Jump to content


Photo

How We Treat The Fossil Record


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,709 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 05 March 2017 - 04:19 AM

 

 

Wibble: After all, under creationism they should be present at any point in the fossil record along with all other modern birds ? At least say from the Carboniferous onwards.

 

I would like to address this type of reasoning, not just from Wibble but basically from many evolutionists I have encountered online, because many of them seem to have this or a very similar argument. I am just using Wibble as an example of it, he doesn't have to feel implicated or answer for it, my goal is to address the reasoning;

 

I would like to phrase this reasoning with it's hidden assumptions. I am not saying those are deliberately hidden, in fact I believe most of the time evolutionists don't know the error they make, so here is a better phrasing of what they are saying, which may highlight that error for them;

 

"If the fossil record isn't a record of millions of years of uniformity, and if it was basically laid down by a catastrophic flood, then we would also expect to find a bird or human or bunny in the Cambrian layers too, because if we treat those layers according to uniformity, we would expect a bunny in the Cambrian." 

 

Can you see the switch?

 

The evolutionist reasons from the antecedent, "if the fossils were created by the flood according to creation" but then he goes on to still treat the fossils like they were laid down according to millions of years, as though that record is not only a record of time but how the rocks are laid down according to long age.

 

Think it through with me, for "if the fossils are caused by the flood" that means that if you find a jellyfish in the Cambrian and a T-Rex in the Jurassic, then both would be the same age anyway, if a flood caused those rocks to be laid down over one year. Also, since the creation argument is a fast splitting of the super-continent, pangea, WHEN and WHERE certain fossils were laid down, would depend upon the stages of that flood.

 

With the flood model, there is an inundatory stage and a recessional stage, where you get different type of geomorphological structuring of the earth. During the recessional stage, there is the abative phase and the dispersive phase which has less energy for example, than the former.

 

But also "if the rocks are laid down by the flood according to creation" then it also follows that the distances between ecological zones on a world where the super-continent spans thousands of miles, could have been very great indeed.

 

If God created the original Pangaea with an abundance of animal forms which were basically separated into zones where many types of organisms basically dwelt, but others didn't, then you wouldn't necessarily expect some species to be buried with other species.

 

Conclusion: I only request that if you reason that "if it was creation" that you fully understand that "if it was creation" is a million miles away from, "if it was uniformity", for example the pre-flood world and the post-flood world, and all of the complications of that, must also come into your reasoning. You can't just pick some of what we argue without understanding the rest.

 

It would be like me saying that "chimps are still here so we can't have evolved."

 

That reasoning shows ignorance of evolution, but the, "bunny in a Cambrian please!" request, is equally silly.


  • Bonedigger likes this

#2 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,398 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 08 March 2017 - 09:10 PM

Good point Mike

 

My usual response when I encounter that bunny in the Cambrian idiocy is, "no, I wouldn't expect to find a bunny associated with trilobites and other Cambrian (marine) fauna anymore than I would expect to find a mountain goat living with a squid." There is a self-evident ecological separation involved. If you were to freeze the world as it is today, the odds are pretty good that nowhere would you find a mountain goat associated with a squid. It would take extremely unusual circumstances to create such an association. And that's just the point. "Cambrian" is a description of an associated faunal assemblage. It is evolutionists (and old earthers) who assert that it represents a unique slice of time.

 

Another assumption I always see behind the bunny in the Cambrian straw man is the unjustified, unsubstantiated, and often unvoiced assertion that a global flood would just mix everything up. Since it's a "given" that a global flood would mix everything up, the burden of proof is now on you to demonstrate why it didn't (produce a bunny in Cambrian strata). Notice the shift? :rolleyes:  I've yet to see a single flood skeptic demonstrate how (as opposed to simply assert or assume) a global flood would mix rabbits and trilobites, or mountain goats and squids.



#3 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 524 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 09 March 2017 - 04:30 PM

My usual response when I encounter that bunny in the Cambrian idiocy is, "no, I wouldn't expect to find a bunny associated with trilobites and other Cambrian (marine) fauna anymore than I would expect to find a mountain goat living with a squid." There is a self-evident ecological separation involved.


Bunny in the Cambrian is just a snappy quote but you can swap the bunny for many other things that you would expect to be associated in a marine environment. How about fish (apart from a few early jawless forms) ? Its a bit of a stretch to imagine that no bony fish, extinct or modern, were present where trilobites existed in Cambrian seas.

 

If you were to freeze the world as it is today, the odds are pretty good that nowhere would you find a mountain goat associated with a squid. It would take extremely unusual circumstances to create such an association. And that's just the point. "Cambrian" is a description of an associated faunal assemblage. It is evolutionists (and old earthers) who assert that it represents a unique slice of time.
 
Another assumption I always see behind the bunny in the Cambrian straw man is the unjustified, unsubstantiated, and often unvoiced assertion that a global flood would just mix everything up. Since it's a "given" that a global flood would mix everything up, the burden of proof is now on you to demonstrate why it didn't (produce a bunny in Cambrian strata). Notice the shift? :rolleyes:  I've yet to see a single flood skeptic demonstrate how (as opposed to simply assert or assume) a global flood would mix rabbits and trilobites, or mountain goats and squids.


I’ve seen it asserted on here (by Mike the Wiz) that the prevalence of marine fossils on land (I think he mentioned the Himalayas as an example) is because of the flood surging on to the continents. That sounds like the kind of extremely unusual circumstance you speak of ?

Look at this global map of trilobite deposits (the map just shows the prime fossil sites, trilobites have been found over much of the world, including South America, Antarctica and South Africa). map source
Attached File  localities.jpg   100.41KB   0 downloads
 
If trilobites were washed as far inland as Oklahoma for example, why aren’t all sorts of terrestrial and various modern groups mixed in ? How do you explain the presence of trilobites low down within the Tonto Group of the Grand Canyon, hundreds of metres below the Cocconino sandstone with its associated desert animal tracks ?[/size]

Dinosaur fossils have also been found on every continent. Did they and modern mammals just all avoid each other completely ?

#4 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,709 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 10 March 2017 - 03:45 AM

 

 

Bonedigger:  And that's just the point. "Cambrian" is a description of an associated faunal assemblage. It is evolutionists (and old earthers) who assert that it represents a unique slice of time.

 

That's a good point, and the correct way of putting it, even technically. 

 

 

 

Bonedigger: Another assumption I always see behind the bunny in the Cambrian straw man is the unjustified, unsubstantiated, and often unvoiced assertion that a global flood would just mix everything up.

 

I come across that one a lot. I would say it might be possible there was SOME mix up by examples of trawls. (Fossil Bluff?), but it seems naive for them to infer the whole thing would be mixed up.

 

I also think it's fair in debate that if we are agreeing to say, "if the flood was true....THEN X" that we don't just dismiss the flood before examining the issue. The complaints seem to be; "if flood then P, not P so no flood", but it seems to me, "P" is questionable.

 

They take one questionable evidence and favour it. :rolleyes: 

 

On prediction I would make for a flood, which is very solid and therefore counts as a conditional implication because the consequent must certainly follow, is that if the flood destroyed all life on earth like the bible says, then we would expect if it did preserve fossils, to find representatives of all life on earth. So we wouldn't just expect marine fauna preserved, but we would expect mammals, reptiles, marine forms, amphibians, plants...because that was the claim of the bible - that the whole world perished by water.

 

 

 

Wibble: If trilobites were washed as far inland as Oklahoma for example, why aren’t all sorts of terrestrial and various modern groups mixed in ? 

 

This topic isn't really a debate about the flood, and questioning it, as such. So my answer would be, to some extent the door is open to marine forms because the flood started with water and so we can expect marine forms to be mixed if they inundate an area but not vice versa. Fossil Bluff is an example of terrestrial and marine forms together, and there are marine forms in many layers mixed in, it's just that they're not trilobites. The cambrian rocks seem to definitely be a marine zone preservation, and isn't the Burgess shale the cambrian? So I never argued that the cambrian doesn't contain marine forms. So BD is correct, it would be unusual, you need something like a fossil-trawl, (Fossil Bluff if I remember the name correctly, I think CMI have an article if you search that name in their search engine).

 

Perhaps my answer isn't the best one but I would speculate that you can't get land life to inundate a zone for marine fauna but you can get marine fauna to inundate a zone which is terrestrial, because you are BRINGING the marine forms, with the water, from their zone.

 

The fish won't come to you, you have to go and catch them, but with a flood, it's a case of the fish coming to you. But there would be so many complex factors involved, and this is the point of the topic, I believe because evolutionists don't think a flood through seriously, they don't sit down to think about what it would involve, their thinking only goes as far as criticising what seems to them, it's clear absurdness.



#5 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 524 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 11 March 2017 - 04:02 PM

On prediction I would make for a flood, which is very solid and therefore counts as a conditional implication because the consequent must certainly follow, is that if the flood destroyed all life on earth like the bible says, then we would expect if it did preserve fossils, to find representatives of all life on earth. So we wouldn't just expect marine fauna preserved, but we would expect mammals, reptiles, marine forms, amphibians, plants...because that was the claim of the bible - that the whole world perished by water.


But your prediction isn't very solid is it ? Otherwise we would have a much more equable spread of fossil kinds rather than (from memory) the 95% marine (and they mostly shelly things like bivalves). We only find a very tiny percentage of mammals, reptiles, amphibians, plants because of the relative likelihood of a terrestrial or freshwater organism being subject to burial under sediment compared to the remains of marine organisms. Terrestrial fossilization depends on locally favourable conditions such as a river flooding while suitable conditions may be present over large areas on an ocean floor or near shore environment.

 

This topic isn't really a debate about the flood, and questioning it, as such. So my answer would be, to some extent the door is open to marine forms because the flood started with water and so we can expect marine forms to be mixed if they inundate an area but not vice versa. Fossil Bluff is an example of terrestrial and marine forms together, and there are marine forms in many layers mixed in, it's just that they're not trilobites.


I looked up Fossil Bluff on CMI expecting to read about a proper mix of marine and terrestrial fossils as you suggested and it turns out it is a formation full of marine shells and corals etc. with a single fossil of a marsupial (the oldest one ever found in Australia at 22 mya) plus some decomposed wood. They pick up on the marsupial as some sort of proof of the Flood (as clearly a possum is not a marine organism) but this kind of find is very much an exception to the norm. If the Flood was a real event CMI wouldn't have to scour the literature for such things to trumpet, they should be commonplace. I can give you another example if you like of a similar anomaly; an armoured dinosaur called Scelidosaurus found just along the coast from me, in the Charmouth Mudstone Formation, which otherwise has crinoids, ammonites and (occasionally) ichthyosaurs. Let CMI know about this one if you like, I'm sure they'd appreciate it.

Of course we don't know for sure how these specimens ended up there, but given the rest of the fossil assemblage for both Fossil Bluff and Charmouth these were near shore or lagoonal environments and the occasional terrestrial corpse may have been washed in via rivers or due to a storm perhaps.
 

I believe because evolutionists don't think a flood through seriously, they don't sit down to think about what it would involve


I don't believe you can have objectively thought it through and/or have a good idea of what fossil beds contain






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users