Jump to content


Photo

The Grand Canyon


  • Please log in to reply
115 replies to this topic

#41 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 11 February 2009 - 10:48 PM

Thanks James,

It's my beleif that a species is a created kind,I know the modern definition of a species is problematic.

I've never seen the evidence that even species can radiate from a single genus,all i've seen is two populations no longer able to interbreed,but they do share a common acestor becaue it was observed.
Thanks.

View Post


I don't follow you. Your chart provides a great example of the different kinds of trilobite you will find at different layers in the Grand Canyon. This same ordering is found in New York, Nevada, India, Canada or anywhere in the world. Take a trilobite into a paleontologist and he will tell you whether it came from a Permian layer, a Cambrian layer, a Devonian layer, a Silurian layer etc. If you grab one from the Grand Canyon, he or she will tell you the rock layer it came from.

So if this chart does not represent microevolution then did God create these species at different heights? Why do we see similarities in appearance (e.g., the order of Agnostida or Phacopia) as we go through different heights if it is not due to microevolution? In upstate New York, the Silurian trilobites are always from lower layers than the Devonian layers. The same is true for the Grand Canyon.

So what does this chart represent? Yes, the greatest diversity of species was near the end of the Cambrian. At the end of the Permian there was only one order of trilobite but the species are still unique to the Permian. Why is this true according to your theory?

#42 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 11 February 2009 - 11:32 PM

I don't follow you. Your chart provides a great example of the different kinds of trilobite you will find at different layers in the Grand Canyon. This same ordering is found in New York, Nevada, India, Canada or anywhere in the world. Take a trilobite into a paleontologist and he will tell you whether it came from a Permian layer, a Cambrian layer, a Devonian layer, a Silurian layer etc. If you grab one from the Grand Canyon, he or she will tell you the rock layer it came from.


Derrived from a mental abstract called the geologic column,however reasonable,it is'nt verifiable from any one location.

Even if someone could show me the cambrian,ordovician,silurian,and devonian all neatly stacked on top of each other with that exact arrangement of species,would I be laughed at for relying on the artifact hypothosis (incomplete fossil record)?

So what does this chart represent? Yes, the greatest diversity of species was near the end of the Cambrian. At the end of the Permian there was only one order of trilobite but the species are still unique to the Permian. Why is this true according to your theory?


They all appear to be different kinds to me,perhaps not all,but most do.With hundreds of species,surely we would have found something in between a trilobite and something else.No such intermediate has ever been found so the theory is still valid.



Thanks.

#43 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 12 February 2009 - 12:09 AM

I really like these videos because they include good ole' labratory science and demonstrate that strata also sort according to flow rate.It reminds me of the Hermit Shale being Deposited on top of the Redwall Limestone.It also shows through repeatable experimentation that flood geology is a valid science (something were always accused of not doing).

mjXjf9dR6A0&hl=en&fs=1

eQ5yJeSrzyw&hl=en&fs=1

7exxtkN8610&hl=en&fs=1





Enjoy.

#44 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 12 February 2009 - 03:14 AM

Those videos are probably the best example of what you can find if you are willing to do the tests. Science assumes and accepts ideas that support existing theories and do not test those ideas as they will require the creationists to do.

I was actually going to go out to the Grand Canyon to take a core sample of the strata and through several tests see if the strata would layer out when being continually supplied into water at a continual rate. The videos you supplied answered that question for me. And shows that the flood can accomplish what most of science would deny.

In fact, science has "no" test to contradict this finding.

#45 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 12 February 2009 - 09:29 AM

Derrived from a mental abstract called the geologic column,however reasonable,it is'nt verifiable from any one location.

Even if someone could show me the cambrian,ordovician,silurian,and devonian all neatly stacked on top of each other with that exact arrangement of species,would I be laughed at for relying on the artifact hypothosis (incomplete fossil record)?

They all appear to be different kinds to me,perhaps not all,but most do.With hundreds of species,surely we would have found something in between a trilobite and something else.No such intermediate has ever been found so the theory is still valid.
Thanks.

View Post


I am not asking you to understand my theory. We both know what that is. I am simply trying to understand your theory. You seem to suggest that a young earth flood model predicts the data shown on the chart you provided. I am happy with your chart. Just explain how your theory predicts your chart.

You said that

"Just as creation predicts.Trilobites are found fully formed and the greatest diversity is found at the bottom."


I want to understand your prediction. As you can see on the chart, the greatest diversity depends on the "kinds" of trilobite we are discussing. So how does your theory predict this chart you provided? Did God create Phacopida later? Is that why their diversity is later? Is that why their diversity is greatest when we get to higher levels in the Grand Canyon?


Posted Image

If you state that creationism does not predict these results. Fine, we can move on. But you seem to imply that young earth creationism does predict these results. So I want you to explain this to me.

#46 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 12 February 2009 - 10:15 AM

I am not asking you to understand my theory. We both know what that is. I am simply trying to understand your theory. You seem to suggest that a young earth flood model predicts the data shown on the chart you provided. I am happy with your chart. Just explain how your theory predicts your chart.

View Post



My question would be, why are all these different kinds of trilobites even in different layers to begin with? Why aren't they all mixed together, if a catastrophic flood is responsible for all fossils world wide, not just in the Grand Canyon?

Were the Redlichiida bigger and heavier than the Odontopleurida, who were in turn bigger and maybe denser than the Proetida?

#47 easystreet

easystreet

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Age: 65
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Occidental, California

Posted 12 February 2009 - 11:06 AM

I don't think that's a very deep mystery, if one adopts the assumption that when one starts a topic one invites debate, or at least discussion.

If you don't know what you want to debate, I guess it will be a short debate.

#48 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 12 February 2009 - 11:12 AM

My question would be, why are all these different kinds of trilobites even in different layers to begin with?  Why aren't they all mixed together, if a catastrophic flood is responsible for all fossils world wide, not just in the Grand Canyon?

View Post

Your idea of neat layers, as in the mystical geologic column, is a myth. But anyhow, it is tough to imagine a flood causing a diversity of layers and features since all recent recorded floods cause such homogeneous results: :lol:

Posted Image

Posted Image

And Last But Certainly Not Least...

Posted Image Posted Image
Mt St Helen's "Little Grand Canyon". (Those layers that aren't "all mixed up" are just an illusion, I'm sure.)

What is a creationist to do with all the evidence for homogeneous results from floods? :D

#49 easystreet

easystreet

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Age: 65
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Occidental, California

Posted 12 February 2009 - 11:14 AM

James: Oh, goody! A theistic evolutionist! I don't want to interrupt your chain of thought just when you were asking such good questions, but what does a theistic evolutionist see as the mechanism of evolution? Natural selection, just like nontheistic evolutionists? Or is there something else?

#50 easystreet

easystreet

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Age: 65
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Occidental, California

Posted 12 February 2009 - 11:21 AM

They all appear to be different kinds to me,perhaps not all,but most do.With hundreds of species [of trilobites], surely we would have found something in between a trilobite and something else.

Why?

#51 easystreet

easystreet

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Age: 65
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Occidental, California

Posted 12 February 2009 - 11:36 AM

If we only just look at the canyon for a few moments we realize that it is immpossible for those layers to have accumulated without large bodies of water.  The major flaw with the textbook idea, is that we need to ask the question:  where did all the newer, dinosaur layers go.... they just seemed to magically disappear once we reach the top layer?  That makes no sense, you can't just skip 100 million years... Not that even 1 million let alone 100,000 years has been witnessed or even recorded.

This is a legitimate question, or rather would be legitimate if I hadn't already answered it. I gave one example of how unconformities arise: A plume of molten rock lifts a seabed above sea level where it is exposed to erosion for millions of years, sometimes stripping away layers representing whole geologic eras. Later the conditions required for deposition of new rock layers may return, as when formerly lifted land subsides once more beneath the sea. Unconformities are common the world over. There is not a single place on earth where the geologic record is continuous from the birth of the planet to the present day.

#52 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 12 February 2009 - 11:40 AM

It also shows through repeatable experimentation that flood geology is a valid science (something were always accused of not doing).

View Post

Well, they'll just call you a religious bigot and tell you to get lost. What are you trying to do with this research anyway, Jason777? Are you religiously motivated? I bet you are.

Great videos! I've been trying to find videos exactly like that. Those are great demonstrations but I'm quite sure the, hydrologic sorting scoffers, won't stop based on the evidence. :lol:

#53 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 12 February 2009 - 11:48 AM

I am not asking you to understand my theory. We both know what that is.


Yes,I think we agree that your theory not only predicts most trilobites should be found on top (the opposite of what is found,given the assumption of the geologic column)but also thousands of intermediate forms that have'nt been found either.

Sinse most trilobites either can't swim or swim very slow ,we predict most would be found at the bottom.Arguing why specific species are only found in specific layers is shooting yourself in the foot,especialy when I have already shown you why the geologic column does'nt exist and is falsified by interbedded layers.I'm simply arguing that most are found in the lower layers at any one location.

I want to understand your prediction. As you can see on the chart, the greatest diversity depends on the "kinds" of trilobite we are discussing. So how does your theory predict this chart you provided?



Sudden apperance,stasis,and extinction.If you want to call a year long flood a long time. :lol:






Thanks.

#54 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 12 February 2009 - 12:02 PM

Your idea of neat layers, as in the mystical geologic column, is a myth. But anyhow, it is tough to imagine a flood causing a diversity of layers and features since all recent recorded floods cause such homogeneous results:  :lol:

Posted Image

Posted Image

And Last But Certainly Not Least...

Posted Image Posted Image
Mt St Helen's "Little Grand Canyon". (Those layers that aren't "all mixed up" are just an illusion, I'm sure.)

What is a creationist to do with all the evidence for homogeneous results from floods?  :D

View Post



I'm not sure what you're trying to show with those pictures of mayhem caused by flooding, but you're sort of shooting yourself in the foot, aren't you? If the Great Flood laid down all the fossils we're finding today, shouldn't they be all jumbled up, with no sorting of any kind (other than hydrological) in evidence - anywhere on earth?

#55 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 12 February 2009 - 12:47 PM

I'm not sure what you're trying to show with those pictures of mayhem caused by flooding, but you're sort of shooting yourself in the foot, aren't you?  If the Great Flood laid down all the fossils we're finding today, shouldn't they be all jumbled up, with no sorting of any kind (other than hydrological) in evidence - anywhere on earth?

View Post


BINGO!

Can you show me this neat geologic column? I haven't seen one example of it. Just the ones found in books and magazines.

Judy, you do understand that places like the Grand Canyon, Chalk Cliffs, even the taller mountain ranges aren't representative of the norm? If they were why do we call them wonders of the world?

You're trying to impose catastrophically generated features as representative of global uniformitarianism. You can't make up your mind. Did you watch those videos that Jason777 supplied? They are very interesting to show that the current assumptions of geology are based on poor presuppositions.

You demand a concept of assumed necessary homogenization for a worldwide flood. I guess because that's what you've been told. I predict that we will find a variety of unique features based on different post-flood activity because of varying levels of catastrophe...

...huh? What do you know. That's what we find.

#56 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 12 February 2009 - 02:08 PM

Okay guys, don't let this become to personal and wonder off topic...

#57 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 12 February 2009 - 02:31 PM

I'm not sure what you're trying to show with those pictures of mayhem caused by flooding, but you're sort of shooting yourself in the foot, aren't you? If the Great Flood laid down all the fossils we're finding today, shouldn't they be all jumbled up, with no sorting of any kind (other than hydrological) in evidence - anywhere on earth?


Hi Judy,


The organisms in the bottom of the ocean would get covered up first,then slow swimmers,then fast swimmers,then top dwelers(whales).

Land animals that live hundreds of miles away would then be transported and deposited on top of those layers.

Besides,as you would expect those layers are jumbled up sometimes,we find the nautilus in every geologic layer.

I don't have a problem with the fossils,I just don't agree with the timescale and the assumptions of index fossils.

If fossils can be used to date a layer then where are the mesozoic graptolites?

Graptolites, Sue Rigby, British Geol. Survey, "All paleontologist dream of finding a 'living fossil.' Noel Dilly, it seems has done so... As graptolites are arguably the most important zone fossils of the Lower Palaeozoic (570-360 MYBP), this is far from an esoteric issue." Nature, Vol.363, p.209, 3/18/'93.

Heres a few more examples that invalidate index fossils.

 Dinosaur Trees, Sydney, Australia (AP) 12/15/1994 "David Noble was out on a holiday hike when he stepped off the beaten path and into the prehistoric age...standing amid trees thought to have disappeared 150 million years ago. ‘The discovery is the equivalent of finding a small dinosaur still alive on the earth,’ said Carrick Chambers, Director of the Royal Botanic Gardens."

 

Extinct Crabs "French scientists who explored the Coral Sea said Friday they discovered a new species of crustacean that was thought to have become extinct 60 million years ago. The ‘living fossil,’ a female designated Neoglyphea neocaledonica, was discovered 1,312 feet (400 meters) under water during an expedition in the Chesterfield Islands, northwest of New Caledonia...." AP, 5/ 19/2006

Extinction Falsified, Richard A. Kerr "A bunch of sea urchins turned up in the Cretaceous like a big penny, millions of years after they were believed to have gone extinct. Fifteen of the 29 apparently extinct genera reappeared therefore must not really have gone extinct." Science, V. 293, p.1037, 10/8/2001

Coelacanth, Keith S. Thomson, Pres., Academy of Natural Sciences, "Off the coast of southern Africa, in the winter of 1938, a fishing boat called The Nerine dragged from the Indian Ocean near the Chalumna River a fish thought to be extinct for 70 million years. The fish was a coelacanth, an animal that thrived concurrently with dinosaurs..." Living Fossil, 1991, From bookcover.

And my favorite kick in the pants for index fossils:The therapsids.


Deseret News, The (Salt Lake City, UT) - July 16, 1992

DISCOVERY HINTS ANIMALS LIVED EONS LONGER THAN ONCE BELIEVED

An ancient jawbone discovered in Canada indicates that a group of mammal-like reptiles survived at least 100 million years longer than previously believed, researchers reported Wednesday.The tiny jaw appears to be that of an animal that belonged to a group called therapsids, which were believed to have become extinct 160 million years ago, the researchers reported in the British scientific journal Nature. The bone was recovered from a rock containing fossils dating at least 100 million...






Enjoy.

#58 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 12 February 2009 - 02:38 PM

Well, they'll just call you a religious bigot and tell you to get lost. What are you trying to do with this research anyway, Jason777? Are you religiously motivated? I bet you are.

Great videos! I've been trying to find videos exactly like that. Those are great demonstrations but I'm quite sure the, hydrologic sorting scoffers, won't stop based on the evidence.  :lol:

View Post



Thanks Adam,

Did you notice the experiment that showed dunes being formed when they increased the flow velocity.

Most geologists have always assumed that dunes only form in deserts.

If you ever have time,look at a satelite veiw of nevada and you'll see huge dunes and a drying up salt lake and and salt flats north of it in utah.I wonder if their connected? :)

#59 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 12 February 2009 - 03:09 PM

BINGO!

Can you show me this neat geologic column? I haven't seen one example of it. Just the ones found in books and magazines.


Who said it was neat? :lol:

Judy, you do understand that places like the Grand Canyon, Chalk Cliffs, even the taller mountain ranges aren't representative of the norm? If they were why do we call them wonders of the world?


This has what to do with what we're talking about, exactly? All the things you mentioned are the results of various different natural phenomena. And none of them are the result of a worldwide catastrophe.

You're trying to impose catastrophically generated features as representative of global uniformitarianism. You can't make up your mind. Did you watch those videos that Jason777 supplied? They are very interesting to show that the current assumptions of geology are based on poor presuppositions.


I didn't watch those videos, too busy watching Ken Miller - wonderful scientist, by the way. You should check out some of his videos sometime. But I'm "wondering" off the subject, as Ikester likes to say . . .

What can't I make up my mind about exactly? That catastrophic events helped shaped the earth's crust? No I'm pretty sure they did.

These catastrophes, at various times and locations, are the very reason that we don't find a nice neat geologic column all over the world. Which is exactly what we would expect to find, if the earth's crust was consistently buffeted by small and large catastrophes, like earthquakes, volcanoes, asteroids, localized floods, etc.

You demand a concept of assumed necessary homogenization for a worldwide flood. I guess because that's what you've been told. I predict that we will find a variety of unique features based on different post-flood activity because of varying levels of catastrophe...

...huh? What do you know. That's what we find.


What - exactly - do you imagine geologists have found to support a world-wide flood?

:)

#60 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 12 February 2009 - 03:14 PM

Mousetrap tie clasps, anyone? I hear they are all the rage in fashion this year. :lol:

Evolving in a store near you.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users