Jump to content


Photo

Chalk


  • Please log in to reply
79 replies to this topic

#61 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 183 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Cornwall

Posted 22 May 2015 - 04:24 PM

So to recap, the prevailing Creationist view is that all the world's chalk was laid down during the latter stages of the Flood year. The mainstream geology view is that the process took about 35 million years in the Late Cretaceous (quite a difference in timescale there :) ). Today we can see chalk rock of over 500m in thickness. 

 

Indydave has suddenly gone quiet for some reason, I think perhaps he is at a loss on how to explain the presence of benthic (bottom dwelling) fossils such as bivalves, sea urchins and brachiopods (lamp shells) at all levels in the chalk strata. Because if what he believes is true, that coccolith formed calcareous ooze piled up at a rate of several metres per day, then these creatures should only be found fossilised at the base of the chalk formation, as they would be incapable of moving in a vertical direction.

 

Clearly, if the ooze took millions of years to accumulate, these animals would be able to live on this substrate without problems (or in the case of the Micraster urchin for example, live in a burrow connected to the sediment surface). More than that, we see gradual evolutionary change and faunal succession as we rise up through the chalk.

 

So, all this destroys any idea that the deposits could have formed during the Flood, it would be nice if Indydave would accept that rather than just vanishing.

 

Are there any Flood geology adherents out there with a rational explanation for the benthic fossil succession we see in chalk ?



#62 indydave

indydave

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 882 posts
  • Age: 58
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 25 May 2015 - 10:31 AM

I don't want to accept your claim about fossil succession, nor do I want to research into that.  I've already exceeded my interest in this topic.  If you want to do a victory dance then have at it. 



#63 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 183 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Cornwall

Posted 25 May 2015 - 03:28 PM

I know you don't want to accept my claim of faunal succession but you probably realize that researching it (which would only take a few minutes of googling) would confirm it to be true.
 
If I was a creationist I'm not sure how I would explain the distribution of chalk fossils either. The absence of replies from any creationist since I brought up the fact about benthic fossils appearing throughout the chalk sequence is giving me the impression that there is no answer from a YEC viewpoint, and confirmation that the young earth timescale is false.
 
Or am I missing something ?

#64 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 183 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Cornwall

Posted 11 July 2015 - 04:14 PM

Just thought I'd bump this up on the off chance that anyone (YEC) can explain how benthic (seafloor dwelling) fossils such as sea urchins are found throughout the chalk rock sequence, considering that flood geology demands that the coccolith ooze that formed the rock was deposited over a matter of weeks (in itself an impossibility due to nutrient limiting factors, turbidity etc.)

#65 Paul79

Paul79

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado Springs, Colorado

Posted 13 July 2015 - 05:27 PM

Hi wibble,

 

I found this from creation.com and thought I would post it here though I am not an expert in chalk. You may have talked with indydave about it even though I tried to follow the thread as best as I could. You both are pretty good with your calculations and discussions.

 

Scheven2 is equally familiar with ‘hardgrounds’ in his experience in the German Muschelkalk of the so-called Middle Triassic. In his Flood geology model, Scheven places these strata, and the English chalk beds, into the immediate post-Flood era, but in no way does he see any evidence in these rocks for the thousands of years that are so ‘obvious’ to Wonderly. Indeed, Scheven agrees that the chalk accumulated via mass propagations amidst mass extinctions and catastrophe. Furthermore, he describes the banding now observable in these chalk beds as due to transport and redeposition of calcareous ooze by water.

 

But what of the borings and encrusted shells and tubes? These are not necessarily the conclusive ‘proof’ of thousands of years Wonderly insists they are. Molluscs, worms and other marine life were left outside the Ark, some to survive the Flood, in their marine ‘home’. Once the explosive blooms had generated the voluminous foraminiferal shells and coccoliths, these would then sink and be swept away by the Flood currents before being deposited in the alternating bands of the chalk beds. Other marine life would have been trapped by these surges and entombed alive, hence their presence in the chalk beds. In whatever moments they had before expiring, it is not inconceivable that some of these creatures would try to reestablish their living positions on whatever momentary surfaces they found themselves on.

 

http://creation.com/...hick-chalk-beds

 

Another article talks specifically about hardgrounds and how it would fit within a Biblical world wide flood. There is a letter written by Mark A. Wilson, Department of Geology, The College of Wooster and critiqued by Dr Tas Walker from Creation Ministries International.

 

http://creation.com/...he-global-flood

 

I noticed that the creation articles I read talked about the purity of the chalk in these tall formations. Is it possible for purity to be maintained for a long period of time? I would assume that millions of years would produce a lot of mixing of different sediments, etc that would change the purity of the chalk. The fact that it is very pure I would think that it would support a very short period of time. Just a thought.



#66 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 183 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Cornwall

Posted 14 July 2015 - 04:35 PM

Hi Paul

Thanks for your reply.

There are some problems with the explanation for chalk deposition and presence of hardgrounds within the chalk sequence according to that link you gave. Firstly, it mentions explosive blooms of foraminifera and coccolithophores being swept about by flood currents and deposited. Well at least for coccoliths, which are the major component of chalk, it is well established that blooms require still waters, and also usually nutrient poor conditions. A catastrophic flood would have opposite qualities.

With regard to the hardgrounds, I don't see how washed in shells, sponges etc. can account for their presence within vertical sections of chalk, surely they would all settle at the base, and once the water currents slowed sufficiently, then the fine coccolith material would gradually settle out above.

Aside from all that, gradual evolutionary change is shown with various animals as I have mentioned before. The Micraster sea urchin lineage is used in recognizing different sections of the chalk sequence (Micraster cortestudinarium, M. coranguinum zones etc.) and used in cross correlating chalk layers where found elsewhere in Europe. Similar gradual changes are seen with Inoceramus bivalves and also microscopic foraminifera for example.

I don't see how rapid burial in turbulent waters can account for the observed fossil pattern in chalk, looking at it objectively long ages and gradual faunal change makes more sense, no ? Otherwise, how would it be possible to label separate chalk zones according to the type of fossil found within it ?


With regard to the purity of chalk, the deposits were laid down in warm shallow seas in the Late Cretaceous when sea levels were much higher than today, therefore because of increased distance from land, there was no deposition from land borne sediments. From what I've read presence of hardgrounds (when calcareous deposition ceased for a time) are linked to fluctuations in sea level.

#67 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 183 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Cornwall

Posted 15 July 2015 - 03:48 PM

Attached File  9WRR-Chalk-Lithostratigraphy-m.jpg   290.2KB   0 downloads



#68 Paul79

Paul79

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado Springs, Colorado

Posted 15 July 2015 - 06:14 PM

Hi Wibble,

 

I do have some comments and questions but I have been busy at work and preparing for a trip so I will try and respond when I get back as long as I don't get swamped again.



#69 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 183 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Cornwall

Posted 16 July 2015 - 03:27 PM

No worries, take your time (I'll be away myself for ten days from Monday). It's odd that only two YEC have been willing to contribute to this topic...



#70 Paul79

Paul79

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado Springs, Colorado

Posted 04 January 2016 - 01:45 PM

Hi Wibble: I am coming back to this post since I have some time now to add what I believe you misunderstand about this Flood and what doesn't seem clear when reading Genesis.

 

There are some problems with the explanation for chalk deposition and presence of hardgrounds within the chalk sequence according to that link you gave. Firstly, it mentions explosive blooms of foraminifera and coccolithophores being swept about by flood currents and deposited. Well at least for coccoliths, which are the major component of chalk, it is well established that blooms require still waters, and also usually nutrient poor conditions. A catastrophic flood would have opposite qualities.

 

A catastrophic flood absolutely has strong currents though I am not sure it is a fact that nutrient conditions are rich at every stage of the flood in order to prevent coccoliths from forming; however I want to point you to Genesis 8:1 which states: "And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters assuaged."

 

The word that I was curious about here is the word assuaged. The Hebrew definition for assuaged means "became still" or "began to grow calm" and I believe this is what you are missing when discussing Noah's Flood. I don't think I can explain how the waters became still but I believe the writer of Genesis was only stating what happened. Also, the writer of Genesis would not have known about coccoliths requiring calm waters so I don't see an issue with coccoliths forming in Noah's Flood.

 

With regard to the hardgrounds, I don't see how washed in shells, sponges etc. can account for their presence within vertical sections of chalk, surely they would all settle at the base, and once the water currents slowed sufficiently, then the fine coccolith material would gradually settle out above.

 

My thoughts are that as long as there are water currents then you could still get a steady supply of shells, sponges, etc. to fill in all layers of chalk. Unless I don't understand, there could still be water currents and calm waters at the same time or some combination to get the chalk deposition we see today. I don't see a problem here.

 

Aside from all that, gradual evolutionary change is shown with various animals as I have mentioned before. The Micraster sea urchin lineage is used in recognizing different sections of the chalk sequence (Micraster cortestudinarium, M. coranguinum zones etc.) and used in cross correlating chalk layers where found elsewhere in Europe. Similar gradual changes are seen with Inoceramus bivalves and also microscopic foraminifera for example.

 

How can you prove that all those sea urchins are from gradual evolutionary changes and not just different sea urchins from different locations that were all moved out of place and deposited by the same flood at the same time? Same for the other ones you mentioned.

 

I don't see how rapid burial in turbulent waters can account for the observed fossil pattern in chalk, looking at it objectively long ages and gradual faunal change makes more sense, no ? Otherwise, how would it be possible to label separate chalk zones according to the type of fossil found within it ?

 

I would say that the waters in which the chalk formed were not turbulent at the time that the coccoliths, etc. were deposited as stated by the Hebrew definition of the word assuaged. Also, why and how would separate chalk zones disprove Noah's Flood? Wouldn't you get sorting and settling of sediments and types of fossils from a global flood as the waters receded? I remember Mike the wiz talking about it quite a bit. Maybe he can jump in here and explain it if you need.

 

With regard to the purity of chalk, the deposits were laid down in warm shallow seas in the Late Cretaceous when sea levels were much higher than today, therefore because of increased distance from land, there was no deposition from land borne sediments. From what I've read presence of hardgrounds (when calcareous deposition ceased for a time) are linked to fluctuations in sea level.

 

According to Dr Walt Brown's Hydroplate theory sea levels did fluctuate a lot including the rise and fall of the sea floor at different places. Maybe IndyDave can clarify since a lot of what Dr Walt Brown stated was over my head.

 

This is just a stab at it since I don't know much about chalk but just thinking out loud. Maybe indyDave has a renewed interest in adding to my post.

 



#71 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,443 posts
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 04 January 2016 - 03:02 PM

Paul, what we have to remember with these type of speculative arguments is the unpredictable nature of a world-wide flood. It is something we have NEVER been able to replicate.

 

Even if we look at the largest local floods, it doesn't necessarily follow that you would get the same exact effects. The turbulent, violent devastation of the flood was tremendous beyond imagination. Evolutionists always say, " a flood wouldn't have done X" but they are just making bare assertions only based on ignorance, for all they know there are X number of ways it could have happened with a flood. Don't be fooled by baloney. ;)

 

For example, erosional-remnants left behind, when we measure what was quickly "taken" away when the waters receded off the continents, there are measurements of thousands and thousands of feet.

 

Wibble, and the evolutionists really do tend to cherry-pick the evidence. But with a flood you have to concentrate on the things you KNOW would happen if it had happened. And that's when we see that the general evidence favours catastrophe in many ways.

 

Consider for example, the evidence of planation, where mountain tops have been planed flat. The force required to do that would be water-pressure/power. It has been proven that water pressure/power, can literally turn the hardest rock to dust. The power is tremendous. On planated surfaces both hard and soft rocks have been EQUALLY planed, so they can't have eroded. Had they eroded naturally, they would have eroded so that the softer rock would have eroded much more than the harder rock.

 

We know that the preservation of every type of animal as fossils, would be expected from a flood since it covered the whole globe, so that is something you would DIRECTLY expect. It can be shown that wet sediment dumped over animals, caused fossilization. We also find a lot of fossils that are CRUCIALLY NOT fossilized when dead, but fossilized in the act of living. We find fossils with their necks thrown back in the suffocation-position, animals giving birth, animals fighting, animals eating, animals that were suddenly buried, so quick that they were captured in time.

 

Evolutionists, for a long time, have made a big song and dance about how the rocks favour evolution, which is ironic because they have the world believing that rocks and fossils and layers favour evolution when that would never have been a prediction of evolution. Preserved animals all over the globe, preserved in the act of living, is what you would expect from a world-scale catastrophy. 

 

Sure - "some" of the evidence might fit with long ages, but that is the slothful-induction fallacy, because MOST of the evidence fits with a global flood. Logically, the true conclusion should be based on most of what the evidence shows, not what SOME evidence shows.

 

So I don't get into minutia-arguments over evidence for a flood because that is a red-herring. If the evolutionist makes you focus on one piece of evidence then you have to pull back and look at all of it.

 

Imagine you had a telescope in front of you, and the evolutionist said, "now look in that telescope and you will see white - I am telling you, this is what we would expect to see if a mountain was 100% covered in snow".

 

It's a trick Paul! For if you look through that scope you will only see white - but if you remove your eye from the telescope like the evolutionist doesn't want you to, then you will see that the majority of the mountain is not covered in snow.

 

AVOID minutia-arguments, as they force you to focus on ONE piece of evidence that appears to not support a flood, but they ignore the 90% of evidence elsewhere that favours a flood such as;

 

- preservation of fossils

- total general lack of transitionals

- peculiar geo-morphology all over the world, which has no uniform explanation but can be explained by the flood.

- planation

- The abscence in places of "eras", such as the cambrian era - and there is no evidence that there ever was such an era, in those places.

- the inter-tonguing of rock layers

- the amount of water left on the earth

- the double continental shelves

- the proof that canyons can be created quickly (mount saint Helens, a canyon and many rock layers were created in weeks)

- polystrate fossils, that are present in "two" eras.



#72 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 183 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Cornwall

Posted 05 January 2016 - 03:44 PM

Hi Paul, didn't think this thread would see the light of day again :) 
 

Hi Wibble: I am coming back to this post since I have some time now to add what I believe you misunderstand about this Flood and what doesn't seem clear when reading Genesis.
 
 
A catastrophic flood absolutely has strong currents though I am not sure it is a fact that nutrient conditions are rich at every stage of the flood in order to prevent coccoliths from forming; however I want to point you to Genesis 8:1 which states: "And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters assuaged."
 
The word that I was curious about here is the word assuaged. The Hebrew definition for assuaged means "became still" or "began to grow calm" and I believe this is what you are missing when discussing Noah's Flood. I don't think I can explain how the waters became still but I believe the writer of Genesis was only stating what happened.


I looked up the multiple translations of this passage which marks the point when God stopped the rains and the fountains of the deep; a few used the word assuaged, most used the word subsided or receded. However, even it is meant to mean to become still and calm I don't see how you would avoid powerful global water currents as the waters drained off the continents, do you ?
 

Also, the writer of Genesis would not have known about coccoliths requiring calm waters so I don't see an issue with coccoliths forming in Noah's Flood.

 

I don't understand the relevance of whether the writer would know about coccoliliths or not ?

 

 

My thoughts are that as long as there are water currents then you could still get a steady supply of shells, sponges, etc. to fill in all layers of chalk. Unless I don't understand, there could still be water currents and calm waters at the same time or some combination to get the chalk deposition we see today. I don't see a problem here.


Now you want both calm waters and currents ? The YEC position is that hundreds of metres depth of coccolith ooze built up in a matter of weeks over hundreds of miles. How do you get a steady supply of shells and sponges interspersed in this sediment, how could they be transported ? A current strong enough to move shells around for hundreds of miles does not equate to calm waters. Nor are currents likely to push shells across ooze anyway, they would sink in and get stuck.
 

How can you prove that all those sea urchins are from gradual evolutionary changes and not just different sea urchins from different locations that were all moved out of place and deposited by the same flood at the same time? Same for the other ones you mentioned.


How would they get sorted so perfectly without mixing ? Are you claiming the Bible says it was calm or not, you're bringing in flood currents again.
 

I would say that the waters in which the chalk formed were not turbulent at the time that the coccoliths, etc. were deposited as stated by the Hebrew definition of the word assuaged. Also, why and how would separate chalk zones disprove Noah's Flood? Wouldn't you get sorting and settling of sediments and types of fossils from a global flood as the waters receded?


Sea urchins, clams and sponges etc are benthic (live on the seabed and incapable of swimming up through the water column). Obviously they would have to be buried first, then as the coccoliths bloomed in the surface waters to a fantastic degree according to the YEC model they would bury the benthic organisms. Although I would suggest according to the Flood model there should be a layer of brown land sourced sediments on top of the benthic layer first before the coccolith chalk was laid on top.

 
 

According to Dr Walt Brown's Hydroplate theory sea levels did fluctuate a lot including the rise and fall of the sea floor at different places. Maybe IndyDave can clarify since a lot of what Dr Walt Brown stated was over my head.
 
This is just a stab at it since I don't know much about chalk but just thinking out loud. Maybe indyDave has a renewed interest in adding to my post.


I doubt it :) 
 



#73 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 183 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Cornwall

Posted 05 January 2016 - 04:01 PM

So I don't get into minutia-arguments over evidence for a flood because that is a red-herring. If the evolutionist makes you focus on one piece of evidence then you have to pull back and look at all of it.


Mike, both niche arguments like this thread and the general pattern of fossils and geological layers are decisive in proving the Flood model flat wrong. It's ironic that you accuse "evolutionists" of cherry picking evidence when that is actually the accusation that should be levelled to your side. Perhaps if you didn't limit your reading about the natural sciences to Creation Ministries International articles you would have a better understanding as to why your position is untenable.



#74 Paul79

Paul79

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado Springs, Colorado

Posted 08 January 2016 - 09:21 AM

I looked up the multiple translations of this passage which marks the point when God stopped the rains and the fountains of the deep; a few used the word assuaged, most used the word subsided or receded. However, even it is meant to mean to become still and calm I don't see how you would avoid powerful global water currents as the waters drained off the continents, do you ?

 

The keyword is that the Hebrew definition refers to being calm so that is consistent with what we would need in order to form these coccoliliths. The english word chosen by certain publishing companies I would hold suspect if it doesn't explain the Hebrew word correctly.

 

And a question regarding the draining of water off the continents: how do we know for sure that the water would be draining fast down into the earth? My thoughts are that the water was draining too slow to cause powerful global water currents at that point. I do believe that there were powerful global currents before the calming of the waters just not after at that location. And to add to that is the fact that no one knows exactly how a global flood would build, settle, and end: we are just guessing. All we really do know is that it happened because of what we see and the fact that it was written in the Bible.

 

I don't understand the relevance of whether the writer would know about coccoliliths or not ?

 

Sorry about the confusion...you can ignore this. I was just trying to make a point that no words were added to Genesis later on to suggest calm waters after knowing about coccoliliths requiring them. That's all. It doesn't add or subtract from your or my points.

 

Now you want both calm waters and currents ? The YEC position is that hundreds of metres depth of coccolith ooze built up in a matter of weeks over hundreds of miles. How do you get a steady supply of shells and sponges interspersed in this sediment, how could they be transported ? A current strong enough to move shells around for hundreds of miles does not equate to calm waters. Nor are currents likely to push shells across ooze anyway, they would sink in and get stuck.

 

I was thinking along the lines of calm waters interrupted by currents. The currents would come and disappear while bringing in the shells, etc. We really don't know as we are just discussing these issues without having knowledge of how everything would have happened. Maybe the currents were stronger above or below the ooze. Maybe you are correct and I am wrong or that it happened some way that neither of us can suggest. I also want to add that I am not arguing that what I say is correct...just something to suggest that your answer is not the only possibility.

 

I guess my other question would be what do you mean by still waters? Are you stating that the water has to be still like pool water to get coccoliliths to form?

 

How would they get sorted so perfectly without mixing ?

 

Can you explain this further? I am confused by being sorted but not mixed? Are you refering to the fact that it is sorted but without strong currents? We do see that the finer the grain texture of the sediment the more evidence of quiet waters during depositon.

 

I am probably not the best person to discuss this but my initial point was to refer to the Bible stating the waters as calm and not powerful currents as you suggest after the wind came.



#75 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 183 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Cornwall

Posted 11 January 2016 - 02:49 PM

The keyword is that the Hebrew definition refers to being calm so that is consistent with what we would need in order to form these coccoliliths. The english word chosen by certain publishing companies I would hold suspect if it doesn't explain the Hebrew word correctly.


The Hebrew word in question is shakak. Where have you found that the definitive meaning is "became still" or "began to grow calm" ? My searches come up with recede, subside, decrease, abate etc. Seems pretty clear to me that its referring to falling water level. Not that it matters because we cannot use Genesis as an authority over science.
 
 

And a question regarding the draining of water off the continents: how do we know for sure that the water would be draining fast down into the earth? My thoughts are that the water was draining too slow to cause powerful global water currents at that point. I do believe that there were powerful global currents before the calming of the waters just not after at that location. And to add to that is the fact that no one knows exactly how a global flood would build, settle, and end: we are just guessing. All we really do know is that it happened because of what we see and the fact that it was written in the Bible.


I would have thought that water deep enough to cover the highest mountain (which apparently seems to be the Mt Ararat in biblical times which probably means the highest mountain known to the local inhabitant who wrote Genesis) that then receded in about 200 days or so would cause extremely high currents. Ararat is over 5000m asl. So that's about 25m drop per day.
 
 

I was thinking along the lines of calm waters interrupted by currents. The currents would come and disappear while bringing in the shells, etc. We really don't know as we are just discussing these issues without having knowledge of how everything would have happened. Maybe the currents were stronger above or below the ooze. Maybe you are correct and I am wrong or that it happened some way that neither of us can suggest. I also want to add that I am not arguing that what I say is correct...just something to suggest that your answer is not the only possibility.


So the waters would be draining off the continental shelves and would have to produce strong currents, particularly where the flow was constrained, like in the English Channel for example. The chalk rock continues unbroken from England into northern France, it was drilled through to build the Channel Tunnel. As the Flood drained any coccoliths present would have beeen dumped out in the Atlantic.
 

I guess my other question would be what do you mean by still waters? Are you stating that the water has to be still like pool water to get coccoliliths to form?


No the water doesn't have to be still but large blooms are associated with calm conditions. More important is the fact that they are so tiny (about 5 microns in diameter). When they die the coccoliths will be held in suspension and swept along in any current
 

Can you explain this further? I am confused by being sorted but not mixed? Are you refering to the fact that it is sorted but without strong currents? We do see that the finer the grain texture of the sediment the more evidence of quiet waters during depositon.


So if you went to a chalk cliff and looked at the sparse fossils contained in the rock you can recognize different zones according to which type are found. The order is never violated which is why indicator species are able to be used to label horizontal sections. For some, such as the Micraster sea urchins I mentioned, you can track gradual evolutionary change. The zones are shown in the chart I posted in #67. If all these creatures were washed in due to a receding unidirectional flood there's is no way debris would be deposited in such an ordered fashion.

The YEC explanation is that 500 m depth of chalk rock was laid down in a matter of weeks towards the end of the Flood. The pattern of the macrofossils found is just one of the insurmountable problems for that idea.
 



#76 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,443 posts
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 17 January 2016 - 02:49 PM

 

 

Wibble: Mike, both niche arguments like this thread and the general pattern of fossils and geological layers are decisive in proving the Flood model flat wrong. It's ironic that you accuse "evolutionists" of cherry picking evidence when that is actually the accusation that should be levelled to your side. Perhaps if you didn't limit your reading about the natural sciences to Creation Ministries International articles you would have a better understanding as to why your position is untenable.

 

Yawn. Perhaps if you could show one pre-bat, one pre-turtle, one pre-seahorse, one pre-ape, one pre-trilobite in this record of "ages", I might buy into your Darwinian myth. The most parsimonious explanation is that your fictional transitionals aren't there because they weren't buried by the flood and never existed to begin with.

 

So I accept what is in the rock, you accept what isn't in the rocks, which means that what is in the rocks is about 5% of what would have to have existed if it was an evolutionary history, which means I believe the actual facts and you believe 95% fiction.

 

So if I want to go and read some fiction, why would I read boring fiction? I might as well read the Hobbit, or something interesting rather than reading about the fictional geology of a false evolutionary history.



#77 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 183 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Cornwall

Posted 17 January 2016 - 04:51 PM

Yawn. Perhaps if you could show one pre-bat, one pre-turtle, one pre-seahorse, one pre-ape, one pre-trilobite in this record of "ages", I might buy into your Darwinian myth.


I doubt you would ever buy into it no matter how many transitionals were presented yo you. Your mind is made up. You reject the reptile-bird, fish-amphibian, land mammal-whale fossils that have been found amongst the many others so there's no reason to think any more would convince you.

What makes you think that conditions suitable for fossilisation of specimens would be so commonplace and long lasting in a particular locale ? That fossils once formed would not be destroyed by erosion or subduction ? And the chances of a particular fossil actually being found when most are buried deep beneath our feet ? Are all these things so likely that we should have a complete evolutionary picture of anything you demand ?
 

So I accept what is in the rock, you accept what isn't in the rocks, which means that what is in the rocks is about 5% of what would have to have existed if it was an evolutionary history, which means I believe the actual facts and you believe 95% fiction.


Go find that Cambrian vertebrate or Carboniferous bird.
 

So if I want to go and read some fiction, why would I read boring fiction? I might as well read the Hobbit, or something interesting rather than reading about the fictional geology of a false evolutionary history.


So you admit that you don't even read secular science sources. Good way to get a balanced view.

Anyway, back to chalk. You're not interested though are you ?



#78 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,443 posts
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 18 January 2016 - 12:10 PM

 

 

Wibble: I doubt you would ever buy into it no matter how many transitionals were presented yo you. Your mind is made up. You reject the reptile-bird, fish-amphibian, land mammal-whale fossils that have been found amongst the many others so there's no reason to think any more would convince you.

 

But that's the fallacy of slothful induction. (which you can learn about from a secular website if you google it)

 

In a world with billions of species, if evolution had not happened, how many transitional lineages would you expect to find? Answer: quite a few.

 

In a world of evolution, how many; generally, you would expect them to be everywhere, or to show all of the trial-and-error species that selection would have chosen as fit.

 

 

 

Wibble: What makes you think that conditions suitable for fossilisation of specimens would be so commonplace and long lasting in a particular locale 

 

Imagine if you were a police investigator, and someone told you a suspect you were looking for was in the bar a lot of nights, (just as evolution must have happened a LOT in history) - so you hear the suspect is in this bar most nights with a certain girl we shall call Lisa. You go in Monday night and only find Lisa, you go in Tuesday night and only find Lisa. You come back a week later and only find Lisa, you go back the following night and only find Lisa. (remember the claim - he is there, "a lot of nights", just as evolution apparently happened a lot, to the point of evolving everything we now have, so they say. But little trace?

 

You look in the fossils for transitionals of turtles, and only find turtles, so you look elsewhere and only find turtles, and modern forms show us.....turtles?

 

My question is, if evolution is responsible for everything that exists but generally we only see the things that we know to exist, and we only ever find the things to exist, then is it realistic to believe that the fossils would HIDE evolution, so very thoroughly when it doesn't hide any of the modern forms? After all we can find a "modern" bat in ancient rock, we can find a modern starfish in ancient rock, we can find many forms in old rocks, and it is proposed by evolution that other animals would have been evolving in those eras of rock, but you don't find them, you only find the animals that have always existed.

 

 

 

Wibble: So you admit that you don't even read secular science sources. Good way to get a balanced view

 

Every time I read secular science I can't bare it for long because it is infuriating that they simply stick to a story that doesn't fit the blatant evidence of a catastrophic watery catastrophe. :)

 

 

Wibble: Anyway, back to chalk. You're not interested though are you ?

 

 

Not really, I think rock is pretty homogeneous so to fixate on one type doesn't matter much, we have scientifically proven that a great pressure can create rock quickly. Fact is we find marine forms in all rock layers.



#79 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 183 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Cornwall

Posted 06 February 2016 - 05:12 PM

Not really, I think rock is pretty homogeneous so to fixate on one type doesn't matter much,


What a naïve and very odd statement

#80 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 183 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Cornwall

Posted 06 February 2016 - 05:14 PM

Paul79, you bumped up this thread but have disappeared again, have you no response to my last reply ?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users