Do creationists try to find and study fossils?

For this thread I think what you want to show is how this conclusion resulted from research and study.--Percy

What he was saying is that if we took the volume of crinoid parts found in that single geologic formation it would cover the entire globe in 1/4 of an inch in crinoid plates. That's how many animal fossils are found in that single formation. The author is showing that it is ridiculous to claim that this single formation could have been created from a single flood given the volume of animals it took to create that single formation. Can I stress again how this is just one geologic formation out of thousands?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

I've done a little check on Morton's calculation and i believe that I have discovered a mistake.The surface area of the Earth - land and sea - is roughly 200,000,000 square miles (in fact less than that)The volume of crinoid material in the formation is estimated as "at least" 10,000 cubic miles, according to the quote.So the entire planet would be covered to a depth of 1/20,000 miles - not a quarter of an inch. A quarter of a foot

So now we have 30 or so fox sized animals per acre needed to create the Karroo formation, and it looks like they need to be walking around on top of a 3 inches of crinoids wherever they go.The problems keep stacking up for flood geology.

Good grief...Those are not fossils, nor are they "petrified". This type of object is no more a fossil than my kettle is a fossil when it develops lime-scale. That's all these types of object are; ordinary items coated in calcium carbonate. If you had the least bit of intellectual curiosity, you could have found this out for yourself.This is why people laugh at creationists.If you want to really challenge the fossil record, try and find an opal boot or a pyrite clock.Mutate and Survive

You are misrepresenting those articles I linked.The page on petrification clearly describes bodies of humans and a cat that had been mineralized throughout, not just covered on the surface, and there is one quote on [URL=http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/fossilboot.html]the other page[/URL=] by an Alfred Romer writing in Natural History in 1959 saying that it only takes five to ten years to completely replace chicken bones and wood with minerals. Complete replacement with minerals IS fossilization.The clock example was meant only to illustrate its having been encased in rock. And the claim about the boot is that the bones inside were completely replaced with minerals.=================================================================Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Shorten long line.

The conditions in question, which most creationists agree on, and which are obvious, are that huge quantities of sediments laden with dead creatures were transported and deposited in the strata we see all over the world. Those conditions would be ideal for fossilization, the rapid burial plus the great weight of upper strata pressing it all down. "More recent creatures," meaning most of the land animals, would have been buried in the upper layers where the pressure was less and in fact huge quantities of those layers appear to have been washed away during the receding of the Flood waters. You can see this in the Grand Canyon / Grand Staircase area, where the upper layers that are intact in the GS are no longer present over the GC, and you can see where they were broken off to the north.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Nothing would be "walking around" on a stack of crinoids because they live in the SEA, so you have to consider that conditions in the pre-Flood sea environment may have favored their proliferation enough to account for the quantity you are observing. One thing creationsts agree on is that the pre-Flood world was far more lush and fertile than the world now, and the oceans would most likely have been as well.But also, are you talking about the surface of the LAND only or the entire surface of the globe which would include the surface of the oceans as well? SURFACE. If you consider the surface of the sea bed as the area in question rather than the surface of the water you might come up with a different quantity.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

But also, are you talking about the surface of the LAND only or the entire surface of the globe which would include the surface of the oceans as well? SURFACE. If you consider the surface of the sea bed as the area in question rather than the surface of the water you might come up with a different quantity.

---

It's the entire surface of the globe, and if you had read my post - the one Taq replied to you would know that. Context is important.

If you calculate it not for the surface of the globe but for the surface of all the land including the sea beds you'd come up with a lot more area.

Then I suggest that you do that calculation - and then start to allow space for everything else that lives or lived on the sea bed.

need to rethink this.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It feels like this thread is going off in the wrong direction. Rather than rehashing flood geology, shouldn't we be discussing creationist fossil digs and field research?--Percy

No. I am correctly interpreting them as claiming similarity between these absurd sideshow exhibits and fossils. I am correctly interpreting you as claiming similarity between these items and fossils. In this you are absolutely wrong. There is no comparison. Let's take a look;

quote:

---

"There is a well known petrifying stream of water at Knaresborough, Yorkshire, England, three miles from Harrowgate, the well known sanitarium. It is a cascade from the River Nidd, about 15 feet high and twice as broad, and forms an aqueous curtain to a cave know as Mother Shipton’s Cave. The dripping waters are used for the purposes of petrifying anything sent to be hung up in the drip of the water ledge, which flows over, as it were, the eaves of the cave. This ledge of limestone rock is augmented unceasingly by the action of the waters which flow over it. This cascade has an endless variety of objects hung up by short lengths of wire to be petrified by the water trickling over them, as sponges, books, gloves, kerchiefs and veils, hunter’s cap, fox, cat, dog, bird, boots, etc., just as fancy prompts people to seek petrifying results. A sponge is petrified in a few months, a book or cap in a year or two, cat or bird a little longer....One cat shown in the museum had the head broken off at the neck showing the whole was limestone throughout, with not a trace of organic structure of the original cat."

---

this is quite a well known tourist attraction in the UK. I've visited similar sites in Matlock Bath and seen these items for myself.It's nothing more than I described in my last message; calcium carbonate deposition, just like lime-scale in a kettle. These waters have a high quantity of dissolved calcium in them, so they deposit calcium carbonate on anything left in them. Check it out;

quote:

---

A petrifying well is a well which give objects a stone-like appearance.

​

If an object is placed into such a well and left there for a period of months or years the object acquires a stony exterior. At one time this property was believed to be a result of magic or witchcraft, but it is an entirely natural phenomenon and due to a process of evaporation and deposition in waters with an unusually high mineral content.

​

This process of petrifying is not to be confused with petrification wherein the constituent molecules of the original object are replaced (and not merely overlaid) with molecules of stone or mineral.
Examples

​

Notable examples of petrifying wells in England are the spring at Mother Shipton's Cave in Knaresborough and Matlock Bath, in Derbyshire, while in Ireland, such wells were noted by John Rutty on Howth Head,[1] among other locations.

​

The Knaresborough petrifying well was first opened to the public in 1630 and still amazes people by its 'abilities' to this day.

---

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrifying_wellAs you can see, this is simply a process of items being covered in lime-scale, nothing more. Nothing like a fossil.As for the claim about the cat, well, that's simply because bones are porous. They absorb the lime-scale to the point where the bone and lime become fused and difficult to tell apart. The bone is not actually becoming petrified. It might be similar enough to fool you, but that's because you have no interest in fossils. It's not enough to fool a palaeontologist or even a hobbyist. Real fossil bones look nothing like this. Again, he is talking about the same process. Lime-scale invading a porous object. He is simply wrong to say that the material is replaced though, that's not what happens. If you disagree, show us these bones. These examples do not show that. A false statement. Read it again;

quote:

---

Here is a picture of a clock embedded in rock. Clocks have not been around for millions of years, so it is easy to see that fossils do not always take long periods of time to form.

---

Quite clearly, the author is trying to draw a false comparison between the clock concretion and fossils. Take a look at that boot; Why does the lime-scale conform to the shape of the boot, rather than the shape of a leg?Why didn't the boot petrify?Take a look at those bones; don't they look a little odd to you? To me, they do not look anatomically correct. Plus, they are clearly not mineralised, They look like ordinary bones that have been soaked in lime-rich water, that's all. Real fossil bones look nothing like that.The whole thing is utterly foolish, as foolish as Just Being Real's silly hat avatar. This whole line of argument is an embarrassment.If you want to really challenge the notion that fossils take long periods of time to form, then you need to replicate the actual conditions of real fossils. Of course, you can't do that.Can you show me an clock in amber? No.Can you show me a shale Boot? No.Can you show me any modern item preserved in slate, sandstone, chalk, oolite, calcite or chalcedony? No, you cannot.Show us that and you will really have something. Until then you are only inviting ridicule.Mutate and Survive

Hello Faith,I have had a look at Alfred S. Romers article "Darwin and the fossil record" in "Natural history magazine", Vol 68, page 457. The article is an interesting read - its subtitle states: "In the century since Darwin's controversial theory first appeared, paleontologists have established a solid foundation for evolution" - but I was not able to find the sentence you quoted. Maybe you could help me to locate it?(I have found the article here: http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/handle/2246/6389)Thank you very much!Best regards
Bernd