Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,567 Year: 4,824/9,624 Month: 172/427 Week: 85/85 Day: 2/20 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do creationists try to find and study fossils?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


(2)
Message 106 of 182 (698283)
05-05-2013 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Faith
05-05-2013 7:10 AM


quote:
On the contrary, I believe I've made a decent case for it.
Given that the study to back up this belief appears to be absent, I'd say that you haven't made much of a case at all.
quote:
But like all the numbers, that's one you simply pulled out of a hat. There is no reason why it should take more than a few years for any of the kinds of fossilization, hundreds max.
In fact we know that that isn't true under normal conditions. Archaeologists find remains that are hundreds of years old and not fossilised often enough. Finding remains that were only hundreds of years old AND fossilised would be unusual. (I recently saw an abstract of a paper which presented partially fossilised 1500 year old bones as something unusual)
quote:
The Flood explains the vast majority of the facts better than evolution; there will always remain some questions, but even those are usually answerable when discussed in some detail and not just thrown at a creationist in passing during another discussion.
Of course that isn't true. Even in this thread you're reduced to denying facts that don't fit.
quote:
Again, NOBODY has that kind of evidence of what happened in the prehistoric past, the best that's possible is reconstructing it imaginatively, and what I described is a very likely reconstruction, far more likely than those fantastic scenarios preferred by evolutionists. YOU have no way of studying how a particular layer formed EITHER, it's all pure speculation, so don't give me this "study and evidence" song and dance.
If you don't do the studies all you'll have is pure speculation. If you think that your fantasies are more likely than scientific conclusions simply because they're your fantasies then I can only feel sorry for you.
quote:
Which examples? At the links? But everybody kiboshed those, NOW you want to accept them?
Nobody said that the items weren't real or formed as claimed.
quote:
Stack of wet sediments, under pressure from the weight of those above, would have a constant supply of water trickling down from the upper levels and running between the layers until the whole stack dried out, and some underground sources may have remained as well.
That doesn't make a lot of sense. The pressure would tend to force the water up, and the supply wouldn't be constant. And you need the water to be very highly saturated in minerals for it to work quickly.
quote:
Where are YOUR studies since you insist on studies? You have none. There is no way to study what happened in the prehistoric past, all you have is conjecture just as I do, and mine is very reasonable, can't say the same for yours.
Hey, the subject is creationist studies. If you want to admit that creationists only have conjecture instead of doing the work then thanks for the rare honesty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 7:10 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 8:00 AM PaulK has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 107 of 182 (698285)
05-05-2013 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by PaulK
05-05-2013 7:51 AM


HIGHLY saturated in minerals is exactly what you would have in the scenario I described, from the water seeping through the stack. Why on earth would it seep UPward? But if it did then the same mineralizing would be present only coming from below. Sheesh.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by PaulK, posted 05-05-2013 7:51 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by PaulK, posted 05-05-2013 8:40 AM Faith has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22605
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 108 of 182 (698286)
05-05-2013 8:22 AM


Topic is Creationist Fossil Studies
Could I again suggest that the flood is not the topic? Faith said she knows of only two creationists performing fossil studies, Austin and Cameron. We should be talking about them, not the flood.
I couldn't find the original research papers about fossils from either one, but here's a link to a summary of a presentation Austin gave on his nautiloid research:
The summary says the nautiloids were deposited suddenly:
The enormous hyperconcentrated flow hydroplaned westward at a velocity of over 5 m/sec through a shallow, carbonate platform environment, sweeping up, smothering and depositing an entire seafloor population of nautiloids.
The details of the presentation that would presumably support this interpretation doesn't appear to be available online. Geez, wouldn't ya know, finally proof of the flood is found but no creationist has seen fit to make it available!
Faith, are you sure there's a Paul Cameron doing fossil studies? All I can find about a Paul Cameron is a fundamentalist Christian, psychologist and homophobe with a sketchy record that caused his expulsion from both the American Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association back in the 1980's. This doesn't sound like the right background for fossil research, so it must be the wrong guy.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 8:50 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 111 by Percy, posted 05-05-2013 8:52 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 109 of 182 (698287)
05-05-2013 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Faith
05-05-2013 8:00 AM


quote:
HIGHLY saturated in minerals is exactly what you would have in the scenario I described, from the water seeping through the stack.
But which minerals, and how fast would they be picked up ?
quote:
Why on earth would it seep UPward?
Because the pressure is squeezing it out. WHere else can it go ? Not down because that's where the pressure is highest.
quote:
But if it did then the same mineralizing would be present only coming from below.
Which means that the minerals that formed the fossil must have come from below. Now there's something that could be studied. So why isn't that study being done ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 8:00 AM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 110 of 182 (698288)
05-05-2013 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Percy
05-05-2013 8:22 AM


Re: Topic is Creationist Fossil Studies
SO SORRY, the guy's name is Paul GARNER, I don't know why I keep getting that wrong. I read a while back that he's going to be studying the Coconino sandstone layer of the Grand Canyon for the next few years but on a quick look at the Biblical Creation Ministries website I didn't find that information again.
Studying the sandstone layer doesn't necessarily mean studying fossils. I think he's interested in how some of the layer above has penetrated into the sandstone as I recall, so that may make it irrelevant to this thread. In any case now I can't find where he said he was going to the Grand Canyon.
Yes I think the nautiloid studies by Austin are great proof of the Flood, and all the rest of that talk by Garner on the video I linked, but I think Austin's is the only actual fossil study he discusses there.
ABE Garner's interest in the Coconino is mentioned on this page but the trip there is not mentioned. Maybe he cancelled it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Percy, posted 05-05-2013 8:22 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22605
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 111 of 182 (698289)
05-05-2013 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Percy
05-05-2013 8:22 AM


Steve Austin Nautiloid Article
I found this 1990 article by Steve Austin that includes his views on nautiloids in the Redwall Formation of the Grand Canyon:
This is his most relevant assertion:
Steve Austin writes:
The long, slender shells of numerous nautiloids, in Nautiloid Canyon, have a dominant orientation, indicating that current was operating, as "fine grained" lime mud accumulated.13
He provides a reference for this assertion. Ripe with anticipation I go to the bottom of the article and look up reference 13, which says:
[13] Observation of Steven A. Austin in Nautiloid Canyon, April 1989.
In other words, Austin's cited reference for this assertion is...himself!
I've now discovered that the details for Austin's claims do not appear in any research papers, but only in his book, Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, no part of which could I find available on-line. This link has a good discussion of the nautiloid claims beginning about half way down at the paragraph that begins, "These nautiloids were free-floating..."
The author, who examined areas of the Grand Canyon to which he was directed by Austin himself, expresses puzzlement over how Austin could reach his conclusions based upon the available evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Percy, posted 05-05-2013 8:22 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 9:02 AM Percy has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34046
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 6.2


(1)
Message 112 of 182 (698290)
05-05-2013 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Faith
05-04-2013 9:52 PM


a great example of how creationists do not study fossils.
Yes, the past left evidence, unique evidence such as the bazillions of fossils in the miles deep stack of sediments that has not occurred on such a scale since and never will. It is open to interpretation in a way evidence formed in the present is not because in the present you have similar events for comparison. That is not the case with the prehistoric past. The evidence remains open to interpretation. The same evidence you take to prove evolution I take to prove the Flood and I think the interpretation of a stack of neatly horizontal sediments as eras in time is stupid in the extreme.
No, once again what you are saying is simply not true.
There is no miles deep stack of sediments filled with fossils.
There is no single flood.
We did have similar events in the past.
We do know what the conditions were in the past, particularly the just yesterday past of when you seem to think the Biblical Flood happened.
You don't actually look at the evidence; if you honestly did that you would not say the things you say.
What you do is imagine and make up shit.
You imagine that the Biblical Flood caused volcanoes and earthquakes.
You imagine that the Biblical Flood killed all the animals and then also washed down miles of sediment to cover them.
You really don't have any actual evidence, just the fantasies in your head and the falsehoods that get published on Creationist and CCoI websites.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Faith, posted 05-04-2013 9:52 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 9:02 AM jar has replied
 Message 116 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 9:44 AM jar has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 113 of 182 (698291)
05-05-2013 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Percy
05-05-2013 8:52 AM


Re: Steve Austin Nautiloid Article
Well, Austin is the one who did the research on the orientation of the nautiloids so who else is he going to reference? This is all covered in the video by Paul Garner.
I wouldn't give much weight to an article titled Bibliolatry Revisited myself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Percy, posted 05-05-2013 8:52 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by JonF, posted 05-05-2013 10:34 AM Faith has replied
 Message 142 by Percy, posted 05-05-2013 2:20 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 114 of 182 (698292)
05-05-2013 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by jar
05-05-2013 8:59 AM


Re: a great example of how creationists do not study fossils.
Apply your criticisms to yourself where they fit SO well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by jar, posted 05-05-2013 8:59 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by jar, posted 05-05-2013 9:17 AM Faith has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34046
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 115 of 182 (698293)
05-05-2013 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Faith
05-05-2013 9:02 AM


Re: a great example of how creationists do not study fossils.
I have. I have actually gone out and look at fossils in situ. I have actually looked at canyon wills and cuts, at new mountains and old mountains. I have helped on archeological digs that went back to well over 8000 years, long before the supposed flood where there was absolutely no signs of a flood and other similar aged sites where there were signs of numerous floods.
When someone honestly examines the evidence there can be no other conclusion than that the Biblical Flood never happened and that the fossil and just plain dirt confirm that the Biblical Flood never happened.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 9:02 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 9:51 AM jar has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 116 of 182 (698295)
05-05-2013 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by jar
05-05-2013 8:59 AM


Re: a great example of how creationists do not study fossils.
No, once again what you are saying is simply not true.
There is no miles deep stack of sediments filled with fossils.
Grand Canyon. One mile deep there up to the Permian, a mile deep of sediments chock full of fossils, and counting the layers in the Grand Staircase to the north as well, which would have also originally covered the Grand Canyon but clearly were washed away from that area, it's at least two miles of sediments chock full of fossils. And I've seen descriptions that claim more miles of depth than that in other parts of the world.
There is no single flood.
You do have a habit of making bald assertions while asking your opponents for evidence you rarely supply yourself. Sorry, the evidence supports the Flood, the evidence being for starters that stack of sediments chock full of those fossils that could only have been laid down in such an event, rather than by the Rube Goldbergish scenarios pictured by evolutionists with risings and fallings of sea levels and landscapes somehow fantasized from table-top-flat layers visible to the naked eye.
We did have similar events in the past.
We do know what the conditions were in the past, particularly the just yesterday past of when you seem to think the Biblical Flood happened.
Again, the master of evidence-less assertion speaketh.
You don't actually look at the evidence; if you honestly did that you would not say the things you say.
I'll refrain from calling you what you deserve to be called for that.
What you do is imagine and make up shit.
Funny, that's what it looks to me like evolutionists do. All fantasy, confirmed not by evidence but by group delusion.
You imagine that the Biblical Flood caused volcanoes and earthquakes.
I surmise not that the Flood CAUSED them but that they accompanied that event and caused the movement of the continents also in connection with that event.
You imagine that the Biblical Flood killed all the animals and then also washed down miles of sediment to cover them.
Of course it would have done such things on the scale it had to have occurred.
You really don't have any actual evidence, just the fantasies in your head and the falsehoods that get published on Creationist and CCoI websites.
Oddly enough I rarely read creationist websites. As for evidence you don't have any either, what you have is your imagination of long ages that couldn't possibly explain the formation of the neat horizontal strata let alone account for the conditions to preserve so many dead creatures. That's all the ToE has, a group delusional acceptance of a really ridiculous fantasy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by jar, posted 05-05-2013 8:59 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by jar, posted 05-05-2013 9:55 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 117 of 182 (698296)
05-05-2013 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by jar
05-05-2013 9:17 AM


Re: a great example of how creationists do not study fossils.
I have. I have actually gone out and look at fossils in situ. I have actually looked at canyon wills and cuts, at new mountains and old mountains.
A perfect example of how actual experience of such things doesn't give you any understanding of them.
I have helped on archeological digs that went back to well over 8000 years, long before the supposed flood where there was absolutely no signs of a flood and other similar aged sites where there were signs of numerous floods.
You cannot look at an archaeological dig or anything else and conclude that it's 8000 years old or any particular age, that's not something one can observe, it's all theory you impose on what you are looking at. And of course like all delusional OE evolutionists you have no idea what sort of evidence THE Flood would have produced and you stupidly think it could be compared to local floods.
When someone honestly examines the evidence there can be no other conclusion than that the Biblical Flood never happened and that the fossil and just plain dirt confirm that the Biblical Flood never happened.
But you haven't said one thing about any actual evidence, and what you might have seen in the field you saw through theory-colored glasses so your conclusion is rubbish.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by jar, posted 05-05-2013 9:17 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by jar, posted 05-05-2013 10:02 AM Faith has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34046
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 6.2


(1)
Message 118 of 182 (698297)
05-05-2013 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Faith
05-05-2013 9:44 AM


Re: a great example of how creationists do not study fossils.
Grand Canyon. One mile deep there up to the Permian, a mile deep of sediments chock full of fossils, and counting the layers in the Grand Staircase to the north as well, which would have also originally covered the Grand Canyon but clearly were washed away from that area, it's at least two miles of sediments chock full of fossils. And I've seen descriptions that claim more miles of depth than that in other parts of the world.
Again, that is a great example of the total dishonesty and misrepresentations of Creationists and how Creationists do NOT actually and honestly examine or study fossils or evidence.
The Grand Canyon is NOT "a mile deep of sediments chock full of fossils" as you certainly should know since you participated in the thread Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up. until as usual you simply said "nah nah nah, I can't hear you" and ran away.
The Grand Canyon is a whole series of layers with different origins, produced by different processes, some containing fossils, some NOT containing fossils.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 9:44 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 10:04 AM jar has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34046
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 6.2


(2)
Message 119 of 182 (698298)
05-05-2013 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Faith
05-05-2013 9:51 AM


Re: a great example of how creationists do not study fossils.
Faith writes:
You cannot look at an archaeological dig or anything else and conclude that it's 8000 years old or any particular age, that's not something one can observe, it's all theory you impose on what you are looking at. And of course like all delusional OE evolutionists you have no idea what sort of evidence THE Flood would have produced and you stupidly think it could be compared to local floods.
Bullshit Faith, nothing but Bullshit.
Change leaves evidence.
Dig a trench and observe the layers of soil.
Dig a second trench a few yards away and observe the layers of soil.
First trench shows uniform soil top to bottom.
Second trench shows a series of alternating layers.
You can see from that that different processes happened at the two locations over time.
You most certainly can date materials found in the two trenches, particularly if the material is only 10-50,000 years old.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 9:51 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 10:10 AM jar has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 120 of 182 (698299)
05-05-2013 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by jar
05-05-2013 9:55 AM


Re: a great example of how creationists do not study fossils.
The whole stack is chock full of fossils even if some don't contain fossils, what a joke. And the EVIDENCE to an HONEST observer is that they ALL had to have been produced by the same process, which happens to be well accounted for by a worldwide Flood. The idea of different processes is that Rube Goldbergish idiocy I was referring to which is what your idiotic thread about the Grand Canyon was all about. An HONEST observer who can actually SEE REALITY would see that.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by jar, posted 05-05-2013 9:55 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by jar, posted 05-05-2013 10:14 AM Faith has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024