Jump to content


Photo

Why Does The Fossil Record Look The Way It Does?


  • Please log in to reply
102 replies to this topic

#1 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 09 July 2009 - 08:40 AM

One of our newest members had a question in an unrelated thread:

My current question is about the fossil record.  If the fossil record does show that there were lots of creatures buried at the same time, wouldn't it show everything in one general layer as opposed to many different layers and rock types?  As it seems to me the waters in the flood story stayed around for 150 days.  That doesn't seem like a long enough time to make all the layers that fossils are found in.

View Post



#2 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 09 July 2009 - 09:05 AM

Hey Javabean,

Don't let the outdated quality of this production discourage you. There is some very valuable information and in the end there are some lab experiments that confirm the ideas suggested in this documentary:

qwA6CGwpTsM

mjXjf9dR6A0

eQ5yJeSrzyw

This last one is especially interesting for answering the question of expecting homogeneous layers...

7exxtkN8610

#3 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 09 July 2009 - 09:07 AM

Now I have a question for you. What do you believe the flood model and the Biblical view teaches about where all the rain came from? If you aren't sure, take a guess.

#4 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 09 July 2009 - 09:16 AM

Now I have a question for you. What do you believe the flood model and the Biblical view teaches about where all the rain came from? If you aren't sure, take a guess.

View Post


Unfortunately I have to get ready for work, so my full answer will have to wait for another day. But according to the bible it was the waters above the firmament that came down and flooded the earth.

That really doesn't say much, because where did all of this water go? Why was it only 19 to 20 cubits deep? Is that deep enough to cover Mt Everest? If the polar Ice caps melted and all the water in the clouds came down would it be enough to do another global flood?

#5 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 09 July 2009 - 09:35 AM

But according to the bible it was the waters above the firmament that came down and flooded the earth.

View Post

The key is; what were the fountains of the great deep? And what was the result of them bursting open?

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained; 3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.

...because where did all of this water go?  Why was it only 19 to 20 cubits deep?  Is that deep enough to cover Mt Everest?  If the polar Ice caps melted and all the water in the clouds came down would it be enough to do another global flood?

View Post

These are great questions with great answers. Here is one of my favorite hypothesis for how the earth was rearranged during the flood. The waters above the firmament were just a small fraction of the water that produced the deluge.

Here is another short clip that you need to watch and try to follow to piece a good flood perspective together:



That ought to be enough to keep you busy for a little while. ;)

#6 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 09 July 2009 - 09:59 AM

Why was it only 19 to 20 cubits deep?

View Post

Where does it say that the waters were only 19 to 20 cubits deep?

Is this the verse you are replying to?

Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

I think it would be a mistake to see that saying that 15 cubits covered the mountains but instead it is saying that the highest mountains (of the time) were submerged under 15 cubits of water. The over all depth is not mentioned.

#7 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 09 July 2009 - 11:16 AM

Hey I tried watching the 4 videos that you directed me to, and unfortunately I was only able to view the first and third ones. The funny thing about this is that I have personal experience with dirt from a previous job that I held. I tested soils for their ability to compact under various conditions. So I found what they were saying to be very interesting.

I do have one thing to say about what I observed in the video though. They layers are forming based on how quickly the material sinks to the bottom. So as you are pouring material into a medium then the heavier particles sink faster, but the lighter particles are still sinking so they would be forming their own layers in time with the heavier particles.

I personally don't have an answer to why the layers formed in a vacum, but I would have to ask how they would lay if they were mixed together first and then poured. that's something those videos don't address.

#8 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 09 July 2009 - 12:04 PM

I hope you can get the 2nd and 3rd parts to play for that first video.

I would have to ask how they would lay if they were mixed together first and then poured.  that's something those videos don't address.

View Post

Javabean,

That is precisely how the demonstration in the video worked. They mixed the two grain types into a homogeneous mixture and demonstrated how stratification fell out of the hydrological sorting process.

One of our best large scale tests that we have is the 1980 Mt. St. Helen's eruption. Steve Austin changed his views when he witnessed stratification occur rapidly after he had been taught for years that strata in places like Grand Canyon are necessarily long ages or epics caught in rock. The science that validated this belief. none. The science that pulled him away from the long age interpretation? The observational study of an eye witness event and lab experiments like the ones shown in the above documentary.

Here is a short clip of Steve Austin explaining what lead to his own doubts of current orthodox geological beliefs:

mB4J14KnE-E

Now one of the chief objections when people tie the stratification of Mt St. Helen to the stratification of Grand Canyon is a protest regarding the compositional difference; volcanic ash versus sedimentary layers. A simple question to this is; How substantial is the different mediums when laboratory tests can confirm this activity in a multitude of mediums working in very similar ways? Our minds may want to believe that a homogeneous result is the scientifically reasonable one but laboratory tests demonstrate that this belief is false and there are actually good reasons for it being false based upon closer examination of the mechanics involved.

The clincher in this is really the presence of polystrate fossils (like trees intersecting several feet of fine layers) and really more so the magnitude of fossils isolated in specific areas.

Here is me discussing my experience I had locally at a sandstone quarry outside of Butler, Pa and the discussion I had with a friend who is the head equipment operator...

My account starts at about the three minute marker:
uKzoeGRhMjc

#9 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 July 2009 - 05:57 PM

Don't let the outdated quality of this production discourage you. There is some very valuable information and in the end there are some lab experiments that confirm the ideas suggested in this documentary:

This last one is especially interesting for answering the question of expecting homogeneous layers...

I watched the last video and would like to know what you think is significant about it?

I suspect it is the claim that younger deposits can be below older deposits.
Is this correct?

What I want to suggest to you is that geologists are skilled at identifying the type of deposit they are looking at, and they can identify a delta deposit when they see it.
You could even do it yourself. Go to 1:18 in the video and get a good look at the sediments on the left of the picture. There are a number of inclined lines visible within the stratum being deposited, even though deposition conditions are stable, (except perhaps for small avalanches down the steepest slope of the sediment layer).
In a real delta, where the river flow and sediment load vary with the seasons, and with flood and drought cycles, these inclined layers will be even more prominent and easier to notice.
All sediment in one inclined layer is deposited at about the same time. The really significant time sequence is that the oldest deposits are upstream and the youngest further downstream.
Just to show that geologists really do know aout delta deposits, go to:-
http://en.wikipedia....iki/River_delta
and scroll down a little more than 1/2 page to 'Sedimentary Structure'.

#10 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 09 July 2009 - 07:25 PM

Keith, before you narrow your conversation into the irrelevant, could you consider the possibility that the same process of stratification can take place elsewhere other than deltas?

#11 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 09 July 2009 - 08:36 PM

Adam,

Sorry but you should watch the video again where they pour the mixture into the vacuum environment. First they pour it into an environment that is filled with air. At this point we see the layers form. After that they turn it into a vacuum and tilt the contraption to pour the material back down. At that point it was not 1 homogeneous substance. But that really isn't important.

Now onto the Mt. St Helens video. The interesting thing we have with that is the material spewing from the volcano tends to me more mud like than molten rock. This material would be a mixture of very fine grained material with larger pieces mixed in. This would lay down in layers just fine without much problem.

The other part of the video talks about the canyon forming. Without knowing more of the situation, all of these layers formed rather rapidly and would not have time to firmly set in place. If a fine grained sand and clay layer was beneath a harder rock layer then when water flows through the sand and clay it would wash out from beneath the rock. At that point the rock would collapse and form the canyon. But that is from my limited knowledge.

You mentioned that you were from PA, have you ever explored Centralia PA? Its a fascinating area where there were some serious underground coal fires in the 1960s(???) Anyways you can actually see where some of these coal viens were because when they burned through they soils on top of them collapsed into a small series of "Canyons". But seriously you should check it out, there are some really cool environments to see, such as the closed down section of highway that is splitting, and these fields where steam and smoke rise from the ground.

Here is a little experiment I think you should try out sometime. You can see how different types of sediment sink to the bottom very easily. Get a glass or clear plastic jar, one that you can close. Go into your backyard and get a "sample" of soil from your backyard, enough to fill about a quarter of the jar. Fill the rest of the jar with water, and shake it up. You will be able to make your own observations from that. Personally though I think it looks really cool.

Okay Now to watch the last video you posted.

#12 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 09 July 2009 - 08:54 PM

As far as polystrate fossils go, I don't really know enough about them to say what they mean to evolution. But from what I can quickly find on google, it seams that these are found mainly in areas where rapid sedimentation occurs, such as the area around Mt St Helens.

Now Pa once had a lot of geological activity, and limestone, unless I've missed my guess is usually found where water used to flow...hmmm I think I'm too tired to make a real valid point on this, but I'll just say I need to do more research :-D

#13 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 10 July 2009 - 06:37 AM

Now Pa once had a lot of geological activity, and limestone, unless I've missed my guess is usually found where water used to flow...hmmm I think I'm too tired to make a real valid point on this, but I'll just say I need to do more research :-D

View Post

I always thought that our state was boring geologically. We don't have jagged mountains, volcanoes or fault lines. This is actually what makes our state so fascinating. It is a perfect resting sight, geologically speaking, for what settled out after the flood. Don't get me wrong the mid-west is also a wonderful demonstration of how devastating the flood was (especially Utah). Here in PA, our freeway system really gives us a great observational tool for examining the layers of the flood as laid down by the flood.

#14 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 10 July 2009 - 06:40 AM

Here are some really cool polystrate fossils:

Posted Image Posted Image

Posted Image<--This is one of my favorites because it is part coal and part rock... the same fossil!

#15 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 10 July 2009 - 06:59 AM

You mentioned that you were from PA, have you ever explored Centralia PA?  Its a fascinating area where there were some serious underground coal fires in the 1960s(???)  Anyways you can actually see where some of these coal viens were because when they burned through they soils on top of them collapsed into a small series of "Canyons".  But seriously you should check it out, there are some really cool environments to see, such as the closed down section of highway that is splitting, and these fields where steam and smoke rise from the ground.

View Post

Man, I would love to examine that stuff. I had an old collapsed mineshaft behind my house. I was so proud of myself because I figured out what it was on my own. I'm sure it was known but I remember standing there in that long ditch (canyon like structure) that had a creek running through it wondering why it had the shape that it did. This is all in the middle of the woods. I connected the dots because I new of an odd location where there was a hole that lead into a mine shaft. It took about a year or so to realize that it was a collapsed mineshaft that that creek ran through. I was about twelve and I thought it was so cool to be able to infer what happened based on the available evidence.

Anyway, Jason777 posted a response that you should read in your research:

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=34966

#16 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 10 July 2009 - 11:44 AM

I always thought that our state was boring geologically. We don't have jagged mountains, volcanoes or fault lines. This is actually what makes our state so fascinating. It is a perfect resting sight, geologically speaking, for what settled out after the flood. Don't get me wrong the mid-west is also a wonderful demonstration of how devastating the flood was (especially Utah). Here in PA, our freeway system really gives us a great observational tool for examining the layers of the flood as laid down by the flood.

View Post


Oops your right lol. Lack of sleep makes me make mistakes. I was thinking about an earthquake that supposedly took place in the 1700's that "changed the directions streams flowed...but I can't find it so unless this info jogs your own memory then don't worry about it...okay I found IT!!! There was a quake in 1727, that was felt in PA... It originated in Massachusetts. That was what I was thinking about. And yeah it turned marshes into dry land, and turned dry land into marshes. People had a hard time walking...it was a magnitude 7. So yeah your right about that.

#17 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 10 July 2009 - 01:09 PM

Oops your right lol.  Lack of sleep makes me make mistakes.  I was thinking about an earthquake that supposedly took place in the 1700's that "changed the directions streams flowed...but I can't find it so unless this info jogs your own memory then don't worry about it...okay I found IT!!!  There was a quake in 1727, that was felt in PA...  It originated in Massachusetts.  That was what I was thinking about.  And yeah it turned marshes into dry land, and turned dry land into marshes.  People had a hard time walking...it was a magnitude 7.  So yeah your right about that.

View Post

I didn't know about that. Do you have some more info? I wouldn't say seismic activity is unheard of in our area but the norm is a very stable inactive geology. Wouldn't you agree?

This also doesn't mean that the eastern United States looks anything like what it did 4500 years ago right after the flood. I would simply say that the, yet non-eroded, rock and soil layers are mostly in the same shape they settled into post flood after most of the post flood activity subsided.

To get an idea of things that are still generating activity in our area though, just look at Niagara Falls as an example of coming activity. There is a post flood canyon waiting to be made the moment Niagara Falls itself recedes back to Lake Erie.

#18 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 July 2009 - 02:00 PM

Keith, before you narrow your conversation into the irrelevant, could you consider the possibility that the same process of stratification can take place elsewhere other than deltas?

View Post

Since you were the one to indicate that the 4th video was particularly interesting, and I asked:-
"I watched the last video and would like to know what you think is significant about it?

I suspect it is the claim that younger deposits can be below older deposits.
Is this correct?
",
I do not think that answering would be irrelevant.
In fact, not answering might make me suspect that you already know how misleading many of these videos really are to the credulous.

As to whether 'the same process of stratification' occurs elsewhere, I suggest you look again at the video and try to think of other situations in which there is a strong steady current, moving a layer of partially suspended (saltating) particles along, and then dropping this load in deeper and slower-moving water.

#19 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 10 July 2009 - 02:06 PM

I don't know what year it was,but there was an 8 or 9 magnitude here in Arkansas that made the Mississippi river flow backwards for 3 days.

I believe it was the biggest ever recorded and very ironic because people here talk about being affraid of earth quakes in California,but the biggest one ever recorded took place in their own back yard.LOL.

#20 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 10 July 2009 - 02:07 PM

As to whether 'the same process of stratification' occurs elsewhere, I suggest you look again at the video and try to think of other situations in which there is a strong steady current, moving a layer of partially suspended (saltating) particles along, and then dropping this load in deeper and slower-moving water.

View Post

How about a violent global occurrence about 4500 years ago?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users