Jump to content


Photo

Intermittant Catastrophes


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
25 replies to this topic

#21 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 27 April 2005 - 07:44 PM

In reply to - chance quote - I am not familiar with the grand canyon example you put forward, can you elaborate please.  Fred Williams provided this link
http://www.creationr...antfossils.html



Fred

View Post


This seems to be a rehash of Burdick’s reports from the 60-70’s reporting out of place pollen, I cant find any reference to amber.
The samples Burdick used are reported to have been contaminated. Contamination is easily detectable determine if pollen is a contaminate of genuine see Burdick

If pollen is truly out of place it should be on a huge scale and you would not be able to cover it up, you would be practically discovering this out of place pollen on a daily basis.

Finding amber would imply pine trees of some sort, and if discovered in pre-Cambrian strata would, I think be a bit of a problem.

#22 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 28 April 2005 - 09:27 AM

This seems to be a rehash of Burdick’s reports from the 60-70’s reporting out of place pollen, I cant find any reference to amber. 

View Post


My mistake, I said amber when I should have said pollen.

If pollen is truly out of place it should be on a huge scale and you would not be able to cover it up, you would be practically discovering this out of place pollen on a daily basis.


So apparently you don’t believe pollen ever existed in the past? The reason I ask this facetiously is because pollen fossils are very rare, even in Tertiary strata where they are expected. So by your logic, pollen doesn’t exist! :)

[This reminds me of the origin of the moon problem for evolutionists, where one scientist quipped: “The best explanation for the moon is observational error–the moon doesn’t exist.”
. Jack J. Lissauer, Nature 1997] :)

Finding amber would imply pine trees of some sort, and if discovered in pre-Cambrian strata would, I think be a bit of a problem.


Here are plenty of examples of out-of-place fossils, some of which include plant fossils:

http://www.nwcreatio.../anomalies.html

Note also in the 1999 CRSQ article I cited earlier that there are more recent examples.

Fred

#23 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 28 April 2005 - 10:18 AM

Here are plenty of examples of out-of-place fossils, some of which include plant fossils:

http://www.nwcreatio.../anomalies.html

Note also in the 1999 CRSQ article I cited earlier that there are more recent examples.

Fred

View Post


Fred, could you pick out a specific example that is well documented.

#24 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 28 April 2005 - 02:24 PM

My mistake, I said amber when I should have said pollen.
So apparently you don’t believe pollen ever existed in the past? The reason I ask this facetiously is because pollen fossils are very rare, even in Tertiary strata where they are expected. So by your logic, pollen doesn’t exist! :)

View Post


I cannot vouch for the abundance of pollen fond in various strata, but I’ll make this observation:

Flowering plants are first found in the Jurassic and Conifers/pine in the Carboniferous (from memory), if the pollen is found in earlier strata that would be a problem. And by found in earier strat I mean in a strat that is well too early to have had such organisms in it, not just a little ‘stratigraphic-range extension’.



Here are plenty of examples of out-of-place fossils, some of which include plant fossils:

http://www.nwcreatio.../anomalies.html

Note also in the 1999 CRSQ article I cited earlier that there are more recent examples.

Fred

View Post



There appears no way to confirm the out of place fossil claim from your link, I get to the article by John Woodmorappe (March, 1982) which provides a list!

However from the article:

References 70, 17, 72, 82, 84, 89, 96, 147, 148, 153, and 160 are "downwash," "infiltration," or supposed "contamination.


Contaminated and reburied fossils don’t count as out of place.

Most other entries are .,reworking" of fossils into younger-age beds


Then we can discount these also, an out of place fossil must be in it original deposition layer, not in a reburied site. Professional palaeontologist can read the rocks and determine this.

A few of the entries in this table are claimed by the cited authors to be possible stratigraphic-range extensions


Stratigraphic-range extension does not qualify as out of place as I have demonstrated numerous times.

#25 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 29 April 2005 - 05:28 AM

Hi.  I'm new to the board, but somewhat interested in the origins of life.  So, you are graced with my first reply...  :)

Good questions.  However, could you clearly state the abandoned theory (that of more than one catastrophe?).  Also, in what way(s) exactly does the fossil progression disagree with the idea of a world-wide flood?  Are there specific occurances that you are referring too?

View Post


I'm afraid I can't give any more information about intermittant catastrophe theory, I've been looking around, but I can only find reference to it as the thing that was believed before Lyell propose uniformatarianism. I think the fossil progression disagreeing with the idea of the flood has been discussed here quite a bit now. Basically we would expect to see a high degree of chaos, turmoil and randomness in the strata that one could associate with a global catastrophe, we don't. Instead we see a progression from simple life forms, to more advanced life forms. We note the relative aging and absolute aging that agrees with the idea of progression. This theoretically could have been caused by a flood...but I'm fairly sure the chances of that happening uniformally and globally exceed the Creationist's "So unlikely its considered impossible" figure they quote when referring to abiogenesis. Especially when you add other evidences into the frame.

#26 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 08 May 2005 - 04:18 PM

I found a few good links about Catastrophism to look through:

Cuvier Catastrophism

Pre Darwin science

That said Cuvier did not agree with the Biblical interpretation, and held only to the evidence that he found. I am having difficulty finding any further references to Creationist Catastrophism than the book I have. I am forced to believe it is my book that is in error (its certainly not an academic masterwork), and will endevour to hunt a little longer before giving it up as probably being the dreams of a delusional author.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users