|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total) |
| |
The Rutificador chile | |
Total: 919,503 Year: 6,760/9,624 Month: 100/238 Week: 17/83 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1701 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
What you see in the rock record is either flatness or tectonic deformation.
In that case, you are ruling out an entire field of primary sedimentary structures.
It's tectonic deformation I'm saying is irrelevant because it changes the basic flatness of the rock when it was deposited and the point I'm making is about the flatnes. The point, starting back in Message 134 is about the featureless barren flatness of the original deposition, which ought to show that any tracks or other impressions found on it occurred on a vast mud flat and not in the sort of environment or landscape that OE geo theory imputes to the history of the rocks.
Sure, if you have a continuous depositional environment, you will get a continuous layer of sediment related to that environment. If there is a shallow sea from Kansas to Illinois, you will get a continuous layer of siltstone or limestone. However, its thickness will vary and it may have some sedimentary structures that break up the 'flatness'.
EVERY rock where such surface impressions are found had to have been such a vast damp sedimentary surface and not a livable habitat.
Why not? Why do we see trilobite tracks in some of these places or shells or burrows? What is 'unlivable' about it? Why do we see inoceramid clams living in the Niobrara Formation in Kansas if the environment were unlivable?
That calls the whole theory of former landscapes, environments and time periods into question.
Then why do we find lake sediments with fish and insects and bird fossils in them?
Supposedly it shows the wrongness of the Flood interpretation but actually it shows much more the wrongness of the OE interpretation. Long tides would provide time gaps for such impressions to have occurred during the Flood. Also as I explained somewhere earlier have somewhat dried out the mud so that the impressions would remain.
Yes, long enough gaps for termite mounds and dinosaur nests to miraculously appear; and for supposedly dead tetrapods to leave their footprints in sandstone. Sorry, but your flood does not hold water.
I don't know why this is a problem at all. How could I ever mean "true" or perfect flatness? I know we're dealing with rocks and YECs impute thousands of years to them so how could I mean any kind of perfect flatness?
Hey, you're the one making the assertion. If you want to define it, that might help.
I also know that thickness must vary along the extent of any layered rock. It was deposited, according to YE creationism, in the Flood after all, and there couldn't have been perfect evenness of sedimentary deposition. But Steno's original horizontality rules in the strata and I'm sure he too could see the variations he nevertheless had no problem calling horizontal. Why is this a question? The flatness is obviously relative, but it is obvious, it is visible, it's apparent in photo after photo of strata that have been posted here, as well as cross sections and other illustrations. The deviations from flatness are minuscule.
At that scale, it appears to be flat. All formations will appear to be flat at some point.
The point I was trying to make is not affected by such minuscule variations in the flatness. We're still talking about a vast mud plain in which the tracks and the ripples and the raindrops and the burrows are to be found, NOT a livable habitat.
Well, then why are the creatures leaving footprints in an unlivable habitat? Why do they build nests? Why do they dig burrows? How do they reproduce?
It's a ROCK. It was a vast mud flat at one point. It was NEVER a "landscape."
A mudflat is a landscape. Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
All you are saying is that a creationist dare not say anything against the OE theory. No right to think about it without a degree, though even those with the relevant degrees are not qualified to judge by many comments at EvC. I did not say anything like that, and I'm pretty sure you know I did not. What I am pointing out is that your judgement of Morton is without basis. You neither know what he said, nor what arguments others raised up against him. Yet you still claim superiority over both Morton and the creation scientist of his day. You might be able to learn enough information to have an informed opinion, but by your own admission you have not. Now add on top of that the lack of formal education on geology, chemistry, physics, etc., and you begin to understand the direction of my criticism of you. Here you've talked about scientific ideas having to be 'credible'. But quite obviously credibility is in the eyes of the beholder. Nobody really gives a crap if a college freshman, for example, does not find Einstein's theory of gravitation credible. I don't see any basis to consider your idea of what is and is not credible to be informative. That applies equally well to both Morton's position, or that of Kurt Wise, for example.
I get quite shaken at the accusations I encounter here, but once I'm committed to a point of view I don't easily give it up and that will remain through all the accusations you can throw at me. I could have said something similar, but it might have included a reference to a bag of hammers. I'm not sure that your statement is any kind of self compliment. ABE: Looks like there is some bleed through from another thread here. I had to recheck to make sure I hadn't blundered into that other morass of a forum. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Here is a schematic cross-section from Utah to Iowa showing some of the strata that Faith describes.
If we look at the Kansas part of the section we see the Niobrara Limestone at fairly shallow depths and even cropping out in some places. Theoretically, this formation is unlivable according to Faith. And yet we see such fossils as inoceramid clam fossils in the Niobrara. These creatures grew to be quite large as shown by this page in Wikipedia (Inoceramus - Wikipedia). My question is how did these creatures get to their current location in an unlivable environment? They apparently had no problem growing to great size and eventually forming fossils several feet across. So, if the environment was unlivable, how did they grow so large? How did they get there in the first place? I mean, it's not like they went out on a tidal flat in search of food and got caught in a rising tide. I also remember a YEC canard that creatures were running like crazy from the rising flood waters ... So, why did they come back between tides? More YEC mysteries here. Please explain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
All you are saying is that a creationist dare not say anything against the OE theory.
Actually, I don't see anyone stopping you. If you are loath to say something it suggests that you have a problem with your belief system.
No right to think about it without a degree, ...
In general, I'd say that most YECs don't really think about it. That's part of the problem.
... though even those with the relevant degrees are not qualified to judge by many comments at EvC.
Well, the point is that if someone makes a comment, they should be prepared to defend it. Even professional YECs have run away from these forums.
Why would I be here except to try to find arguments against OE? Why would there be a site for this kind of debate if we're not allowed to object to the status quo?
As I have noted above, you can say anything you want. The problem is that we expect one to present an argument. If you can't do that, you will be forever frustrated here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Here is an instructive image of a transitional contact between two formations in northern Iraq.
As you can see, there are two distinctive formations representing a change from a lower limestone to an upper marl (a limey mudstone). In between is a 'transitional zone' where limestone slowly gives way to more mudstone. This is not a 'sharp contact' as the ones that Faith frequently refers to. It represents a very slow transition during which the sedimentary environment moves back and forth between the two until the mudstone finally prevails. The problem is, how do we represent this transitional contact on a cross-section or map? Usually, what is done is some kind of description such as the recognized contact being the 'last limestone at the top of the Kometan Formation'. Possibly we might use the first appearance of a given fossil species. The point here is that, while we think of contacts as being sharp, they often are not. It all depends on how fast the environment changes (in geological terms). I'm not sure if this is on topic here, since we have some topic creep, but for whatever it's worth ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1701 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If we look at the Kansas part of the section we see the Niobrara Limestone at fairly shallow depths and even cropping out in some places. Theoretically, this formation is unlivable according to Faith. And yet we see such fossils as inoceramid clam fossils in the Niobrara. These creatures grew to be quite large as shown by this page in Wikipedia (Inoceramus - Wikipedia). My question is how did these creatures get to their current location in an unlivable environment? They apparently had no problem growing to great size and eventually forming fossils several feet across. So, if the environment was unlivable, how did they grow so large? How did they get there in the first place? I mean, it's not like they went out on a tidal flat in search of food and got caught in a rising tide. You are simply taking for granted the OE explanation of the rocks and the time periods, begging the question being another word for it. But just looking at the rocks and the tracks and the other impressions all that can be seen of that "time period" is an extensive mud flat which allowed those impressions to be made, no "environment" other than that mud flat. That's my point. Those creatures you are describing never lived in that "environment" that belongs to that "time period," they merely died as the sediment encroached on their former environment and buried it -- although depending on what level of the strata we're talking about it would already have been covered by a series of mud flats anyway, their former habitat having long since been buried under the whole stack. The evidence is the impressions made in a barren featureless mud flat on top of a whole stack of similar barren featureless mud flats of different sediments. The evidence shows that there was never a livable environment at that location, just the mud flat. Many mud flats stacked one on top of another. I'm not sure what you want me to get from your cross section. For one thing what does the "Sh" in "Marine Sh" (also Lewis, Pierre, Mancos, Benton and Aspen sh) mean? The best I can do with the overall illustration is to suppose that strata were originallyl laid down over that entire distance crossing all those states, but sank into the "Marine Sh" whatever that is. I can't tell enough about the picture to have an opinion about whether animals could live there now or not, at the limestone outcrop in Kansas, but all that remains of whatever originally lived there before the strata/mud flats buried it all, is the fossils of quite an abundance of creatures. The fossils of course indicate that all those creatures once lived -- somewhere, but where is not possible to ascertain from the illustration since they probably were transported there in sea water; they certainly died there and were buried there. It's even possible I guess they did originally live there but all those strata certainly buried them. But in any case it's just a place where creatures were overtaken and buried in wet sediments. It's not even an example of surface impressions like tracks is it? I suppose there must be many "time periods" represented there too? But all that is guessing.
also remember a YEC canard that creatures were running like crazy from the rising flood waters ... So, why did they come back between tides? You don't mention tracks in the strata at this location but wherever they do exist, it looks to me like the flood buried their habitat and overtook them as they ran, and they had no place to go except to run across the huge expanse of mud flats which extended as far as they could see, there being no livable area left for them because it was all getting covered by the Flood water. The water would just keep rising of course and bury everything in its path. I don't mean to claim that this is the only idea about how the Flood would have done its thing, but it seems like one very possible scenario. After it got high enough it may have precipitated out the sediments instead of bringing them in on waves. But all this is guessing. The only thing I'm quite sure of is that the tracks and other impressions in the rocks, rocks that cover a huge amount of territory, couldn't have occurred in the supposedly livable environments OE Geology pictures from the contents of the rocks. The rocks aren't a record of living things in living environments, they are purely a record of the death of living things in unimaginable numbers; and the death of their environments as well, under an enormous amount of sediments stacked in layers. Whatever managed to leave tracks in upper layers had simply been able to keep on top of the rising sedimentary deposits, or in some cases were probably even carried there on the flood waters.
More YEC mysteries here. Please explain. See above. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1701 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If the topic is the one I inaugurated about tracks and other impressions made in the rock layers, then it's off topic. And I'm not sure what you wanted to get across with this picture.
As you can see, there are two distinctive formations representing a change from a lower limestone to an upper marl (a limey mudstone). In between is a 'transitional zone' where limestone slowly gives way to more mudstone. This is not a 'sharp contact' as the ones that Faith frequently refers to.
That may be quite wrong but I'm not sure. What I mean by tight contact is the contact between the surfaces of two strata, which can be seen as quite tight in some photos where the strata have not been tectonically deformed, as in this picture, but retain their horizontality. This pictures looks like it could very well have exhibited tight straight contacts between those layers when they were still horizontal. Even now the contacts look pretty straight although any former tightness has been disturbed by the shifting of the rocks in relation to each other.
It represents a very slow transition during which the sedimentary environment moves back and forth between the two until the mudstone finally prevails. Why slow? Although many or most stratigraphic columns exhibit pretty clearcut sedimentary differences, there is no reason I know of why there couldn't be combinations of sediments like this example that also formed layers.
The problem is, how do we represent this transitional contact on a cross-section or map? Usually, what is done is some kind of description such as the recognized contact being the 'last limestone at the top of the Kometan Formation'. Possibly we might use the first appearance of a given fossil species. Of course there's no problem at all if you don't think of it as taking aeons of time to form. The Flood would probably have laid that down in a matter of hours. I guess if there are recognizable fossil contents you just classify them according to their usual "time period" anyway, which a Floodist will translate into a level in a stratigraphic column...
The point here is that, while we think of contacts as being sharp, they often are not. But the sharpness of contacts only applies to horizontal stacks of strata. Once they are overturned there are no more sharp contacts, even though in this case it's easy enough to suppose they were there originally.
It all depends on how fast the environment changes (in geological terms). You mean from limestone to mudstone? But of course to me those aren't "environments," they're just rocks formed from sediments deposited in a certain order in the Flood over what was probably a pretty brief span of time.
I'm not sure if this is on topic here, since we have some topic creep, but for whatever it's worth ... See top of post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1701 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Actually, I don't see anyone stopping you. The point was that they would like to stop me, not that they are stopping me. Wasn't that clear in what I said? It IS intimidating though, of course, and it makes me hesitate when I'm accused of being unkind to a fellow believer.
If you are loath to say something it suggests that you have a problem with your belief system. Well, my experience of it is that I'm being criticized for being unkind to a fellow believer, and that's what makes me loath to go on with my arguments. Hesitant anyway, but for now I'm OK with it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1701 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
By the way, when I look closely at those overturned layers in Iraq I notice the rubble between some of the layers, which in other contexts I remember as being interpreted as erosion brought about by a long period on the surface. But that may not be the interpretation here: if not, why not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
You are simply taking for granted the OE explanation of the rocks and the time periods, begging the question being another word for it.
Actually, no. I'm trying to find an example of your straight, flat strata representing your unlivable environments. That seems to be more than you are wiling to attempt. This has nothing to do with age of the rocks. I'm asking how those clams got into that unlivable environment.
But just looking at the rocks and the tracks and the other impressions all that can be seen of that "time period" is an extensive mud flat which allowed those impressions to be made, no "environment" other than that mud flat.
These are not 'mudflats', they are mudstones with the same kinds of features as modern marine environments.
That's my point. Those creatures you are describing never lived in that "environment" that belongs to that "time period," ...
Again, nothing to do with time periods. How did they get into this unlivable environment?
... they merely died as the sediment encroached on their former environment and buried it -- ...
Well, then they must have lived in that unlivable environment. How is that?
... although depending on what level of the strata we're talking about it would already have been covered by a series of mud flats anyway, their former habitat having long since been buried under the whole stack.
That doesn't answer my question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1701 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What you see in the rock record is either flatness or tectonic deformation. In that case, you are ruling out an entire field of primary sedimentary structures. Then tell me what I'm missing. I'm only concerned about the original flatness.
It's tectonic deformation I'm saying is irrelevant because it changes the basic flatness of the rock when it was deposited and the point I'm making is about the flatnes. The point, starting back in Message 134 is about the featureless barren flatness of the original deposition, which ought to show that any tracks or other impressions found on it occurred on a vast mud flat and not in the sort of environment or landscape that OE geo theory imputes to the history of the rocks. Sure, if you have a continuous depositional environment, you will get a continuous layer of sediment related to that environment. If there is a shallow sea from Kansas to Illinois, you will get a continuous layer of siltstone or limestone. However, its thickness will vary and it may have some sedimentary structures that break up the 'flatness'. Which I've never seen except as a result of tectonic deformation.
EVERY rock where such surface impressions are found had to have been such a vast damp sedimentary surface and not a livable habitat. Why not? Why do we see trilobite tracks in some of these places or shells or burrows? What is 'unlivable' about it? The simple fact that it is a vast mudflat; it's not a sea, it's not a land environment/habitat, it's a vast expanse of wet sediment. Whatever ended up on the surface of it would make tracks or burrows or whatever the creature normally does to try to get off it, because a mudflat -- which could be composed of sand or clay or silt or calcareous ooze --is probably not its normal habitat and it couldn't survive there for long.
Why do we see inoceramid clams living in the Niobrara Formation in Kansas if the environment were unlivable? You DON'T see them "living in that formation, you see them DEAD AND FOSSILIZED in that formation. They never lived there, they may have been transported there, died and were buried there. Even a clam can't live on a mudflat.
That calls the whole theory of former landscapes, environments and time periods into question. Then why do we find lake sediments with fish and insects and bird fossils in them? DEAD in them. I would guess that "lake sediments" are just sediments, after all, and fish, birds and insects live in lots of different environments. So these sediments happen to be frequently found in lakes but are not by definition "lake sediments." Or if they are lake sediments they could have been transported there. There's no reason to suppose they represent a lake that was once where the rock is; that's just excessive imagination making too much of simple facts.
Supposedly it shows the wrongness of the Flood interpretation but actually it shows much more the wrongness of the OE interpretation. Long tides would provide time gaps for such impressions to have occurred during the Flood. Also as I explained somewhere earlier have somewhat dried out the mud so that the impressions would remain. Yes, long enough gaps for termite mounds and dinosaur nests to miraculously appear; and for supposedly dead tetrapods to leave their footprints in sandstone. Why do you suppose these things belong there, actually live on a vast expanse of wet sediment? It's just a vast mudflat, why should anything at all live there? Can't termite mounds be transported, or dinosaur nests? Or maybe the mounds WERE built on the spot and the eggs laid on the spot; maybe there was time for that during a time of distress. But it's a vast mudflat, it's not a livable habitat for anything that walks or runs or builds nests or swims.
Sorry, but your flood does not hold water. Actually it's YOUR (straw man) flood that doesn't hold water. Mine makes vast mudflats one on top of another that bury living things.
I don't know why this is a problem at all. How could I ever mean "true" or perfect flatness? I know we're dealing with rocks and YECs impute thousands of years to them so how could I mean any kind of perfect flatness? Hey, you're the one making the assertion. If you want to define it, that might help. I just defined it sufficiently to get the point across. You can give up your straw man notion of it.
I also know that thickness must vary along the extent of any layered rock. It was deposited, according to YE creationism, in the Flood after all, and there couldn't have been perfect evenness of sedimentary deposition. But Steno's original horizontality rules in the strata and I'm sure he too could see the variations he nevertheless had no problem calling horizontal. Why is this a question? The flatness is obviously relative, but it is obvious, it is visible, it's apparent in photo after photo of strata that have been posted here, as well as cross sections and other illustrations. The deviations from flatness are minuscule. At that scale, it appears to be flat. All formations will appear to be flat at some point. Just picture a mudflat for pete's sake, that was deposited by ocean water and extends for hundreds or thousands of square miles. It isn't going to be PERFECTLY flat but it will most certainly be describable as flat. Good grief, you guys can invent problems out of nothing.
The point I was trying to make is not affected by such minuscule variations in the flatness. We're still talking about a vast mud plain in which the tracks and the ripples and the raindrops and the burrows are to be found, NOT a livable habitat. Well, then why are the creatures leaving footprints in an unlivable habitat? Why do they build nests? Why do they dig burrows? How do they reproduce? The answer is they aren't and they don't. Hey we KNOW it's an unlivable habitat for pete's sake; all it is is a vast expanse of mud, just wet sand or clay or silt or calcareous ooze or whatnot, whatever is in the strata at that level. Nothing lives on a vast expanse of mud except maybe some insects. Nothing that makes footprints lives on a mud flat. And whatever evidence you think shows they build nests and reproduce there is probably just a misinterpretation. It's a MUD FLAT for pete's sake. It becomes a vast ROCK for pete's sake.
Faith writes: It's a ROCK. It was a vast mud flat at one point. It was NEVER a "landscape." Yeah, what I said.
edge writes: A mudflat is a landscape. Oooo semantics, such fun. It's not a LIVABLE HABITAT for anything that builds nests or leaves tracks in mud or swims in the ocean etc etc etc. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Faith writes: It's not a LIVABLE HABITAT for anything that builds nests or leaves tracks in mud or swims in the ocean etc etc etc. You have never seen or spent time at a mud flat have you? They teem with life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
That may be quite wrong but I'm not sure. What I mean by tight contact is the contact between the surfaces of two strata, which can be seen as quite tight in some photos where the strata have not been tectonically deformed, as in this picture, but retain their horizontality.
So, a 'tight contact' is a contact that looks tight. I'm glad we cleared that up.
This pictures looks like it could very well have exhibited tight straight contacts between those layers when they were still horizontal.
Yes, that's the point. The environment of deposition was changing, but it was taking some time.
Even now the contacts look pretty straight although any former tightness has been disturbed by the shifting of the rocks in relation to each other.
Actually, what it's showing is interbeds of mudstone with limestone.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1701 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You are simply taking for granted the OE explanation of the rocks and the time periods, begging the question being another word for it. Actually, no. I'm trying to find an example of your straight, flat strata representing your unlivable environments. That seems to be more than you are wiling to attempt. Every single rock in the strata is such an example and I would think I've been more than clear about that. Every rock that has tracks and burrows and raindrops and other impressions in it is what I've been talking about. Every single rock layer that covers a vast expanse, and most do, represents a former vast wet sedimentary expanse, which is not a livable environment. This is what you said, and it's certainly a case of begging the question:
If we look at the Kansas part of the section we see the Niobrara Limestone at fairly shallow depths and even cropping out in some places. Theoretically, this formation is unlivable according to Faith. And yet we see such fossils as inoceramid clam fossils in the Niobrara. These creatures grew to be quite large as shown by this page in Wikipedia (Inoceramus - Wikipedia). My question is how did these creatures get to their current location in an unlivable environment? They apparently had no problem growing to great size and eventually forming fossils several feet across. So, if the environment was unlivable, how did they grow so large? How did they get there in the first place? I mean, it's not like they went out on a tidal flat in search of food and got caught in a rising tide. You are assuming the OE explanation that this is a livable environment in a time period and these creatures actually lived in that environment. That is begging the question, that is assuming the OE viewpoint. I answered this elsewhere but you need to recognize that this IS begging the question, assuming what is to be proved.
This has nothing to do with age of the rocks. I'm asking how those clams got into that unlivable environment. "Time periods" doesn't necessrily have to do with age of the rocks, but it is certainly implied in this discussion since you have the OE idea of separate living environments connected to separate stratigraphic formations. This is why you keep assuming the creatures that are found fossilized in the rock had to have actually lived there. You've got all these separate framed environments in mind; they are certainly periods of time separated from the other periods of time. I think I've ansewred your question already: the clams were buried in the flood there, they never lived there. Perhaps the flood transported them there.
But just looking at the rocks and the tracks and the other impressions all that can be seen of that "time period" is an extensive mud flat which allowed those impressions to be made, no "environment" other than that mud flat. These are not 'mudflats', they are mudstones with the same kinds of features as modern marine environments. I'm talking about ALL the different sediments that were once a vast expanse of wet sediment that became the rock in the stratigraphic column composed of that sediment. Sorry if I haven't been consistently clear about this but I have said it a number of times. They are ALL mudflats in the sense that they are all a great expanse of wet sediment on which nothing could live.
That's my point. Those creatures you are describing never lived in that "environment" that belongs to that "time period," ... Again, nothing to do with time periods. How did they get into this unlivable environment? You are still asking this? The FLood overtook them, or the Flood deposited them there. The unlivable environment is what the Flood deposited, and it deposited layers and layers and layers of it, different wet sediments that nothing could possibly live on.
... they merely died as the sediment encroached on their former environment and buried it -- ... Well, then they must have lived in that unlivable environment. How is that? Their actual livable environment would be buried under ALL the layers of sediment up to whatever level we are talking about. Or the Flood overtook their environment at that level as it rose. Either way the Flood is burying their living space.
[qs] ... although depending on what level of the strata we're talking about it would already have been covered by a series of mud flats anyway, their former habitat having long since been buried under the whole stack. That doesn't answer my question. They never lived on the mud/sand/clay/silt/mud flat. The sediment expanse buried their habitat wherever it was.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2363 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
But the vast preponderance of the strata are STILL FLAT. Gravity sucks...Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024