LET's GET BACK TO THE FOSSIL NAUTILOIDS. Message 170.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-06-2013 9:16 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-06-2013 11:39 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1528 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 176 of 182 (698423)
05-06-2013 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Coragyps
05-06-2013 9:33 PM


Re: Steve Austin Nautiloid Article
Nobody said the footprints occurred "while under water." The idea is that the layers or some of them were laid down by ocean waves which came in, dumped their sediments and dead creatures and went out again, the waves being huge and the time between long enough for anything still living to leave footprints.
LET's GET BACK TO THE FOSSIL NAUTILOIDS. Message 170.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Coragyps, posted 05-06-2013 9:33 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Coragyps, posted 05-06-2013 10:06 PM Faith has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22611
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 177 of 182 (698426)
05-06-2013 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Faith
05-06-2013 7:19 PM


Re: Steve Austin Nautiloid Article
Faith writes:
We are hoping for something like a scientific paper with an introduction, methodologies, results, and discussion section. This is the type of paper that scientists write when they communicate their findings.
If that's the requirement of this thread, and Austin's work doesn't qualify, end of discussion.
Well, I think there are a few important points we can make relevant to the topic. Steve Austin has been conducting creationist-style research for at least 25 years, and I trust that he is a sincere and hardworking individual. He has published in the mainstream technical literature only once that I'm aware of, but that was an archeological article about a Biblical site that had nothing to do with Creationism. He has not, so far as I'm aware, even submitted his creationist research to any mainstream conferences or journals. No professional geologists or paleontologists have ever had the opportunity to peer review a technical paper by Steve Austin. The creationist community accepts the ideas of a single person without any critical analysis simply because they aren't geologists or paleontologists, their primary concern being that it agree with the Bible.
Why doesn't Austin submit his papers to technical journals? Probably because he knows his work ignores too much known science. It's fine to challenge accepted ideas within science, that's a good thing, it's done all the time, blazing new trails is how one makes one's name in science and adds to our knowledge. But Austin knows that baldly ignoring decades and in some cases centuries of established research is fatal to getting his ideas considered.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Faith, posted 05-06-2013 7:19 PM Faith has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 818 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 178 of 182 (698427)
05-06-2013 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Faith
05-06-2013 9:36 PM


Re: Steve Austin Nautiloid Article
And the next wave not disturbing the footprints? You are my age or so - remember "Love Letters in the Sand?" Footprints work like that, too.
Gigantic waves are going to align nautiloid shells instead of shattering them? How does that work?
ALL the evidence, Faith. Not just one shred at a time. Including >15 degree angles of repose for underwater sand. You pick the grain shape...

"The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails." H L Mencken

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Faith, posted 05-06-2013 9:36 PM Faith has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 368 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(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

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 180 of 182 (698438)
05-06-2013 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by jar
05-05-2013 2:37 PM


Re: Steve Austin Nautiloid Article
jar writes:
Should that be "yes, there is a creationist who claims to have done some fossil research..."?
That's about it, I guess.
Seems like creationists don't try to find and study fossils.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by jar, posted 05-05-2013 2:37 PM jar 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