|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Do creationists try to find and study fossils? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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. This is not something one would actually find in reality a few yards apart. As usual you are making stuff up rather than giving actual evidence, you the master complainer about others not giving evidnece. You're always the worst offender. In fact I don't think you even know what evidence is.
You can see from that that different processes happened at the two locations over time. Even if such a situation did occur -- show me one -- the idea that one could see from it "different processes happening over time" is absolutely without warrant. Where are you getting such idiotic ideas?
You most certainly can date materials found in the two trenches, particularly if the material is only 10-50,000 years old. Oh master of unsupported assertions. Good grief jar that's ALL you do assert assert assert. Where's your evidence?
PS: IF PERCY WANTS THIS THREAD TO STOP BEING ABOUT THE FLOOD HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO CALL OFF THE ANTI-CREATIONIST DOGS. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Well folk can read the Grand Canyon thread and see if a Flood could explain what is presented or if it was an "idiotic thread".
But I note that you never presented the model or mechanisms to explain what is actually seen. How does the Biblical Flood produce granite layers? How does the Biblical Flood produce igneous layers and intrusions? How does the Biblical Flood produce limestone layers? How does the Biblical Flood sort the fossils by type? How does the Biblical Flood produce alternating layers? See this is the issue Faith, you answer to all that is just "the Flud Didit".Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Faith writes: jar writes: 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. This is not something one would actually find in reality a few yards apart. As usual you are making stuff up rather than giving actual evidence, you the master complainer about others not giving evidnece. You're always the worst offender. In fact I don't think you even know what evidence is. Again, that is simply false; what I described is exactly what you find on the edges of any flood plain. It is something found all over the earth, time and time again. AbE: this is a great example of how Creationists do NOT examine fossils or evidence. Edited by jar, : see AbE:Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Well, Austin is the one who did the research on the orientation of the nautiloids so who else is he going to reference?
Umm, the purpose of a reference is to give someone a link to a source of more information. Referencing a person is done (e.g. "Fred Hemmerstein, 4 May 2013, personal communication"), but it's not encouraged. Referencing himself for the claim of orientation of the nautiloids is definitely inappropriate. If he wants to make that claim, he should present the evidence (photographs, etc.) in the paper in which he's making the claim or reference a source other than himself. If there's no source other than himself, there's no reason to make a reference, and then there's no excuse for not presenting the data in the paper.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 735 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Yeah - "cuz I said so" would not fly, even here in the oil industry, where we are sloppy as hell with references/peer review.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
But I note that you never presented the model or mechanisms to explain what is actually seen. How odd, I'm sure I did but I'll have to check later.
How does the Biblical Flood produce granite layers? It doesn't, the volcano beneath the canyon did that in conjunction with the enormous weight of the stack of wet sediments above which at that point was at least two miles in depth or height.
How does the Biblical Flood produce igneous layers and intrusions? Again, the volcano beneath the canyon did that.
How does the Biblical Flood produce limestone layers? By transporting and deposting bazillions of sea creatures, coccoliths for instance, or crinoids, in a layer which is then pressed down by the weight of other layers that accumulate over it as the Flood progresses.
How does the Biblical Flood sort the fossils by type? Presumably by some hydraulic principle that has nothing to do with the "type" as understood by evolutionists.
How does the Biblical Flood produce alternating layers? The same way rivers do.
See this is the issue Faith, you answer to all that is just "the Flud Didit". Oh no it's not and it never was, I do have answers and I gave them above, and not only now but many times in the past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Oh I see, bait and switch, or do you still beat your wife?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Perhaps you are correct about the most proper form, but he referenced his own book because that's where he discussed the research he did to show the directional orientation of the nautiloids. Referencing books is standard scholarly procedure as I've always understood it. Most likely his space was limited in the article.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It's funny how creationists are so often given the ad hominem treatment here, finding fault with something, anything at all, about them personally or how their work was presented, instead of any attempt to deal with the argument itself. Surely Austin described his conclusions from the nautiloid orientations in the article and if they demonstrate what he claims for them why not address that? Because you can't stand it if a creationist is ever right about something, you have to hope to find out that he's wrong and that's all you care about?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: jar writes: How does the Biblical Flood produce granite layers? It doesn't, the volcano beneath the canyon did that in conjunction with the enormous weight of the stack of wet sediments above which at that point was at least two miles in depth or height. Again, if you had actually looked honestly at the evidence you would know you are simply making shit up again.
Faith writes: jar writes: How does the Biblical Flood produce igneous layers and intrusions? Again, the volcano beneath the canyon did that. Except once again, the evidence shows you are just full of shit. What we see is that there was no single volcanic even or that the igneous layers were laid down from below.
Faith writes: jar writes: How does the Biblical Flood produce limestone layers? By transporting and deposting bazillions of sea creatures, coccoliths for instance, or crinoids, in a layer which is then pressed down by the weight of other layers that accumulate over it as the Flood progresses. More really stupid bullshit. How does the Biblical Flood transport and deposit a layer of just one type critter?
Faith writes: jar writes: How does the Biblical Flood sort the fossils by type? Presumably by some hydraulic principle that has nothing to do with the "type" as understood by evolutionists. So again you are just making shit up.
Faith writes: jar writes: How does the Biblical Flood produce alternating layers? The same way rivers do. Rivers produce layers by happening over and over and over again. Rivers do not produce layers in one event. Again, you are simply showing that like all Creationists you do not honestly examine fossils look for evidence, you just make shit up that suits what you want reality to be.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I have a different theory from yours, jar, you don't like it but that's the way it is. I've argued for the formation of the granite and the igneous intrustions and the schist as well by the volcanic eruption beneath the canyon, for which all that is evidence, but also the fact that the whole area is raised in a mound is further evidence for it. I also believe that eruption caused the breaking up and washing away of the upper strata above the current Permian rim, the scouring effects of the chunks of strata being what carved out the canyon to such a prodigious width and depth.
It's my analysis of what I see on the diagrams. I can just as well say that establishment geology "makes up ...." as you can of my theory, and with better justification. How did the Flood sort the sediments at all is what you are asking? I don't know. How does the ocean lay down sand grains to make beaches? I figure the sorting done by the Flood must have a lot to do with the fact that ocean water is naturally sorted into layers, and also currents and also wave action. The Coconino sandstone extends almost all the way across the North American continent from west to east, suggesting it was deposited by waves, or one great wave. Other layers show a similar if not quite as extensive formation. As you point out, rivers don't produce layers in just one event, and Neither would the Flood have produced layers in just one event. Even one layer may be laid down by a succession of waves, but certainly the different sediments are carried on successive waves. The Flood would have had many stages, and the deposition of the fossil-laden sediments was probably in the end stage. I believe I've come to my theory honestly, from reading up on various aspects of geology and studying diagrams of the Grand Canyon among other thingsl.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Perhaps you are correct about the most proper form, but he referenced his own book because that's where he discussed the research he did to show the directional orientation of the nautiloids. Referencing books is standard scholarly procedure as I've always understood it. Most likely his space was limited in the article. He didn't reference his book. It is perfectly fine to reference a book, but he didn't. As Percy first pointed out, the reference for nautiloids at Were Grand Canyon Limestones Deposited by Calm and Placid Seas? is "[13] Observation of Steven A. Austin in Nautiloid Canyon, April 1989." Yeah, probably his space was limited. If he couldn't present the supporting information there, he should have referenced something that contains the information, or skipped the claim entirely. At Nautiloid Mass-Kill Event he claims to have measured the orientation of 71 nautiloids. But he doesn't give any statistics; were all of them oriented in exactly the same direction, or was there some variation? He says that several things led him to conclude catastrophic deposition, but he doesn't provide any data. At Another Visit to the Grand Canyon Prof. Steve S. Steve writes:
quote: Too bad the picture doesn't clearly show the fossils. Of course, that is also lacking in scientific data, but isn't a scientific paper and it does give us some reason to believe that catastrophic deposition isn't the only explanation. Austin has much more work to do if he wants to establish his claim. So far his scholarship looks pretty shoddy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
No Faith, you don't have a theory. Again, that is simply another example of the dishonesty of Creationists.
I believe you actually think you are being honest; I don't doubt you believe you are actually studying things or have a theory or have offered explanations. What you believe is unrelated to either the truth or reality. And the Biblical Flood was one event according to the Bible. I asked how the Biblical Flood could produce layers of limestone. Not just one layer but a series of layers of limestone. Unless you can produce the mechanism that does produce a series of layers of limestone separated by layers produced by other processes you have no theory. Creationists do not try to find and study anything. Period.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The orientation of the nautiloids was only one factor discussed to demonstrate the catastrophic nature of their deposition. The fact that every size and age of nautiloid is represented is another piece of evidence, showing that the whole population of nautiloids died at the same time, not just the aged or whatever would have occurred randomly and normally. Also the huge number of them, in a limestone layer spread over thousands of square miles in the canyon and out to Nevada and California, is evidence for catastrophic burial.
No evidence for catastrophic burial or a mass kill? He must be joking. All this is covered in that video by Paul Garner I linked back a ways.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Surely Austin described his conclusions from the nautiloid orientations in the article and if they demonstrate what he claims for them why not address that See my message above. In this particular case, I didn't engage his arguments because there isn't enough data available. Perhaps it's available in his book, but I don't have it and (at least in several articles) he didn't reference it. It's not ad-hominem to point out sloppy scholarship. And sloppy scholarship is a reason to question (not disprove) unfounded claims. Ar Bibliolatry Revisited: Review: Grand Canyon (to which Percy linked previously, we find a good example of specific detail:
quote: None of this disproves Austin's claim, but there certainly a lot of questions that are answered only in his book, if at all, The fact that he didn't reference his book makes it seem as if there's no place that the data and answers to these pretty obvious questions aren't there. But I'll find out. I'll have the book on Wednesday (used from Amazon, so I'm not supporting the ICR). We'll see.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024