Jump to content


Photo

Fossil Record, Time And The Flood.


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

#1 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 25 November 2011 - 07:35 PM

I'm going to list some points up front so that when I start discussing my idea it is better understood what is being talked about.

1) In the fossil record, not one fossil found is repeated in another layer. In other words you find a certain type of fish in one layer, you won't find that same type of fish in another layer.
2) The fossil record is supposed to be a record of time. Whatever lived in each time period is what is buried in the layer that represents that time period. So if most everything went extinct in a layer, that type of life form would not appear in any other layer.
3) And if none of the fossils survived from the fossil record, then there would be no record of them being in any other layer that would suggest that they lived until present time.

This is basically what time keeping would be like if the fossil record is a record of time.

1) If the fossil record were sorted, such as in a flood. It would definitely not have any repeats nor need to. This is because sorting is not a record of time because time is not the mechanism of what laid things the way that they are.
2) If the sorted fossil record had a sorting mechanism, it would also have a sorting pattern. One that either killed and buried the animals where they were, or sorted them through size buoyancy and possibly the will to survive and the ability to swim.

Example: Using an example of a coin sorting machine as shown in the picture shows a no repeat scenario.
Posted Image

Burying the sea creatures where they live during the flood would show a sorting pattern not a time pattern. In a flood that the Bible states started by the fountains of the deep breaking up Genesis 7:11 means that as much sediments came up with the water, each sea creature would get buried right where they live in the water. That would mean that the "sort" pattern, with no repeat, would start at the bottom of the ocean, then bury the midway dwellers, then the top dwellers. Then the land dwellers. And even though fish survived even through the land period, the fossil record laid by the flood would not show this because of "flood sorting", not time sorting. Because if time sorted the record then fish would have been in every layer above where they were found because they are still alive.

Yet when it gets to land animals, all you see are land animals. If time is the sorting mechanism did not fish live until now, and should not the record recorded that by having fish in more than one layer?

Example: Let's say that man was found 5 layers down and alive today. Should not the time keeping layer mechanism have man in more than one layer proving he survived until now? But yet not one type of life repeats itself in any other layer.

This brings up the problem of living fossils. Living fossils prove that things "did live" from the fossil record. The most popular is the COELACANTH fish.

Posted Image

This fish is found about 8 layers down in the fossil record. And yet it survived also. So if the fossil record is laid by time, why did not the record make that known by having that fish in more than one layer? The Sea Pen is found in the bottom most layer and also alive. That's 12 layers down and is not found in any layer above it proving it survived.

Example: That fish is found 8 layers down. if it's found in the seventh, sixth, fifth, forth, third, or second layer also. Would not that suggest that it survived if the record was laid by time and not the flood? Actually accurate time keeping would demand that each living fossil found would be found in some of the upper layers suggesting it did survive.

Today there are about 30 known living fossils of both plants and animals. Not one ever repeats itself in being in any other layer than the one it was originally found in. Did they disappear in time so that the record could not record their survival, then poof reappear to be seen in present time? Or was the sorting mechanism the flood which would not require any fossil to repeat itself in any layer because that would not prove it survived because a flood record would only record how it got buried or how it drowned.

1) So 30 known living fossils with no repeats in other layers supports sorting by the flood.
2) The fossil record pattern for the flood is bottom dwellers buried first, mid dwellers next, and top dweller last. And that is exactly how the fossil record is.
3) And the land dwellers would be buried by if they were able to swim, run for high ground, or just stood there and drowned and Buoyancy. Man being the smartest of them all would be last in drowning and therefore would be found in the upper layer.

While the land dwellers were drowning, the sediments in the water were sill settling. So as each finally got down to the bottom they got buried.

Basically every part of the fossil record can be explained to fit into the flood model. Yet not every part of the fossil record fits into time being the mechanism of what laid it. Just one instance of the living fossil mean that there are 30 gaps of time keeping missing. Then you times that times how many layers the living fossil need to be in to record they survived that number goes even higher in how many gaps there are.

And leaving some leeway like: 2 living fossils were found in another layer as a half way argument that this is proof that time laid the layers does not even exist. 30 chances, zero results.

A question to evolutionists:
If i came to you and said I could make fossils connect to creation evidence. And you gave me more than 30 different fossils and gave me several months to make the connection. And when time was up I came back and told you I could not do it, what would you think about what I believed? That's like giving someone 30 strikes to strike out. How bad does evolution have to strike out before you guys realize it's not what it's made up to be?

#2 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 26 November 2011 - 12:26 AM

Today on CNN I saw Seth McFarlane (sp? of Family Guy) draw a picture of Stewie, but leave out a couple lines and say, "see you recognize it as Stewie, that is what evolution is to me". It's ironic how he uses a clear-cut example of intelligent design to argue in favor of evolution. The irony being how simple the design of Stewie is being recognized as a design, but the complexity of life on earth, and scientific laws that sustain it not being recognized as such, but I digress. To say that evolution best explains our origins without examining other models is intellectually dishonest. The better test would be to determine which model (out of multiple models) incorporates previously observed data the most completely, and predicts newly discovered data most accurately:

Basically every part of the fossil record can be explained to fit into the flood model. Yet not every part of the fossil record fits into time being the mechanism of what laid it.



So flood model has it. Actually you can say that the Bible never "incorporates previously observed data" rather it has predicted all observed data, having predated it.

#3 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 26 November 2011 - 12:41 AM

Now a question to clarify; what about a combination...flood sorting originally, then time sorting recently?


What I say is to get a shovel and start digging, when get through the loose topsoil, clay, and gravel you will hit solid rock. When you hit solid rock you just found the flood line. You will quickly notice that all of the loose material above the bed rock doesn't have a single fossil in it, but the rock underneath will be sometimes loaded with marine fossils.

Posted Image


Enjoy.

#4 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 26 November 2011 - 01:31 AM

What I say is to get a shovel and start digging, when get through the loose topsoil, clay, and gravel you will hit solid rock. When you hit solid rock you just found the flood line. You will quickly notice that all of the loose material above the bed rock doesn't have a single fossil in it, but the rock under neath will be sometimes loaded with marine fossils.

Posted Image


Enjoy.

Yes I removed this question because I determined that it was too short of a time period to even begin to establish any time based record, since the evolutionary model requires millions of years to pass to form a singular layer and the flood was only thousands of years ago.

330 million year sea lilly fossils just below the clay, topsoil and gravel made me lol

#5 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 26 November 2011 - 01:37 AM

Now a question to clarify; what about a combination...flood sorting originally, then time sorting recently?


How much layering can be laid in just a little over 6,000 years? In fact graves they dig up at archeologist sites are not deep enough to be in the layers to be dated with the layer.

The flood also explains dinosaur grave yards found all over the world.

Posted Image

Utah:

Posted Image

Asia:

Posted Image

China:

Posted Image

In fact the one in China is said to be the largest with over 7,600 bones. Time does not make graveyards, floods do.

I guess while I am at it, enough water for the flood has been found in a mineral in the upper layer of the earth's mantle.

Suddenly, there was somewhere to put water deep inside the mantle. “You can have oceans and oceans of water stored in the transition zone,” says Jay Bass of the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign. “It’s sopping wet stuff.” Researchers think wadsleyite can hold as much as 3·3 per cent water by weight. It may not sound like much, but there could be an awful lot of wadsleyite.

According to Smyth, models of the mantle’s composition suggest that at the depths where wadsleyite is stable, between half and three-quarters of the material is the right stuff for making this mineral. “If the region between 400 and 525 kilometers were, say, 60 per cent wadsleyite, and that phase was saturated at 3·3 weight per cent, that’s ten oceans of water,” says Smyth. But Dan Frost, an experimental petrologist at the Carnegie Institution of Washington’s Geophysical Laboratory in Washington DC, thinks the mantle could contain even more water.

Frost says that solidified lava that has erupted at mid-ocean ridges contains glass that can be analyzed for water content. His research team has calculated how much water the lava’s parent material in the mantle must have contained. “It ends up being between 100 and 500 parts per million,” he says. And if the whole mantle contained 500 parts per million of water, Frost calculates that would be the equivalent of 30 oceans of water.
Reference: http://www.ldolphin....deepwaters.html


Scientists scanning the deep interior of Earth have found evidence of a vast water reservoir beneath eastern Asia that is at least the volume of the Arctic Ocean.
The discovery marks the first time such a large body of water has found in the planet’s deep mantle.
Reference: http://www.livescien...ered-earth.html


A seismologist at Washington University in St. Louis has made the first 3-D model of seismic wave damping — diminishing — deep in the Earth’s mantle and has revealed the existence of an underground water reservoir at least the volume of the Arctic Ocean. It is the first evidence for water existing in the Earth’s deep mantle.
Reference: http://www.physorg.c...ws90171847.html


A seismologist has made the first 3-D model of seismic wave damping, or diminishing, deep in the Earth’s mantle and has revealed the existence of an underground water reservoir at least the volume of the Arctic Ocean.
Reference: http://news.wustl.ed...Pages/8749.aspx


One evolutionist did some math and claimed that still was not enough water to flood the earth to the highest mountain. I asked him: Did you account for the earth shrinkage? He said: What do you mean. I answered: ?The earth has tectonic plates right? And they move right? What do you think happens when all that water from underneath is no longer there? They come together reducing the surface area of the earth by the same amount of volume of water that came up. So it would work like there is twice as much water than there is. So yes that is enough to flood the earth to the highest mountain and beyond.

#6 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 26 November 2011 - 02:16 PM

...long post...


1. Where are you getting the idea that fossils aren't found across multiple layers? There are many organisms that we find fossils of in multiple time periods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilobite
The first appearance of trilobites in the fossil record defines the base of the Atdabanian stage of the Early Cambrian period (526 million years ago), and they flourished throughout the lower Paleozoic era before beginning a drawn-out decline to extinction when, during the Devonian, almost all trilobite orders, with the sole exception of Proetida, died out. Trilobites finally disappeared in the mass extinction at the end of the Permian about 250 million years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark
Modern sharks began to appear about 100 million years ago.[93] Fossil mackerel shark teeth date to the Lower Cretaceous. One of the most recently evolved families is the hammerhead shark (family Sphyrnidae), which emerged in the Eocene.[96] The oldest white shark teeth date from 60 to 65 million years ago, around the time of the extinction of the dinosaurs

http://en.wikipedia...._horseshoe_crab
Forms almost identical to this species were present during the Triassic period 230 million years ago, and similar species were present in the Devonian, 400 million years ago

2. Why do you think the fossil record needs to be complete in order to be accurate? These are two different concepts. Nobody has ever claimed that the fossil record is complete, nor that it should be, so your argument regarding living fossils doesn't make much sense. It's perfectly valid for no fossils to be found of an animal in a particular time period, especially if that animal lives in an area where finding fossils would be difficult such as deeper water.

Here's an example of the difference between "accuracy" and "completeness":
A complete and accurate fossil record would have every fossil of every animal that ever lived. The fossils would occur in the period that the animals lived.
A incomplete and accurate fossil record would have some fossils of some animals. A fossil that did exist would occur in a period that the animal lived.
A complete and inaccurate fossil record would have every fossil of every animal that ever lived. The fossils would occur in different periods than when the animals lived.
A incomplete and inaccurate fossil record would have some fossils of some animals. A fossil that did exist would occur in a different period than when the animal lived.

3. Where are you getting the idea that the fossil record is sorted by living habitat or mobility? We find flowering plants (not known for their running or swimming skills) above trilobites (perfectly capable of swimming). We find land dinosaurs below flowering plants, but find aquatic mammals above flowering plants. Human made stone tools generally don't run or float, nor are they objects a person trying not to drown would carry, and yet they are found at the most recent levels, not at the bottom with non-mobile or non-buoyant organisms.

#7 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 26 November 2011 - 02:31 PM

2. Why do you think the fossil record needs to be complete in order to be accurate? These are two different concepts. Nobody has ever claimed that the fossil record is complete, nor that it should be, so your argument regarding living fossils doesn't make much sense.


According to empirical fossilization rates, it makes perfect sense.

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=73135


Not applying empirical measures to an idea that is labeled as a theory is what doesn't make sense to me.


Enjoy.

#8 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 26 November 2011 - 08:13 PM

1. Where are you getting the idea that fossils aren't found across multiple layers? There are many organisms that we find fossils of in multiple time periods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilobite
The first appearance of trilobites in the fossil record defines the base of the Atdabanian stage of the Early Cambrian period (526 million years ago), and they flourished throughout the lower Paleozoic era before beginning a drawn-out decline to extinction when, during the Devonian, almost all trilobite orders, with the sole exception of Proetida, died out. Trilobites finally disappeared in the mass extinction at the end of the Permian about 250 million years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark
Modern sharks began to appear about 100 million years ago.[93] Fossil mackerel shark teeth date to the Lower Cretaceous. One of the most recently evolved families is the hammerhead shark (family Sphyrnidae), which emerged in the Eocene.[96] The oldest white shark teeth date from 60 to 65 million years ago, around the time of the extinction of the dinosaurs

http://en.wikipedia...._horseshoe_crab
Forms almost identical to this species were present during the Triassic period 230 million years ago, and similar species were present in the Devonian, 400 million years ago

2. Why do you think the fossil record needs to be complete in order to be accurate? These are two different concepts. Nobody has ever claimed that the fossil record is complete, nor that it should be, so your argument regarding living fossils doesn't make much sense. It's perfectly valid for no fossils to be found of an animal in a particular time period, especially if that animal lives in an area where finding fossils would be difficult such as deeper water.

Here's an example of the difference between "accuracy" and "completeness":
A complete and accurate fossil record would have every fossil of every animal that ever lived. The fossils would occur in the period that the animals lived.
A incomplete and accurate fossil record would have some fossils of some animals. A fossil that did exist would occur in a period that the animal lived.
A complete and inaccurate fossil record would have every fossil of every animal that ever lived. The fossils would occur in different periods than when the animals lived.
A incomplete and inaccurate fossil record would have some fossils of some animals. A fossil that did exist would occur in a different period than when the animal lived.

3. Where are you getting the idea that the fossil record is sorted by living habitat or mobility? We find flowering plants (not known for their running or swimming skills) above trilobites (perfectly capable of swimming). We find land dinosaurs below flowering plants, but find aquatic mammals above flowering plants. Human made stone tools generally don't run or float, nor are they objects a person trying not to drown would carry, and yet they are found at the most recent levels, not at the bottom with non-mobile or non-buoyant organisms.


Living fossils need to be found in multiple layers to show that "time", the supposed mechanism for laying the fossil record, recorded their actual survival. That is not what we see. 30 known fossils, zip on the "time mechanism" recording that they even survived.

If you paid a thousand dollars to get the history of you family in a tree made up from as far back as it could go. And the person who did this left gaps in it, and did not report when a person died showing over laps between one generation and another, Would you consider that a accurate family tree worth what you paid?

You see the fossil record is said to have been laid by time. So recording what happened in time would prove this point, understand? Every living fossil (30 of them) has survived until now. Yet the mechanism of time that laid the fossil record did not record this at all. Not even once.

Example of what should be found here and there: I don't expect every living fossil remains to be repeated in every layer above the original. But I do expect their fossil to be found here and there at least giving the idea they survived until now. that here and there is missing, understand? Totally missing 30 times. In other words 30 times there is a huge gap between where the living fossil are found, and that they are still alive today.

This is like buying a book on someone's history opening it to find it has 100 chapters. But only lists the first one and the last one. How can you read this book and know what the other 98 chapters say? For it to be a true history the gap that is missing has to be filled. Now if you buy 30 books that all have the same gap, would you say they were accurate and that you could learn much from reading them?

The existing gap that happens 30 times means there is a huge problem with time being the mechanism of record keeping. What would keep time from recording, even in the slightest of evidence, that the living fossils survived at all? Because if we are to make the fossil record complete and accurate we would have to hunt down all living fossils and kill them. And shout that you were not supposed to live because the fossil record says you did not. Get my point?

So the actual existence of living fossils puts into question 30 times that time was the mechanism of laying down the fossil record.

And if you want to see just how shaky the claim is about time laying the layers down, I will ask another question just for you to ponder:

How does time sort layers?

I can prove and show observable evidence that water will sort layers. But how does time do this?

So basically what we have is:
1) 30 known gaps of the layers showing that living fossils survived.
2) A totally unobservable mechanism for sorting and layering the fossil record.

What more evidence against this is needed before evolutionists start to realize that you are way off base? Because the fossil record is the foundation of not only through "time" that evolution is supposed to happen, but how it happened. And no observable mechanism of time layering and sorting layers, and 30 gaps in recording living fossils surviving needs to be explained. Right now the whole theory is on very shaky ground because without time being the correct mechanism for the fossil record, the whole of the theory fails.

To put this into better prospective of what needs to be done, or what questions need to be answered, I will list them so this does not turn into a huge hoopla of time wasting posts trying to derail the thread to cover up the problem.

1) It needs to be shown how time can sort and layer each layer in the column. This can be done with water like from the flood, but can it also be shown how time does it, or can words be the only mechanism and claims that it does happen because evolutionists say it will?
2) Explain how living fossils survived until present time yet the time record keeping fossil record did not record this happening 30 times? Not even in the slightest way. Do lifeforms just appear, disappear, then reappear?
3) Explain why the way the fossil record is laid supports the flood better than time being the mechanism?
4) Explain why the flood has an observable mechanism for layering and sorting yet the current accepted idea does not?
5) Explain why the burying method of life in our oceans coincides with how it would have happen, and in the correct order of how it would have happened if everything were buried in a flood?
7) How there has been found enough water to flood the whole earth yet is ignored because atheistic science has banged over the creationist heads for years that there is not enough water on the planet to flood the whole earth, yet a recent find says that are 30 oceans worth of water in a mineral in the upper mantle of the crust?
7) Explain why science accepts a lesser mechanism that won't connect the dots, and fails under scrutiny, over one that does all these things and much better?

So the flood has:
1) The water to flood the whole earth to the highest mountain.
2) Can show an observable process of layering and sorting.
3) Has the fossil record supporting the "burying order" of how things would have been buried as sediments came up with the water.
4) Has the living fossils defying the time mechanism for what laid the fossil record.

And let's see if this will be dealt with in a scientific manner, or will the mud slinging start because it cannot.

#9 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 27 November 2011 - 12:09 AM

Living fossils need to be found in multiple layers to show that "time", the supposed mechanism for laying the fossil record, recorded their actual survival. That is not what we see. 30 known fossils, zip on the "time mechanism" recording that they even survived.

Why do you think they need to be found in multiple layers? Why must their survival be recorded?

If you paid a thousand dollars to get the history of you family in a tree made up from as far back as it could go. And the person who did this left gaps in it, and did not report when a person died showing over laps between one generation and another, Would you consider that a accurate family tree worth what you paid?


I wouldn't consider any family tree worth a thousand dollars no matter what it's condition but assuming there was a time I agreed to pay money for a family tree, the answer to your question is, "yes if the gaps were due to lack of available information rather than human errors". Real genealogies are messy, I actually have looked at a very detailed genealogy of my family for several hundred years covering thousands of relations and there are tons of gaps and question marks and blank entries. That doesn't mean the information that is there is inaccurate, simply that there are missing dates and names.

You see the fossil record is said to have been laid by time. So recording what happened in time would prove this point, understand? Every living fossil (30 of them) has survived until now. Yet the mechanism of time that laid the fossil record did not record this at all. Not even once.

Example of what should be found here and there: I don't expect every living fossil remains to be repeated in every layer above the original. But I do expect their fossil to be found here and there at least giving the idea they survived until now. that here and there is missing, understand? Totally missing 30 times. In other words 30 times there is a huge gap between where the living fossil are found, and that they are still alive today.

This is like buying a book on someone's history opening it to find it has 100 chapters. But only lists the first one and the last one. How can you read this book and know what the other 98 chapters say? For it to be a true history the gap that is missing has to be filled. Now if you buy 30 books that all have the same gap, would you say they were accurate and that you could learn much from reading them?

I bolded the part where I think the problem is. What are you basing that expectation on? There is nothing that requires fossils to exist. There is nothing that requires fossils to be found.

For the book example, who says we need to learn a lot from books or living fossils? If we are only interested in truth and accuracy why would we care about the other 98 chapters. True history is not complete history. Page 1. George Washington was born in 1732. Page 100, He died in 1799. This is true history. It is not complete history, nor does it claim to be, nor does it need to be in order to be true. There's no requirement that a fossil exist nor that every book written have a middle. Wanting something to exist because it would be nice to have does not mean it must exist.

The existing gap that happens 30 times means there is a huge problem with time being the mechanism of record keeping. What would keep time from recording, even in the slightest of evidence, that the living fossils survived at all? Because if we are to make the fossil record complete and accurate we would have to hunt down all living fossils and kill them. And shout that you were not supposed to live because the fossil record says you did not. Get my point?


No I'm afraid I don't get your point. Nobody has ever said that the fossil record is both complete and accurate, nor have they ever tried to make it so. Fossilization is rare, finding fossils is even rarer. That's what would keep fossils from either being found or existing.

A species is either extinct or not-extinct. If we find fossils in a time period, we conclude that the species was not-extinct at that time. If we stop finding fossils in a later time period and don't have living examples we conclude the animal was extinct at that later time because concluding that the animal is not-extinct is not supported by the available evidence. If we find a living example or a fossil in a later time period we change our previous conclusion. That's how science works, drawing conclusions from the available evidence. If fossils that we'd like to have aren't found, there's not much we can do about it.

So the actual existence of living fossils puts into question 30 times that time was the mechanism of laying down the fossil record.

And if you want to see just how shaky the claim is about time laying the layers down, I will ask another question just for you to ponder:

How does time sort layers?

I can prove and show observable evidence that water will sort layers. But how does time do this?

Is this a serious question?
Put a quarter on your desk.
Now put a penny on the quarter.
Was the quarter in place before or after the penny? That's how things get sorted by time.
The normal way for something to end up on top of another thing is for the bottom object to be in place before the top.

So basically what we have is:
1) 30 known gaps of the layers showing that living fossils survived.
2) A totally unobservable mechanism for sorting and layering the fossil record.

What more evidence against this is needed before evolutionists start to realize that you are way off base? Because the fossil record is the foundation of not only through "time" that evolution is supposed to happen, but how it happened. And no observable mechanism of time layering and sorting layers, and 30 gaps in recording living fossils surviving needs to be explained. Right now the whole theory is on very shaky ground because without time being the correct mechanism for the fossil record, the whole of the theory fails.

To put this into better prospective of what needs to be done, or what questions need to be answered, I will list them so this does not turn into a huge hoopla of time wasting posts trying to derail the thread to cover up the problem.

1) It needs to be shown how time can sort and layer each layer in the column. This can be done with water like from the flood, but can it also be shown how time does it, or can words be the only mechanism and claims that it does happen because evolutionists say it will?
2) Explain how living fossils survived until present time yet the time record keeping fossil record did not record this happening 30 times? Not even in the slightest way. Do lifeforms just appear, disappear, then reappear?
3) Explain why the way the fossil record is laid supports the flood better than time being the mechanism?
4) Explain why the flood has an observable mechanism for layering and sorting yet the current accepted idea does not?
5) Explain why the burying method of life in our oceans coincides with how it would have happen, and in the correct order of how it would have happened if everything were buried in a flood?
7) How there has been found enough water to flood the whole earth yet is ignored because atheistic science has banged over the creationist heads for years that there is not enough water on the planet to flood the whole earth, yet a recent find says that are 30 oceans worth of water in a mineral in the upper mantle of the crust?
7) Explain why science accepts a lesser mechanism that won't connect the dots, and fails under scrutiny, over one that does all these things and much better?

So the flood has:
1) The water to flood the whole earth to the highest mountain.
2) Can show an observable process of layering and sorting.
3) Has the fossil record supporting the "burying order" of how things would have been buried as sediments came up with the water.
4) Has the living fossils defying the time mechanism for what laid the fossil record.

And let's see if this will be dealt with in a scientific manner, or will the mud slinging start because it cannot.


1) I address above. When things get stacked on top of one another, the things at the bottom are usually in place before the things at the top.
2) Yes organisms appear, disappear and reappear in the fossil record, because the fossil record is not complete. They don't go appear, go extinct, and re-appear in the real world. There's nothing that requires fossils to exist or that fossils be found. Whether there are 0 gaps, 30 gaps, or 30 million gaps wouldn't change the fact that fossilization isn't mandatory.
3) I pointed out some problems with flood sorting in my earlier post. To repeat, flowering plants are found after trilobites and land dinosaurs which can swim or run, so they are not sorted by mobility. Flowering plants are found before aquatic mammals so they are not sorted by habitat elevation. Flowering plants are found before human tools, so they are not sorted by bouyancy.
4) This is a repeat of #1. In a pile of things, the things on the bottom become part of the pile before the things on the top.
5) this is a repeat of #3. Fossils are not found in a order consistent with a flood.
6) water in wadsleyite is not liquid. It's part of the structure of the rock like the water in concrete. If you want the water to start there, you can't flood the earth with that water without liquifying the earth's crust to break the mineral bonds. If you want the water to start somewhere else the problems become where the water initially was, why we can't find any trace of that early location, and how to get it to drain and be incorporated into the mantle in less than a year.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Wadsleyite
Because of oxygens not bound to silicon in the Si2O7 groups of wadsleyite, it leaves oxygens unoccupied, and as a result, these oxygens are hydrated easily
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrate
Hydrates are inorganic salts "containing water molecules combined in a definite ratio as an integral part of the crystal"[1] that are either bound to a metal center or that have crystallized with the metal complex
http://en.wikipedia....neral_hydration
Mineral hydration is an inorganic chemical reaction where water is added to the crystal structure of a mineral, usually creating a new mineral, usually called a hydrate.
Hydration is the mechanism by which Portland cement develops strength.


7) the flood mechanism doesn't connect dots or withstand scrutiny, that's why it's not accepted.

#10 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 27 November 2011 - 01:28 AM

Is this a serious question?
Put a quarter on your desk.
Now put a penny on the quarter.
Was the quarter in place before or after the penny? That's how things get sorted by time.
The normal way for something to end up on top of another thing is for the bottom object to be in place before the top.


Not in all circumstances.




The law of superposition was assumed to be true since Nicolas Steno developed the central axioms of geology and, according to the logic you just gave, no one has ever questioned it. But with experimentation a law can be falsified.

Sedimentation Experiments: Is Extrapolation Appropriate?

I pointed out some problems with flood sorting in my earlier post. To repeat, flowering plants are found after trilobites


Not according to the rocks. Precambrian/Early Cambrian plants and insects are known from three different countries.

A Historical Survey of an Unresolved Scientific Controversy

Precambrian Plant Fossils and the Hakatai Shale Controversy





Enjoy.

#11 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 27 November 2011 - 03:22 AM

Why do you think they need to be found in multiple layers? Why must their survival be recorded?


Every type of how a mechanism works has a pattern of how it will work. If time did it, their survival will be recorded. If the flood did it, it won't. And that is what we see. If you think that it is scientific to ignore that then show me where that is written in the scientific method? Or could this be that everyone else must follow the rules while you guys get to bend them?

I wouldn't consider any family tree worth a thousand dollars no matter what it's condition but assuming there was a time I agreed to pay money for a family tree, the answer to your question is, "yes if the gaps were due to lack of available information rather than human errors". Real genealogies are messy, I actually have looked at a very detailed genealogy of my family for several hundred years covering thousands of relations and there are tons of gaps and question marks and blank entries. That doesn't mean the information that is there is inaccurate, simply that there are missing dates and names


Defusing the question is not answering the question. The available information is not there because the mechanism that is supposed to record it did not work.


I bolded the part where I think the problem is. What are you basing that expectation on? There is nothing that requires fossils to exist. There is nothing that requires fossils to be found.


Really? Then the bases (fossil record) in which evolution is founded on does not need to exist, right? then evolution fails.

For the book example, who says we need to learn a lot from books or living fossils? If we are only interested in truth and accuracy why would we care about the other 98 chapters. True history is not complete history. Page 1. George Washington was born in 1732. Page 100, He died in 1799. This is true history. It is not complete history, nor does it claim to be, nor does it need to be in order to be true. There's no requirement that a fossil exist nor that every book written have a middle. Wanting something to exist because it would be nice to have does not mean it must exist.


Again, defusing the question is not answering the question.

No I'm afraid I don't get your point. Nobody has ever said that the fossil record is both complete and accurate, nor have they ever tried to make it so. Fossilization is rare, finding fossils is even rarer. That's what would keep fossils from either being found or existing.


Now you are adding to my words? Where did I say that the fossil record "has to be complete and accurate"? Show me where i said that? You are just mad because i point out and can prove that the Holy Grail of evolution is a scam.

A species is either extinct or not-extinct. If we find fossils in a time period, we conclude that the species was not-extinct at that time. If we stop finding fossils in a later time period and don't have living examples we conclude the animal was extinct at that later time because concluding that the animal is not-extinct is not supported by the available evidence. If we find a living example or a fossil in a later time period we change our previous conclusion. That's how science works, drawing conclusions from the available evidence. If fossils that we'd like to have aren't found, there's not much we can do about it.


If the fossil record was using time as it mechanism to record what happened. You would already know that certain fossils were living even before they were found. But the fossil record does not support that claim as to the reason you could never use it to know living fossils existed before you found them. 30 chances to get it right, and 30 strike outs. That's your problem not mine.

Is this a serious question?
Put a quarter on your desk.
Now put a penny on the quarter.
Was the quarter in place before or after the penny? That's how things get sorted by time.
The normal way for something to end up on top of another thing is for the bottom object to be in place before the top.


Defusing the question is not answering the question. You are making the problem bigger and bigger each time you do this. How? You prove my point for me. So do it as many times as you like. Prove me right.

1) I address above. When things get stacked on top of one another, the things at the bottom are usually in place before the things at the top.


How does time do this plus sorting as well?

2) Yes organisms appear, disappear and reappear in the fossil record, because the fossil record is not complete. They don't go appear, go extinct, and re-appear in the real world. There's nothing that requires fossils to exist or that fossils be found. Whether there are 0 gaps, 30 gaps, or 30 million gaps wouldn't change the fact that fossilization isn't mandatory.


Defusing the question does not answer the question. Just keep proving me right every time you do this.

3) I pointed out some problems with flood sorting in my earlier post. To repeat, flowering plants are found after trilobites and land dinosaurs which can swim or run, so they are not sorted by mobility. Flowering plants are found before aquatic mammals so they are not sorted by habitat elevation. Flowering plants are found before human tools, so they are not sorted by bouyancy.


Still have not answer how 30 living fossils were not recorded as surviving. Your continuation of defusing the questions I pose means you have no answer. Time does not sort layers and you know it. If I am wrong oh please show me the observable mechanism so we can all see it. Please.

4) This is a repeat of #1. In a pile of things, the things on the bottom become part of the pile before the things on the top.


If you say so.

5) this is a repeat of #3. Fossils are not found in a order consistent with a flood.


If you say so.

6) water in wadsleyite is not liquid. It's part of the structure of the rock like the water in concrete. If you want the water to start there, you can't flood the earth with that water without liquifying the earth's crust to break the mineral bonds. If you want the water to start somewhere else the problems become where the water initially was, why we can't find any trace of that early location, and how to get it to drain and be incorporated into the mantle in less than a year.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Wadsleyite
Because of oxygens not bound to silicon in the Si2O7 groups of wadsleyite, it leaves oxygens unoccupied, and as a result, these oxygens are hydrated easily
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrate
Hydrates are inorganic salts "containing water molecules combined in a definite ratio as an integral part of the crystal"[1] that are either bound to a metal center or that have crystallized with the metal complex
http://en.wikipedia....neral_hydration
Mineral hydration is an inorganic chemical reaction where water is added to the crystal structure of a mineral, usually creating a new mineral, usually called a hydrate.
Hydration is the mechanism by which Portland cement develops strength.


How do you get the water out of the mineral in the upper mantle? You decrease the pressure on it and the heat turns it to steam and it comes up. Now during the flood, how would you get the water back in the mineral without boiling off? You increase the pressure of the water going in so it's boiling point raises above the heat of the miner in the upper mantle. How do you do that? To flood the whole earth to the highest mountain, you would have to have water as deep as 15 miles. 15 miles of water would create so much pressure and raise the boiling point of water to it's highest level that the water would go right back into the mineral no problem. Do you have a mechanism for putting that much water in the upper mantle without boiling off? Maybe time did it.

the flood mechanism doesn't connect dots or withstand scrutiny, that's why it's not accepted.


I still see 30 gaps. Defusing the question I posed does not answer them. So all you did in this post is prove me right. thanx.

#12 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 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 27 November 2011 - 06:39 AM

1. Where are you getting the idea that fossils aren't found across multiple layers? There are many organisms that we find fossils of in multiple time periods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilobite
The first appearance of trilobites in the fossil record defines the base of the Atdabanian stage of the Early Cambrian period (526 million years ago), and they flourished throughout the lower Paleozoic era before beginning a drawn-out decline to extinction when, during the Devonian, almost all trilobite orders, with the sole exception of Proetida, died out. Trilobites finally disappeared in the mass extinction at the end of the Permian about 250 million years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark
Modern sharks began to appear about 100 million years ago.[93] Fossil mackerel shark teeth date to the Lower Cretaceous. One of the most recently evolved families is the hammerhead shark (family Sphyrnidae), which emerged in the Eocene.[96] The oldest white shark teeth date from 60 to 65 million years ago, around the time of the extinction of the dinosaurs

But miles, what is the timescale based on? You are giving us interpretation according to a model, not empirical evidence. This paradigm needs some way of experimentally verifying it. The same fossils are found in different layers, yes. But the geo timescale is a statistical diagram, not an en vivo observation.

For instance, how many times do I hear, "Find me a bunny, in the Cambrian?" The sorting, and/or burial in habitat (for lack of a better expression) hypothesis covers this. The Cambrian biota are mostly soft bodied, and shelled bottom dwellers, similar in nature (though different in species/phyla and many extinct--which I might add, would make sense in cataclysm) to today. There are many soft bodied organisms which thrive on the bottom of an ecological area today. If you can find me a bunny in a modern day area where there are sponges, starfish, deep water coral, and other bottom dwellers, I'll find you a "bunny in the Cambrian."

As for order, I just read an article the other day. One of the Oregon State researchers that has challenged the bird-dino link, noted that birds appear in the fossil record before dinosaurs. So it would have to be supposed, that either we have not yet found a dinosaur--but it's there, OR, the fossil record, being incomplete, does not record dinos being in existence before birds. So a geotime diagram trumps empirical observation.

Also, in my lifetime, I have seen numerous reports, especially in the area of anthropology, where the timescale is adjusted. Yes, I understand, you can adjust science, but in a constantly morphing model, there is no sure measurement, just supposition on top of supposition. No way of confirming this kind of science--it's just taking empirical data, and "fitting" into a presumed model. If there is an anomoly, then make up a just so scenario, or let geotime be arbitrary over observation--such is also the case with soft tissue finds in dinosaur and other biota.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_horseshoe_crab
Forms almost identical to this species were present during the Triassic period 230 million years ago, and similar species were present in the Devonian, 400 million years ago

And then it can be argued there's alot of stasis in the record. We find stasis throughout layers, as above, or either we find a disappearance, which we interpret as extinction, or sudden appearance of things that are close to modern individuals.

Where are the gap fillers? Take flight for example--where are the transitional body plans?? Evolution has a fundamental flaw in that it can not theoretically design flight, and there is no record of the evolution of flight in the record. Isn't that because there's no way to transition to flight, and have natural selection in the model? Can you draw me some transitional wings that would survive? You ought to be able to if macro-evolution were caused by natural selection.

But, in this case, the fossil record matches a supposed prediction that wings can not transition and survive selective processes.

#13 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 27 November 2011 - 11:06 AM

Miles,

I also find it ironic that you argue that certain fossils shouldn't be found in every layer because the record is not complete and then, argue that evolution is true because they're not.

If the record is not complete, then no one can claim a falsifiable prediction by finding a rabbit in the Precambrian. They can't have their cake and eat it too. Especially, since plants and insects are known to be there and brushed aside as anomalies.


Enjoy.

#14 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 27 November 2011 - 11:34 AM

I don't understand the difference between defusing and answering a question so I skipped those parts of your post.

Every type of how a mechanism works has a pattern of how it will work. If time did it, their survival will be recorded. If the flood did it, it won't. And that is what we see. If you think that it is scientific to ignore that then show me where that is written in the scientific method? Or could this be that everyone else must follow the rules while you guys get to bend them?

I'm trying to figure out what you mean by mechanism and patterns. The mechanism for fossilization is burial before decay and mineral replacement. The mechanism for fossils surviving to be found is lack of seismic activity and erosion. The mechanism for finding fossils is digging. Not all animals get fossilized. Not all fossils survive to present day. Not all surviving fossils are found. Even if we have a rule that all surviving animals left behind some fossils, what rule says that they have to be found?

You may find it useful to read this page, it covers some scenarios of how disappearance and reappearance in the fossil record can occur. While living fossil is a common term for the same concept, the technical term for the type of living fossils you are arguing about is "Lazarus taxon".
http://en.wikipedia....i/Lazarus_taxon

Really? Then the bases (fossil record) in which evolution is founded on does not need to exist, right? then evolution fails.

If fossils didn't exist we could still derive the basic principles of evolution from current observations so it's correct that the fossil record does not need to exist in order for evolution to be true. Lack of fossils would just mean there was a gap in our knowledge of how life changed in the past.

Now you are adding to my words? Where did I say that the fossil record "has to be complete and accurate"? Show me where i said that? You are just mad because i point out and can prove that the Holy Grail of evolution is a scam.

You said "complete and accurate" right here... Because if we are to make the fossil record complete and accurate we would have to hunt down all living fossils and kill them

I added nothing to your words, you added to mine by inserting "has to be" in quotes. I responded to your sentence with "Nobody has ever said that the fossil record is both complete and accurate, nor have they ever tried to make it so"

If the fossil record was using time as it mechanism to record what happened. You would already know that certain fossils were living even before they were found. But the fossil record does not support that claim as to the reason you could never use it to know living fossils existed before you found them. 30 chances to get it right, and 30 strike outs. That's your problem not mine.

This doesn't make much sense. It sounds like you are saying if the flood didn't make the fossil record that we would know about living species before we find fossils of them. The larger a species population and the larger it's habitat, the better the chance to find a fossil of that species. If later on the population was reduced to a small size in a small area, it's perfectly valid for no-one to know about it or for no fossils to be found from that later period.

How does time do this plus sorting as well?

You'll have to explain what other type of sorting you mean. Older on the bottom, younger on the top is the only 'sorting' I can think of that occurs by time.

Still have not answer how 30 living fossils were not recorded as surviving. Your continuation of defusing the questions I pose means you have no answer. Time does not sort layers and you know it. If I am wrong oh please show me the observable mechanism so we can all see it. Please.

I did show you the mechanism, and an example of how it works. Bottom comes first, then top because gravity doesn't let something be put on top of an object that doesn't exist yet. I don't know what other type of sorting to explain.

How do you get the water out of the mineral in the upper mantle? You decrease the pressure on it and the heat turns it to steam and it comes up. Now during the flood, how would you get the water back in the mineral without boiling off? You increase the pressure of the water going in so it's boiling point raises above the heat of the miner in the upper mantle. How do you do that? To flood the whole earth to the highest mountain, you would have to have water as deep as 15 miles. 15 miles of water would create so much pressure and raise the boiling point of water to it's highest level that the water would go right back into the mineral no problem. Do you have a mechanism for putting that much water in the upper mantle without boiling off? Maybe time did it.

You can't extract water from a hydrate like that, just like you can't get water from concrete by reducing the pressure its under. The water is chemically bound to the rock, it does not behave like liquid water because it is not liquid water. It's a OH and H group not H20. Dropping the pressure wouldn't do anything because there's no boiling point to change. Heating it could be sufficient to break the bonds if enough heat was applied, however without melting or pulverization any evaporation would only occur from the surface of the rock, not the interior where the majority of the water content would be. You'd need to pulverize the mantle into dust to increase surface area and then heat over a long period of time to get any large amount of water vapor out, or melt the mantle and cover the earth in ~30 times as much lava as water vapor. Either method (death by vapor pressure or death by boiling lava) would be very bad for noah.

Time and ocean subduction zones is how water would get into the mantle.

#15 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 27 November 2011 - 02:08 PM

Not in all circumstances.



The law of superposition was assumed to be true since Nicolas Steno developed the central axioms of geology and, according to the logic you just gave, no one has ever questioned it. But with experimentation a law can be falsified.

Sedimentation Experiments: Is Extrapolation Appropriate?


Firstly, something doesn't need to be true in all circumstances to be true in most circumstances. There are known exceptions to superposition.

I didn't watch the whole video, but the first part seems to conform to the principle of superpositon. Look at the ruler, which gets covered first, the bottom of the ruler or the top of the ruler? If you dug straight down (not diagonally or horizontally) at the ruler, you'd be getting older and older as you traveled down. This would hold for any vertical line down in that example. Superposition states that in general above is younger than below, not that off to the side is younger than below (that's dependant on the principles of original horizontality and lateral continuity). It's also easy to see the diagonal layers at the start and around 1:20 in the video so anyone looking would be able to tell that the sediment was deposited at an angle.

Not according to the rocks. Precambrian/Early Cambrian plants and insects are known from three different countries.
A Historical Survey of an Unresolved Scientific Controversy
Precambrian Plant Fossils and the Hakatai Shale Controversy

Enjoy.

I don't know enough about this to identify errors in those links, however I have heard of Cremo (the author of the first link). He's... not very well regarded as a scientist, to put it mildly. The last paragraph of that article is an example why.

In my introduction to Forbidden Archeology, I acknowledged that the authors were inspired and motivated by their commitment to Vedic and Puranic accounts of the origin and development of life. This attracted the attention of several reviewers (for example, Wodak and Oldroyd 1995, Murray 1995, and Feder 1994). This paper is similarly inspired and motivated. According to Vedic and Puranic accounts, the earth passes through phases of manifestation and devastation known as kalpas, or days of Brahma. Each day of Brahma is 4.32 billion years long. During the day, life is manifest on earth. At the end of each day of Brahma, there is a devastation, during which the earth is submerged in cosmic waters. The period of devastation is called a night of Brahma, and is of the same length as a day of Brahma. At the end of the night of Brahma, the earth emerges from the waters of devastation, and life again becomes manifest. Each day of Brahma consists of 14 manvantara periods, each composed of 71 yuga cycles, each yuga cycle lasting 4.32 million years. According to Puranic accounts, we are now in the 28th yuga cycle of the 7th manvatara period of the current day of Brahma. In other words, we are roughly 2 billion years into the current day of Brahma. Before that, there would be 4.32 billion years of devastation, with the earth submerged in cosmic waters. According to current accounts, the earth formed about 4 billion years ago (within the latter part of the last night of Brahma), and life first appeared about 2 billion years ago (during the first part of the current day of Brahma). This is an interesting temporal parallel between the modern scientific and ancient Puranic cosmologies. But in Puranic accounts, we also find evidence of humans, plants, and animals existing in the first manvantara period of the current day of Brahma. The evidence reported in this paper, in my book Forbidden Archeology (Cremo and Thompson, 1993), and in a paper presented at the World Archeological Congress (Cremo 1995) are consistent with the Puranic view.

Miles,

I also find it ironic that you argue that certain fossils shouldn't be found in every layer because the record is not complete and then, argue that evolution is true because they're not.

If the record is not complete, then no one can claim a falsifiable prediction by finding a rabbit in the Precambrian. They can't have their cake and eat it too. Especially, since plants and insects are known to be there and brushed aside as anomalies.

Enjoy.

I'm not saying evolution is true because the fossil record is incomplete. I'm saying evolution is not false because the fossil record is incomplete. There could be reasons for evolution to be false, but the incomplete fossil record isn't one. The finding of a particular fossil could falsify evolution, the lack of a fossil in a incomplete record doesn't.

The pollen and micro fossils are considered anomolies because it's easy for small things like pollen to slip into cracks of older rock. We don't find larger fossils of modern animals in precambrian rock. If modern and precambrian animals lived at the same time, it would be possible to find them together and thus possible to falsify the idea that mammals came much later in the earth's history. That constitutes a falsifiable prediction.


But miles, what is the timescale based on? You are giving us interpretation according to a model, not empirical evidence. This paradigm needs some way of experimentally verifying it. The same fossils are found in different layers, yes. But the geo timescale is a statistical diagram, not an en vivo observation.


The mainstream timescale is based on radiometric dating. The measurements of radioactive isotopes are empirical observations as are measurements of decay rates, the calculations of ages are derived from experimental data on how rocks and gasses behave when melted.

Just as an aside, the opening post in this thread states the exact opposite of your statement in bold.
1) In the fossil record, not one fossil found is repeated in another layer. In other words you find a certain type of fish in one layer, you won't find that same type of fish in another layer

For instance, how many times do I hear, "Find me a bunny, in the Cambrian?" The sorting, and/or burial in habitat (for lack of a better expression) hypothesis covers this. The Cambrian biota are mostly soft bodied, and shelled bottom dwellers, similar in nature (though different in species/phyla and many extinct--which I might add, would make sense in cataclysm) to today. There are many soft bodied organisms which thrive on the bottom of an ecological area today. If you can find me a bunny in a modern day area where there are sponges, starfish, deep water coral, and other bottom dwellers, I'll find you a "bunny in the Cambrian."

Unless you think there was no dry land in the precambrian, there's no need for the hypothetical bunnies to live on the bottom of the ocean. The same dating techniques used to give ages to sea fossils could be used on land fossils. For sea life+bunny fossil together, rabbits are perfectly capable of living near coastlines while aquatic mammals like otters, dolphins, whales, seals, manatees, etc. would also be adequate 'bunnies'. Sea birds would also work as rabbits in precambrian that could die and be buried in same area as sea life.

And then it can be argued there's alot of stasis in the record. We find stasis throughout layers, as above, or either we find a disappearance, which we interpret as extinction, or sudden appearance of things that are close to modern individuals.

Where are the gap fillers? Take flight for example--where are the transitional body plans?? Evolution has a fundamental flaw in that it can not theoretically design flight, and there is no record of the evolution of flight in the record. Isn't that because there's no way to transition to flight, and have natural selection in the model? Can you draw me some transitional wings that would survive? You ought to be able to if macro-evolution were caused by natural selection.

But, in this case, the fossil record matches a supposed prediction that wings can not transition and survive selective processes.

I don't know a lot on flight evolution so all I can do is offer some google results.
wing examples:
http://www.dinosaur-world.com/feathered_dinosaurs/wing_evolution.htm
usefulness of non-flight wings:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060501100950.htm

#16 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 27 November 2011 - 03:12 PM

I didn't watch the whole video, but the first part seems to conform to the principle of superpositon. Look at the ruler, which gets covered first, the bottom of the ruler or the top of the ruler?


The sediment wasn't dumped in all at once. So of course the bottom will be there already. More sediment was then put in and filmed to show how the bottom strata formed. The ruler is there to show 2 inches being covered at the same time. If we put a stack of quarters 2 inches thick on top of the bottom strata, then it would falsify the idea that the bottom quarter was covered up first.

He's... not very well regarded as a scientist, to put it mildly.


That's convenient. Trilobites are always found before flowering plants and anyone who finds evidence to the contrary isn't a scientist. :lol:

That commitment to an idea breaks down for obvious reasons.

1) Cremo is only referencing work discovered by other scientists.

2) Your not a scientist either, so according to your own appraisal of the situation you should be ignored as well.

3) The evidence you submit to discredit him is his religious view "Interpretation of the evidence" and not the existence or the validity of the evidence.

4) Based on that evidence, his view is supported by it and evolution is not. So, if his idea is crazy, then evolution is confused even worse.


The fact remains that your idea of the fossil record doesn't exist in reality.

The pollen and micro fossils are considered anomolies because it's easy for small things like pollen to slip into cracks of older rock. We don't find larger fossils of modern animals in precambrian rock. If modern and precambrian animals lived at the same time, it would be possible to find them together and thus possible to falsify the idea that mammals came much later in the earth's history. That constitutes a falsifiable prediction.


Yes, Miles. But we're not scientists so we are not qualified to show them to you. :blink:

I may not be a scientist, but I can tell you as mechanic that if my engine has jumped time then I would expect some very specific things. If I pull the timing cover off and the timing chain is tight, not broken, the camshaft and crank sprocket don't have any teeth missing, then I can certainly look for a different cause.

Here we have a similar observation.

Posted Image

The Empire Mountains of southern Arizona have Cretaceous rock capped by Permian limestone. The contact zone, between the layers of rock, undulates like the meshing of a gear. If the geologic sequences of this formation were really the result of an overthrust, how did such meshwork avoid getting planed off? There is no other erosive evidence either such as scraping, gouging, or linear striations at the contact zones.

Using my same mechanical knowledge, I can tell you that the fossils following an order that represents evolution simply can't be true.





Enjoy.

#17 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 27 November 2011 - 04:04 PM

Miles,

the logic you have shown in the last few post is the main reason evolution has become unfalsifiable (no longer a theory). Because it does not matter what anyone brings up to challenge it, it really does not matter does it? That's what you basically say in every post. All problems are no problem. All matters don;t really matter. All gaps don't even matter. The only thing that does matter is that evolution remain true even if you have to sweep all problems under the rug then go la la la as if they don;t exist. Conformism and ignorance on purpose to keep evolution true is not science.

Here is what defusing a question is all about: http://www.evolution...t=0

#18 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 27 November 2011 - 09:27 PM

The sediment wasn't dumped in all at once. So of course the bottom will be there already. More sediment was then put in and filmed to show how the bottom strata formed. The ruler is there to show 2 inches being covered at the same time. If we put a stack of quarters 2 inches thick on top of the bottom strata, then it would falsify the idea that the bottom quarter was covered up first.

Your example doesn't follow the demonstration. If you take a stack of quarters, 2 inches thick and place it in that model, as long as you don't tip the stack over, the bottom will be covered first. you can't cover the top of a vertical stack before the bottom unless the quarters are sticky or a bubble forms. Only if you tipped the stack over to the left would the top quarter be covered before the bottom.

At the start of the video, look at the 5.5 and 6 inch marks on the ruler. The 5.5 inch mark (lower is older) gets covered before the 6 inch mark (higher is younger). Only when you start trying to compare diagonally instead of vertically would you have the possibility of something at a higher elevation being buried before a lower elevation.

That's convenient. Trilobites are always found before flowering plants and anyone who finds evidence to the contrary isn't a scientist. :lol:

That commitment to an idea breaks down for obvious reasons.

1) Cremo is only referencing work discovered by other scientists.

2) Your not a scientist either, so according to your own appraisal of the situation you should be ignored as well.

3) The evidence you submit to discredit him is his religious view "Interpretation of the evidence" and not the existence or the validity of the evidence.

4) Based on that evidence, his view is supported by it and evolution is not. So, if his idea is crazy, then evolution is confused even worse.

1) Several of the quotes used in that link were scientists saying that what was found weren't plant fossils. His quotes of other scientists mostly consist of going over the debate between whether the salt region was young or whether the microfossils were real and intrusions. There's only one passing mention of the idea that the fossils could be cambrian by anyone other than Camo himself.

2) You should ignore me if I'm saying anything that differs drastically from mainstream geology as I would not be justified in claiming any unique evidence. I'm fairly sure I haven't said anything that isn't considered basic knowledge by geologists.

3-4) He didn't really offer any evidence, the article was basically a summary of the debate between an eocene date vs. intrusion of micro-fossils. He took a off-hand suggestion by a single scientist and ran with it to argue that "The existence of advanced plant and animal life during the Cambrian is consistent with accounts found in the Puranic literature of India."

Yes, Miles. But we're not scientists so we are not qualified to show them to you. :blink:

I may not be a scientist, but I can tell you as mechanic that if my engine has jumped time then I would expect some very specific things. If I pull the timing cover off and the timing chain is tight, not broken, the camshaft and crank sprocket don't have any teeth missing, then I can certainly look for a different cause.

Here we have a similar observation.

Posted Image

The Empire Mountains of southern Arizona have Cretaceous rock capped by Permian limestone. The contact zone, between the layers of rock, undulates like the meshing of a gear. If the geologic sequences of this formation were really the result of an overthrust, how did such meshwork avoid getting planed off? There is no other erosive evidence either such as scraping, gouging, or linear striations at the contact zones.

Using my same mechanical knowledge, I can tell you that the fossils following an order that represents evolution simply can't be true.

Enjoy.

Never heard of that area and the only thing I can find on it is the creationist site where that picture came from. You'd be better off asking a geologist. You may be able to email someone at a geology department in arizona who might have an answer.


the logic you have shown in the last few post is the main reason evolution has become unfalsifiable (no longer a theory). Because it does not matter what anyone brings up to challenge it, it really does not matter does it? That's what you basically say in every post. All problems are no problem. All matters don;t really matter. All gaps don't even matter. The only thing that does matter is that evolution remain true even if you have to sweep all problems under the rug then go la la la as if they don;t exist. Conformism and ignorance on purpose to keep evolution true is not science.

Here is what defusing a question is all about: http://www.evolution...t=0

I don't think I've shown that evolution is unfalsifiable, merely that living fossils and gaps in the fossil record don't falsify evolution. There's plenty of ways to falsify evolution, ironically the common creationist request for proof of evolution via an ape giving birth to a human would be sufficient to falsify evolution, as would showing that the universe was young, or the previously mentioned rabbit in the precambrian

If I'm reading this post correctly you feel that I "defused the question" by saying but not sufficiently explaining why it doesn't matter to evolution that there is a lack of fossils showing continued existence for some currently living species.

So lets explain why it doesn't matter with an example. Consider if we discover a few members of a species of dinosaur living in a remote jungle somewhere so that now you have 31 examples of species thought extinct with no recent fossils. What does this change in evolutionary theory? The answer I come up with is nothing unless it turned out the dinosaurs didn't have the biological traits that we think they did. If you think something does change, please explain. We would still think that mammals came from dinosaurs at the same point we do now. We would still think humans came from apes at the same point we do now. We would still think mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, etc. act to change populations of animals. I can't think of anything about evolution would change which is why I say lack of fossils for living fossils doesn't matter. Only the extinction status of that species of dinosaur would change, and that's not required to be a certain way by anything in the theory of evolution.

You can repeat this with as many extinct animals as you like.
There are two questions to keep in mind:
1) What does discovering this species change other than the extinct/not-extinct status of this species?
2) What does having X+1 number of living fossils change about evolution that wasn't changed by having X number of living fossils.

I would answer 'nothing' to both questions for any discovery that didn't involve something completely drastic like finding out that a particular species didn't share genes/biological traits of it's proposed relatives. What would your answers be?

#19 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 28 November 2011 - 12:04 AM

Your example doesn't follow the demonstration. If you take a stack of quarters, 2 inches thick and place it in that model, as long as you don't tip the stack over, the bottom will be covered first. you can't cover the top of a vertical stack before the bottom unless the quarters are sticky or a bubble forms. Only if you tipped the stack over to the left would the top quarter be covered before the bottom.

At the start of the video, look at the 5.5 and 6 inch marks on the ruler. The 5.5 inch mark (lower is older) gets covered before the 6 inch mark (higher is younger). Only when you start trying to compare diagonally instead of vertically would you have the possibility of something at a higher elevation being buried before a lower elevation.


1) Several of the quotes used in that link were scientists saying that what was found weren't plant fossils. His quotes of other scientists mostly consist of going over the debate between whether the salt region was young or whether the microfossils were real and intrusions. There's only one passing mention of the idea that the fossils could be cambrian by anyone other than Camo himself.

2) You should ignore me if I'm saying anything that differs drastically from mainstream geology as I would not be justified in claiming any unique evidence. I'm fairly sure I haven't said anything that isn't considered basic knowledge by geologists.

3-4) He didn't really offer any evidence, the article was basically a summary of the debate between an eocene date vs. intrusion of micro-fossils. He took a off-hand suggestion by a single scientist and ran with it to argue that "The existence of advanced plant and animal life during the Cambrian is consistent with accounts found in the Puranic literature of India."


Never heard of that area and the only thing I can find on it is the creationist site where that picture came from. You'd be better off asking a geologist. You may be able to email someone at a geology department in arizona who might have an answer.



I don't think I've shown that evolution is unfalsifiable, merely that living fossils and gaps in the fossil record don't falsify evolution. There's plenty of ways to falsify evolution, ironically the common creationist request for proof of evolution via an ape giving birth to a human would be sufficient to falsify evolution, as would showing that the universe was young, or the previously mentioned rabbit in the precambrian

If I'm reading this post correctly you feel that I "defused the question" by saying but not sufficiently explaining why it doesn't matter to evolution that there is a lack of fossils showing continued existence for some currently living species.

So lets explain why it doesn't matter with an example. Consider if we discover a few members of a species of dinosaur living in a remote jungle somewhere so that now you have 31 examples of species thought extinct with no recent fossils. What does this change in evolutionary theory? The answer I come up with is nothing unless it turned out the dinosaurs didn't have the biological traits that we think they did. If you think something does change, please explain. We would still think that mammals came from dinosaurs at the same point we do now. We would still think humans came from apes at the same point we do now. We would still think mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, etc. act to change populations of animals. I can't think of anything about evolution would change which is why I say lack of fossils for living fossils doesn't matter. Only the extinction status of that species of dinosaur would change, and that's not required to be a certain way by anything in the theory of evolution.

You can repeat this with as many extinct animals as you like.
There are two questions to keep in mind:
1) What does discovering this species change other than the extinct/not-extinct status of this species?
2) What does having X+1 number of living fossils change about evolution that wasn't changed by having X number of living fossils.

I would answer 'nothing' to both questions for any discovery that didn't involve something completely drastic like finding out that a particular species didn't share genes/biological traits of it's proposed relatives. What would your answers be?


Miles does it really matter? Are there really problems? I mean a problem is not a problem if it does not really matter.

#20 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 28 November 2011 - 10:18 AM

1) Several of the quotes used in that link were scientists saying that what was found weren't plant fossils. His quotes of other scientists mostly consist of going over the debate between whether the salt region was young or whether the microfossils were real and intrusions. There's only one passing mention of the idea that the fossils could be cambrian by anyone other than Camo himself.

2) You should ignore me if I'm saying anything that differs drastically from mainstream geology as I would not be justified in claiming any unique evidence. I'm fairly sure I haven't said anything that isn't considered basic knowledge by geologists.

3-4) He didn't really offer any evidence, the article was basically a summary of the debate between an eocene date vs. intrusion of micro-fossils. He took a off-hand suggestion by a single scientist and ran with it to argue that "The existence of advanced plant and animal life during the Cambrian is consistent with accounts found in the Puranic literature of India."


Robert Van Vleck Anderson (1927) gave the first report of botanical fossil remains from the Salt Range Formation. He noted the presence of "poorly preserved impressions of leaves of a Tertiary or, at earliest, Mesozoic type." The impressions came from shale deposits at Khewra Gorge in the Salt Range. He gave samples to Dr. Ralph W. Chaney of the Carnegie Institution, who said:

"This specimen clearly contains fragments of several specimens of dicotyledonous leaves. This places their age as not older than the Lower Cretaceous when the first dicots appeared. One of the leaves is very probably oak (Quercus) and its size and margin strongly suggest the Oligocene species Quercus clarnensis from western America. It is of interest to note that I found a closely related species in the Oligocene deposits of Manchuria. Your specimen is almost certainly of Tertiary age." (Anderson 1927, p. 672) From this evidence, Anderson argued for a Tertiary age for the Salt Range Formation as well as the Kohat Salt. The presence of Cambrian layers above the Salt Range Formation was attributed by him to an overthrust."

"In 1928, Cyril S. Fox published a study concluding that both the Salt Range and Kohat salt deposits were early Cambrian or Precambrian. He saw no signs of an overthrust. He did not mention Anderson's discoveries"...

..."Subsequently, evidence for angiosperms and gymnosperms was also found in other beds of Cambrian age overlying the Salt Range Formation. These included microfossils of angiosperms and gymnosperms from the Salt Pseudomorph Beds (Ghosh and Bose, 1947), gymnosperms from the Purple Sandstone (Ghosh, et al., 1948), wood fragments from the Neobolus Shales (Ghosh, et al., 1948), and wood fragments from the Magnesian Sandstone (Ghosh, et al., 1948).

Ghosh and Bose (1950, p. 76) proposed two possible explanations for this evidence of advanced vascular plants in the above-mentioned formations: ". The geologically known Cambrian beds are of post-Cambrian age. 2. The vascular plants existed in Cambrian or pre-Cambrian times." Ghosh and Bose rejected the first proposal because geologists unanimously agreed that the beds in question were in fact Cambrian. Ghosh and Bose found the second proposal more likely, even though it was "inconsistent with the prevailing concepts of plant phylogeny." They pointed out that there had been discoveries of advanced plant remains in beds of similar age in Sweden (Darrah 1937) and in the USSR (Sahni 1947b, in note following plates).


Ghosh and Bose (1947) reconfirmed the original discoveries by Sahni and his coworkers of advanced plant remains in the Salt Range Formation itself. They also found fragments of advanced plants from a sample of shale from the Cambrian or pre-Cambrian beds of the Vindhyans of northern India (Ghosh and Bose 1950b) and from a sample of Cambrian rock from Kashmir (Ghosh and Bose 1951). In some cases, Ghosh and Bose (1951b, pp. 130-131; 1952, ) found fragments of advanced plants (coniferous) in Cambrian rock samples that also contained trilobites. The samples were from the Salt Pseudomorph beds of the Salt Range and the shales of the Rainwar locality in Kashmir.

Other researchers confirmed the work of Ghosh and his associates (Jacob et al. 1953), finding evidence for advanced vascular plants, including gymnosperms, in Cambrian rock samples from the Salt Range and other sites in India. Jacob and his coworkers also called attention to similar Cambrian paleobotanical discoveries in Sweden, Estonia, and Russia, as reported by S. N. Naumova, A. V. Kopeliovitch, A. Reissinger, and W. C. Darrah (Jacob et al. 1953, p. 35).

German researchers (Schindewolf and Seilacher, 1955) took samples of rock from the Salt Range to Germany, where specialists found no evidence of plant remains. But in his discussion, Schindewolf mentioned that he personally witnessed an Indian scientist obtain plant microfossils from a Cambrian Salt Range rock sample in India"...

..."Support for the existence of advanced vascular plants (including gymnosperms and and angiosperms) in the earliest Paleozoic is supported by (1) reports by Ghosh and his coworkers of microfossils of gymnosperms and angiosperms in the Cambrian beds overlying the Salt Range Formation and in Cambrian beds elsewhere in the Indian subcontinent; (2) contemporary reports from researchers in other parts of the world giving evidence for advanced vascular plants in the Cambrian (see Leclerq 1956 for a review); (3) modern reports placing the existence of the angiosperms as far back as the Triassic (Cornet 1989, 1993). According to standard views angiosperms originated in the Cretaceous. Cornet's work places them in the Triassic, providing a step between the standard view of a Cretaceous origin for the angiosperms and Sahni's evidence showing an angiosperm presence in the Cambrian. According to standard views, the gymnosperms originated in the Devonian, and the first land plants appeared in the mid-Silurian."



There are at least a dozen scientists that have confirmed plants and insects. And at least a dozen that have independently confirmed it as being Cambrian in age.

Around this same time, the Geological Survey of India and an oil company sent a team of geologists to carefully study the Salt Range Formation, and on the basis of their field observations they concluded that it was in normal position below the Cambrian Purple Sandstone and was thus Cambrian in age. This conclusion was announced in a letter to Nature (Coates et al. 1945). Among the geologists signing the letter was Gee, until recently an advocate of an Eocene age for the Salt Range Formation. The geologists admitted, however, that "our conclusions were arrived at despite certain difficulties, such as the occurrence of minute plant fragments of post-Cambrian age in the dolomites and oil shales, for which we have at present no clear explanation to offer...

...In recent years, petroleum geologists have conducted extensive studies of the Salt Range region, with no reference or only slight reference to the debates that took place earlier in the century. Although modern geological reports acknowledge overthrusts in the Salt Range, they unanimously declare the Salt Range Formation to be Eocambrian (Yeats et al. 1984, Butler et al. 1987, Jauné and Lillie 1988, Baker et al. 1988, Pennock et al. 1989, McDougall and Khan 1990). One paper (Butler et al. 1987, p. 410) mentions discoveries of wood fragments in the salt deep in the mines at Khewra. The authors propose these are intrusive, but neglect to discuss the extensive reporting by Sahni and others ruling out such an explanation for the microfossils discovered in various kinds of rock from the Salt Range Formation...



These findings aren't mentioned by evolutionists today, because it clearly falsifies their ideas. I don't know how a 2ft. diameter tree trunk could possibly slip though hundreds of feet of tiny cracks in the rocks that aren't visible or reported by anyone, but if that's your idea, then it certainly belongs to you and nobody else. When we have thin sedimentary layers in salt deposits that extend for many miles, then it normally falsifies reworking as a plausible explanation.

Posted Image

There is no way to get these thin sedimentary layers into salt deposits after the fact. But if these salts precipitated out of solution during a flood, then we can clearly fit it into the model while carrying plants, insects, and trilobites during deposition.




Enjoy.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users