Jump to content


Photo

Young Earth Age Correlations


  • Please log in to reply
162 replies to this topic

#161 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 01 July 2012 - 10:43 AM

You have not made a correct conclusion about the use of biostratigraphy here, for more than one reason. The first reason is that graptolites actually are excellent fossils in terms of their use in dating rocks because those found in successsive stratigraphic (younger using the Principle of Superposition) are different than those forms found lower in the stratigraphic sequence.

Could you plase cite a verticle succession of graptolites found in rock. We would like to see the evolution of graptolites in the same area, not a 'correlation' done by fossil assemblages from different locations. This kind of correlation does not provide exclusive proof, as it open to different interpretations according one's preconceived idea of world history.

It has been argued that a living form such as Cephalodiscus graptolitoides can be classified as a graptolite but its shape is different than that of Paleozoic graptolites allowing it to be distinguished from them.

So they have found differently shaped graptolites in different locations. Tomorrow, just as they find new assemblages all the time, they may find a Cephalodiscus graptolitoides, near a Paleozoic graptolite, and it will be no big deal. They will just adjust the time of appearing and/or extinction dates of one or both of them. You know that this kind of stuff happens all the time. Why can't you see this as circular? Circular means the conclusion is the premise. The evidence is supported by the premises and conclusion, which in turn supports the conclusion. Can we say "a wash?" Let's do an exercise--Can you spot the assumptions in the next statement?

Since geology, which says that sedmentation and the earth happened over billions of years, by various means, is supported by biostratigraphy, and biostratigraphy supports geology, we find similar fossil groups together, which in some cases represents an ecological group saved by sediment, and we find a different species of graptolite in a similar fossil assemblage , so since geology supports biostratigraphy, it is from a different time according to geology. So biostratigraphy supports geology.

I'll bold the assumptions.

Since geology, which says that sedmentation and the earth happened over billions of years, by various means, is supported by biostratigraphy, and geology supports geology, we find similar fossil groups together, representing an ecological group saved by sediment, and we find a different species of graptolite in a similar fossil assemblage, so since geology supports biostratigraphy, it is from a different time according to geology. So biostratigraphy supports geology.

Now I'll bold the hard data.

Since geology, which says that sedmentation and the earth happened over billions of years, by various means, is supported by biostratigraphy, and biostratigraphy supports geology, we find similar fossil groups together, representing an ecological group saved by sediment, and we find a different species of graptolite in a similar fossil assemblage, so since geology supports biostratigraphy, it is from a different time according to geology. So biostratigraphy supports geology.

I have put these statements in the form of predictive hypotheses. The problem for evolutionists and geologists is that the hard data can fit into a flood geology model as well.

...we find similar fossil groups together, representing an ecological group saved by sediment, and we find a different species of graptolite in a similar fossil assemblage...because similar faunal groups can be found together in nature. And similar but different species can and do cohabitate. And since many catastrophic episodes and evidences are found in the fossil record, many of these faunal groups were caught in catastrophic depositions of various sediments. This supports the flood narative of the Bible, and other archeological flood narratives as indeed historical.


Also biostratigraphers do not usually date rocks using a single fossil form, they use assemblages of fossils. The fossils have different ranges in terms of being found in rocks with the section and this allows a more precise determination of the relative age of the rock. It would usually not prevent dating a rock unit fairly well even if one of the fossils in the assemblage had lived with no detectable change from the Cambrian to the Recent since other fossils in the assemblage usually would narrow the time range in which the rock unit was deposited.

So are you ready to claim that the ranges have never changed? You can't because you know they have changed because of new discoveries--one fossil is found with a new assemblage, or associated with another index fossil, moving it's date of appearance or extinction. And you can not rule out assemblages being solely ecological, not having anything to do with time or dating. I can find alligators and catfish together today, and we find them together as fossils. We find soft bodied bottom dwellers together today as they also have (though different and extant species) in catastophically deposited calcitic mud(now limestone) in the hills of China.

As far as "armchair geology" Geode. I may not be a field geologist, but I have seen enough in the field, and read enough on sedimentology and geology to falsify commonly taught notions that the public still holds, whether geologists "already know," as you claim. They just forgot to tell most science students, and wikipedia.

#162 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,172 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 03 July 2013 - 05:19 AM

It rather looks as if the sediments including coal layers formed rapidly by flood conditions. Also, if a layer has been formed over a very long period, how come it's relatively homogeneous in its composition?



#163 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 03 July 2013 - 05:48 AM

Could you plase cite a verticle succession of graptolites found in rock. We would like to see the evolution of graptolites in the same area, not a 'correlation' done by fossil assemblages from different locations. This kind of correlation does not provide exclusive proof, as it open to different interpretations according one's preconceived idea of world history.

So they have found differently shaped graptolites in different locations. Tomorrow, just as they find new assemblages all the time, they may find a Cephalodiscus graptolitoides, near a Paleozoic graptolite, and it will be no big deal. They will just adjust the time of appearing and/or extinction dates of one or both of them. You know that this kind of stuff happens all the time. Why can't you see this as circular? Circular means the conclusion is the premise. The evidence is supported by the premises and conclusion, which in turn supports the conclusion. Can we say "a wash?" Let's do an exercise--Can you spot the assumptions in the next statement?

Since geology, which says that sedmentation and the earth happened over billions of years, by various means, is supported by biostratigraphy, and biostratigraphy supports geology, we find similar fossil groups together, which in some cases represents an ecological group saved by sediment, and we find a different species of graptolite in a similar fossil assemblage , so since geology supports biostratigraphy, it is from a different time according to geology. So biostratigraphy supports geology.

I'll bold the assumptions.

Since geology, which says that sedmentation and the earth happened over billions of years, by various means, is supported by biostratigraphy, and geology supports geology, we find similar fossil groups together, representing an ecological group saved by sediment, and we find a different species of graptolite in a similar fossil assemblage, so since geology supports biostratigraphy, it is from a different time according to geology. So biostratigraphy supports geology.

Now I'll bold the hard data.

Since geology, which says that sedmentation and the earth happened over billions of years, by various means, is supported by biostratigraphy, and biostratigraphy supports geology, we find similar fossil groups together, representing an ecological group saved by sediment, and we find a different species of graptolite in a similar fossil assemblage, so since geology supports biostratigraphy, it is from a different time according to geology. So biostratigraphy supports geology.

I have put these statements in the form of predictive hypotheses. The problem for evolutionists and geologists is that the hard data can fit into a flood geology model as well.

...we find similar fossil groups together, representing an ecological group saved by sediment, and we find a different species of graptolite in a similar fossil assemblage...because similar faunal groups can be found together in nature. And similar but different species can and do cohabitate. And since many catastrophic episodes and evidences are found in the fossil record, many of these faunal groups were caught in catastrophic depositions of various sediments. This supports the flood narative of the Bible, and other archeological flood narratives as indeed historical.


So are you ready to claim that the ranges have never changed? You can't because you know they have changed because of new discoveries--one fossil is found with a new assemblage, or associated with another index fossil, moving it's date of appearance or extinction. And you can not rule out assemblages being solely ecological, not having anything to do with time or dating. I can find alligators and catfish together today, and we find them together as fossils. We find soft bodied bottom dwellers together today as they also have (though different and extant species) in catastophically deposited calcitic mud(now limestone) in the hills of China.

As far as "armchair geology" Geode. I may not be a field geologist, but I have seen enough in the field, and read enough on sedimentology and geology to falsify commonly taught notions that the public still holds, whether geologists "already know," as you claim. They just forgot to tell most science students, and wikipedia.

 

AFJ....geode was banned some time ago. Perhaps some other evolution believer might attempt to answer your question.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users