Jump to content


Photo

More Soft Tissue Found In Fossils


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

#1 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 24 December 2010 - 10:53 PM

Dec 22, 2010 — Live Science announced a major new fossil find in China with some 20,000 fossils. It was found in a 50-foot thick layer of limestone.

The fossils are exceptionally well-preserved, with more than half of them completely intact, including soft tissues. Apparently they were protected across the ages by mats of microbes that rapidly sealed their bodies off from decay after death....
Ninety percent of the fossils are bug-like creatures, such as crustaceans, millipedes and horseshoe crabs. Fish make up 4 percent, including the “living fossil” known as the coelacanth, which is still alive today nearly 250 million years later. Snails, bivalves (creatures including clams and oysters), squid-like belemnoids, nautilus-like ammonoids and other mollusks make up about 2 percent of the fossils.


Other major fossils found include marine reptiles and “dolphin-bodied ichthyosaurs” (see photo accompanying the article with amazing detail evident). Reporter Charles Q. Choi did not elaborate on whether the “soft tissues” included original material or, more likely, impressions of anatomical parts in rock. The site, named the Luoping Site, is in southwest China.

Once again, a fossil graveyard is found, indicating rapid burial and exquisite preservation. What they didn’t mention about coelacanth is that it is a classic living fossil that was thought to have gone extinct at the end of the Cretaceous (65 million years ago), only to be found in 1938 swimming comfortably off the coast of South Africa. And th’s not the only case of so-called “Lazarus taxa,” rising from the dead. Who can really believe that (1) coelacanths never left another fossil for 65 million years, and (2) the soft tissues in these fossils were never disturbed for 250 million years?
Evolutionists keep the fogma machines (05/14/2007) running to distract the real message of the bones. They bring in imaginary dinosaur feathers, slowly migrating continents, mass extinctions and hundreds of millions of years. If we had not been so brainwashed into accepting this weird stretched-out chronology founded by Sir Lyell Lot and his cronies, we would laugh at such notions. Look past the Darwin promissory notes (06/26/2010, 02/24/2010) and reckless drafts on the bank of time (07/02/2007), and let the collateral earn its own interest.


http://www.creations...om/crevnews.htm




Enjoy.

#2 OneHourPhoto

OneHourPhoto

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Melbourne

Posted 25 December 2010 - 05:28 AM

A fascinating read and find. Now the comments to the article mention a "rapid burial" to explain the exquisite condition of the fossils, e.g. I think the author of the comments is suggesting a biblical type flood, but here's where I get confused, how would this flood effect marine animals?

#3 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 25 December 2010 - 06:35 AM

Dec 22, 2010 — Live Science announced a major new fossil find in China with some 20,000 fossils.  It was found in a 50-foot thick layer of limestone.

The fossils are exceptionally well-preserved, with more than half of them completely intact, including soft tissues.  Apparently they were protected across the ages by mats of microbes that rapidly sealed their bodies off from decay after death....
    Ninety percent of the fossils are bug-like creatures, such as crustaceans, millipedes and horseshoe crabs.  Fish make up 4 percent, including the “living fossil” known as the coelacanth, which is still alive today nearly 250 million years later.  Snails, bivalves (creatures including clams and oysters), squid-like belemnoids, nautilus-like ammonoids and other mollusks make up about 2 percent of the fossils.


Other major fossils found include marine reptiles and “dolphin-bodied ichthyosaurs” (see photo accompanying the article with amazing detail evident).  Reporter Charles Q. Choi did not elaborate on whether the “soft tissues” included original material or, more likely, impressions of anatomical parts in rock.  The site, named the Luoping Site, is in southwest China.

Once again, a fossil graveyard is found, indicating rapid burial and exquisite preservation.  What they didn’t mention about coelacanth is that it is a classic living fossil that was thought to have gone extinct at the end of the Cretaceous (65 million years ago), only to be found in 1938 swimming comfortably off the coast of South Africa.  And th’s not the only case of so-called “Lazarus taxa,” rising from the dead.  Who can really believe that (1) coelacanths never left another fossil for 65 million years, and (2) the soft tissues in these fossils were never disturbed for 250 million years?
    Evolutionists keep the fogma machines (05/14/2007) running to distract the real message of the bones.  They bring in imaginary dinosaur feathers, slowly migrating continents, mass extinctions and hundreds of millions of years.  If we had not been so brainwashed into accepting this weird stretched-out chronology founded by Sir Lyell Lot and his cronies, we would laugh at such notions.  Look past the Darwin promissory notes (06/26/2010, 02/24/2010) and reckless drafts on the bank of time (07/02/2007), and let the collateral earn its own interest.


http://www.creations...om/crevnews.htm
Enjoy.

View Post


As usual, the LiveScience article is so undefinable, because the model is wrong. They are giving us the Permian-Triassic mass extinction event, and now another huge event AFTER that! Instead of asking how did so much sediment arrive so quickly, they ignore it, and contrive a multi event story. There is absolutely no evidence of this. There is only the geologic timescale, which shall continue to morph and absorb any data by it's overshadowing paradigm.

Here's a great quote from the original LiveScience article, Jason. This is for those who insist the geologic timescale is the true order of things. On other sites, the defensive distraction from other more powerful evidence-- why are man and dinosaur not found together, and/ or why are there no rabbits in the Cambrian? Evos pose these questions, because of (among other things) their ignorance of fossil finds just like this one-- most likely a laggerstatte. Evos that I have debated show an ignorance of the laggerstatten found in more than several places throughout the world.

Here's the quote, because I want to point something out.

Much was uncertain regarding the steps life took to piece itself back together after this disaster, or even how long it took. Now the clearest picture yet of this recovery has been discovered by a team of researchers, who excavated away half a mountain in Luoping in southwest China to unearth thousands of marine fossils, the first fully functional ecosystem seen after the end-Permian.


They are putting the finds AFTER the so-called Permian-Triassic Extinction Event, which was a mass extinction. Before I go on, let me digress. Notice the unis have found evidence for two things throughout the world, ane they build this into their timescale-- 1) mass extinction (s :D ), 2) ocean transgression (s ;) ) onto the continents.

The soft tissue impressions are evidence of catastrophe in a fifty foot limestone layer. If there were no well preserved fossils, the unis could easily revert back to Lyellian uniformintarian view--the slow formation of limestone. But the fossils require acknowledgement of quick burial. Usually, there is no consideration that this was caused by massive sediment transports. This is because unis prefer to hold to the slow formation of limestone as an "evidence" for geological time. But it is easy to imagine as the ocean floors raised during the flood, they "spilled" their sediments over the continental crust. The fossil find here is a testament to this.

Now, the reason I highlighted the word "after," is to show the flexibility ("unfalsifiableness") of the geologic timescale. We have a disaster happening at the K-T boundary, and now with the new find, a "reformation" of life after this mass extinction. But this "reformation" included the transport of massive ocean sediments, which covered these fauna quickly! This massive transport of sediments became a 50 foot "layer" of limestone, containing many many intact fossils! Of course the "actualist" will probably prefer a multiple catastrophe model throughout the laggestatte layers. So no need to falsify anything--whatever comes in just gets assigned a story. If radiometric dating, or index fossils,and/ or a geoplogic congress "decide" when this happened, or how many catatstrophes are needed, then that's just a detail most people won't worry about. Geotime is still true, no matter what.

At any rate the sediment transport of the limestone layer would have required a quick transgression of ocean water, as a slow trangression would not have buried so many fauna, nor preserved them so well! Nor would it have the energy to transport so much sediment.

What kind of energy and event would transport so much sediment, and cover these fauna so quickly?

#4 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 25 December 2010 - 10:19 AM

They are putting the finds AFTER the so-called Permian-Triassic Extinction Event, which was a mass extinction.


So-called is correct. The boundary has recently been debunked and can't be explained as a single event in terms of geologic time.

“The Catastrophe That Wasn’t”


The Permian extinction is considered by old-Earthers to have been the largest mass extinction in Earth history, with 90 percent of marine species and 70 percent of land species dying out. It has also long been thought of as a sudden, catastrophic event—until now.

A team led by Colby College paleontologist Robert Gastaldo takes a different view. Gastaldo led students on six trips to South African locations purported to be home to evidence of the Permian extinction—specifically, a thin sedimentary layer separating the Permian period from the Triassic that followed it. But according to Gastaldo, that layer “couldn’t be traced more than about 100 meters laterally,” showing that it wasn’t a global event. “We spent days walking kilometers throughout the [sites] trying to trace it from every angle and couldn’t,” Gastaldo said.

Yet in other places, the team found the sedimentary layer eight meters below the Permian–Triassic boundary! Gastaldo’s conclusion? “Because the boundary event bed doesn’t occur at the same position in the rock record there can be no one, unique event.”

The creation model considers many of the sedimentary layers we observe—including most of the layers that have fossils—to have been laid down by geological events associated with the global Flood (including volcanic activity) along with the Flood itself. It’s therefore very easy to incorporate ideas such as the Permian extinction, or the better-known K–T (Cretaceous–Tertiary) extinction event, with the Flood model. Even if evolutionists decide a certain event took place millions of years earlier or later than what was once thought, that translates in the Flood model to likely mere months (or less) of difference.

We also have to smile whenever longstanding evolutionary ideas are overturned. In this case, a sudden Permian extinction event is now “last year’s fact,” as the CreationWise cartoon says. While a benefit of the scientific method is that hypotheses incorporate new evidence, that’s also the drawback of using science as the be-all and end-all of knowledge.


http://www.answersin...o-note-03072009


Since we have fossils from different time periods in different stratagraphic positions and given what we now know about superposition from sedimentary experiments, these layers must represent a geologic event and not geologic time.




Enjoy.

#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 December 2010 - 03:47 AM

A fascinating read and find. Now the comments to the article mention a "rapid burial" to explain the exquisite condition of the fossils, e.g. I think the author of the comments is suggesting a biblical type flood, but here's where I get confused, how would this flood effect marine animals?

View Post


Divers often get caught in caves confused because if the silt stirred up, because they cannot see.

For all the water from underground to come up, it would stir up the bottom and mix it so with all the water it would become very dark. Basically pitch black. Even the fish in deepest oceans who can produce their own light, they would be blinded by this also.

Example: Think of all the stuff a black smoker puts out now imagine that times 10,000 all over the world. The oceans would turn dark pretty quick.

And anything near where the main flows were got buried quickly before they even knew what was going on.This is why you get fossils of fish doing everyday normal stuff and die in the act. Such as the fossil below where a fish was having dinner and died.

http://kcsg.files.wo...acation-010.jpg (pic to big to post)

A fish giving birth dies even though the baby is basically out.

http://kcsg.files.wo...chthyosarus.jpg

And dinosaur grave yards:

Posted Image

There is more evidence, these are just a few.

And speaking of soft tissue finds, how about a dragon fly wing fossil?

Posted Image

#6 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 27 December 2010 - 10:23 PM

Geode...
The explanation of what is the contained in the article results in jumping to conclusions not supported in what was reported. The report did not mention “rapid burial” or there being a “fossil graveyard” which really is a poor term. What density of fossils defines a “graveyard” and does burial of different organisms in subsequent stratigraphic levels make the entire thickness of strata a “graveyard”…?

I believe the proper word is "laggerstatten." I read an article from a non creationist magazine awhile back. While it did not use the word "fossil graveyard," it did use the scenario of where animals go to die to explain laggerstatten. I am not saying this is a universal hypothesis, it was used.

Geode, what is your hypothesis on the soft tissue impressions, if it not that they were covered in a very short time. I have read of actual fossilized cells having silicate substitutions, so that the cells can be seen under a microscope. Have you read this?

Geode...
Actually the article did mention “living fossil” when talking about the coelacanth and logically assumes that most readers are aware of the background. I’m pretty sure that fossil coelacanths exist in the rocks, they simply have yet to be found. The comment about “soft tissues” makes no sense in light of the actual form of preservation shown in the fossils. It appears that yet another jumping to a false conclusion is being made.

Aren't you being ambiguous? The term is "soft tissue ichnofossils." That is they are impressions of the soft tissues. I'm sure you know that, but I see no explanation from you as how they formed. What say you?

#7 OneHourPhoto

OneHourPhoto

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Melbourne

Posted 28 December 2010 - 07:40 AM

Divers often get caught in caves confused because if the silt stirred up, because they cannot see.

For all the water from underground to come up, it would stir up the bottom and mix it so with all the water it would become very dark. Basically pitch black. Even the fish in deepest oceans who can produce their own light, they would be blinded by this also.

Example: Think of all the stuff a black smoker puts out now imagine that times 10,000 all over the world. The oceans would turn dark pretty quick.

And anything near where the main flows were got buried quickly before they even knew what was going on.This is why you get fossils of fish doing everyday normal stuff and die in the act. Such as the fossil below where a fish was having dinner and died.

http://kcsg.files.wo...acation-010.jpg (pic to big to post)

A fish giving birth dies even though the baby is basically out.

http://kcsg.files.wo...chthyosarus.jpg

And dinosaur grave yards:

Posted Image

There is more evidence, these are just a few.

And speaking of soft tissue finds, how about a dragon fly wing fossil?

Posted Image

View Post


But how would marine animals far out to see and in deep parts of the sea been rapidly buried, or even affected by a global flood?

#8 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 28 December 2010 - 09:22 AM

But how would marine animals far out to see and in deep parts of the sea been rapidly buried, or even affected by a global flood?

View Post

Genesis 7:11 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,

This makes me think automatically of great activity on the ocean floor. Just take the bolded phrase and what first comes to mind.

There are evidences of underwater landslides caused by tectonic activity, that is a fact. That the flood caused massive landslides both in the sea and on the land all within the same year causing most of the fossil record and then continuing as the tectonic activity eased off (and of course later due to glacial melting) is what the YECs put forth.

#9 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 28 December 2010 - 11:28 AM

There is nothing laughable in following where the data leads instead of force-fitting it all into a model that is not consistent with the data.

View Post


Exactly! Evolutionist are always trying to force-fit all the evidence into their own illogical model, especially when none of their evidence is consistent with reality.

Soft Tissue supports the Creationist Model, and never has, nor ever will support an TOE model, which is illogical at best.

Of course fantasizing that Soft-tissue will last preserved for over 65 million years is laughable, because it is not consistant with reality, or observable data.

#10 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 28 December 2010 - 02:26 PM

Exactly!  Evolutionist are always trying to force-fit all the evidence into their own illogical model, especially when none of their evidence is consistent with reality.

Soft Tissue supports the Creationist Model, and never has, nor ever will support an TOE model, which is illogical at best.

Of course fantasizing that Soft-tissue will last preserved for over 65 million years is laughable, because it is not consistant with reality, or observable data.

View Post

Soft tissue is not evidence for the creationist model if the only reason that can be cited is the always popular "rapid burial"...for rapid burial is part and parcel to "actualist" explanations since it has been observed occuring, and in environments not even remotely catastrophic or even involving any flood. Such preservation also occurs where slow burial has been observed. You are simply rejecting the relality of direct observations in making such a statement. The evidence offered in this report goes against a YEC model as I already posted.

But that isn't even something that need be considered here, for no soft tissue was preserved. Despite the title of this thread it is apparent in a reading of the article and seeing the pictures of the fossils that no soft tissue was found. The soft tissues were only preserved long enough for burial and the fossilization process to leave behind the molds of the soft parts with carbon traces. This could have been accomplished in a small fraction of that amount of time before all soft tissue had vanished.

But it is appropriate that you included the word [i]fantasizing,[i] as that seems to have been all that has been offered by the YEC side on this fossil find, including dumping oceanic sediments on continents, etc. The conclusions reached in the report at least attempts to properly account for rocks such as limestones being present and the change in the life forms found through successively younger strata. Care to invoke densities and settling velocities to account for this last aspect? Why not, it would be just as good in explaining the data cited as what has been offered so far (not good at all, but arm-waving speculation that is not supported by lab or field work).

#11 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 28 December 2010 - 02:30 PM

Genesis 7:11 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,

This makes me think automatically of great activity on the ocean floor. Just take the bolded phrase and what first comes to mind.

There are evidences of underwater landslides caused by tectonic activity, that is a fact. That the flood caused massive landslides both in the sea and on the land all within the same year causing most of the fossil record and then continuing as the tectonic activity eased off (and of course later due to glacial melting) is what the YECs put forth.

View Post


Underwater landslides set up turbidity currents and deposits with readily identifiable characteristics. This would not be the case with this limestone, as reported anyway.

#12 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 28 December 2010 - 03:28 PM

Soft tissue is not evidence for the creationist model if the only reason that can be cited is the always popular "rapid burial"...for rapid burial is part and parcel to "actualist" explanations since it has been observed occuring, and in environments not even remotely catastrophic or even involving any flood. Such preservation also occurs where slow burial has been observed. You are simply rejecting the relality of direct observations in making such a statement. The evidence offered in this report goes against a YEC model as I already posted.

View Post


Yes I am rejecting the opinion of your so called slow burial, which wasn't observed. It is not reality, but mere opinion, not direct observation.

But in Reality I am not rejecting direct observation. You, nor any other paleontologist, scientist, or garbage man for that matter has directly observed the fossilization process of this fossil.

Rapid Burial requires a flood, especially when it covers many miles, and buries multiple species of dinosaurs/fauna... especially when many of the dinosaurs are 40 feet long, and longer. Slow burial is just not a logical explanation, and it does not conform with reality.

Care to show your directly observed extremely slow fossilization process from start to finish? Please show it step by step since you seem to have some real life documentation of this process, from organic, to rock

#13 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 28 December 2010 - 03:38 PM

Such preservation also occurs where slow burial has been observed.

View Post



Care to show your directly observed extremely slow fossilization process from start to finish?

View Post


My thoughts exactly, Scott.

#14 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 28 December 2010 - 04:07 PM

Yes I am rejecting the opinion of your so called slow burial, which wasn't observed.  It is not reality, but mere opinion, not direct observation.

But in Reality I am not rejecting direct observation.  You, nor any other paleontologist, scientist, or garbage man for that matter has directly observed the fossilization process of this fossil.

Rapid Burial requires a flood, especially when it covers many miles, and buries multiple species of dinosaurs/fauna... especially when many of the dinosaurs are 40 feet long, and longer.  Slow burial is just not a logical explanation, and it does not conform with reality.

Care to show your directly observed extremely slow fossilization process from start to finish?  Please show it step by step since you seem to have some real life documentation of this process, from organic, to rock

View Post


No, a flood is not required and this is not just my opinion. It has been documented. The study of geology and paleontology is available for all to study, and this does not have to rely upon opinions. You can find this information

Rapid burial does not require a flood. There are fluvial processes and deltaic processes that accomplish this that you yourself can observe if you care to do so. But then again here you have decided to modify the discussion and add "many miles." Multiple species can often be found within meters of each other in an ecosystem, so your including that seems irrelevent. But where do 40 foot long dinosaurs enter into a discussion of the article at hand?

Slow burial of forms that can become fossilized is quite logical. It is logoical if one applies science instead of pure conjecture, which I find is all too common in YEC explanations. What caues the decay of soft material, and what can prevent this action? One way of doing this is hypothesized in the article, but it is not the only possibility.

I cited some experiments involving soft tissue preservation in a different thread that started with the organic material. One does not create rocks in such experiments and quite frankly what would be the point. Both mainstream scientists and YECs are accepting that rocks contain fossils with soft tissues, the difference of opinion is how old the rocks are.

I did not say anything about "extremely slow" fossilization. I don't even think it occurs. But if it did you could not directly observe the process.

#15 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 28 December 2010 - 05:10 PM

Geode- "Slow burial of forms that can become fossilized is quite logical."

Thank you Geode, you just showed that all you have to offer is pure conjecture. You have nothing to show for what you claim is an observed process, that much is clear. It's not scientific, it's more philosophical because you aren't actually able to observe the whole process to see it form to rock.

You have at no point in time observed the fossilization process, and the same goes for every other geologist or paleontologist.

My inclusion of whole communites of 40 foot or longer dinosaurs is not irrevalent, because they were in fact buried by a flood. There are no other logical conclusions to be had, because it's not logical to believe that each one died by a river.

My argument has never been Rapid Burial only requires a Flood. The fossils are the ones that show volumes and miles upon miles of Flood evidence.

#16 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 29 December 2010 - 08:01 PM

Soft tissue is not evidence for the creationist model if the only reason that can be cited is the always popular "rapid burial"...for rapid burial is part and parcel to "actualist" explanations since it has been observed occuring, and in environments not even remotely catastrophic or even involving any flood..

View Post


So actualists get to claim rapid burial as their own, because they observed it??? So creationist can't claim it as evidence for Noah's flood, because people that don't believe in the flood have observed it?

And you say rapid burial has happened in "environments not even remotely catastrophic." Such as what? I request a citing for this statement. I'm sure we will see no example of this volume of preserved fossils anywhere where slow sedimentation is taking place.


Such preservation also occurs where slow burial has been observed. You are simply rejecting the relality of direct observations in making such a statement. ..

View Post


I have seen directly opposing evidence as to what you just said. Soft tissue is eaten by bacteria and other scavengers in days or weeks. I have seen on film, land animals eaten in days. Please cite the statement. I would like to see what ecological zone and "environment" this is that produces thick laggerstatte by slow sedimentation rates.

The evidence offered in this report goes against a YEC model as I already postedBut that isn't even something that need be considered here, for no soft tissue was preserved.

View Post

Geode, first of all, I go to other sites. The propaganda produced about the T-rex soft tissue finds is quite amazing. Anyone who wants to look can see red globlar "flesh" under the microsope. No one can say this is crystalized rock. Yet the propaganda is quite phenomenal. Quite amzing.

Second, what we do know is that soft tissue impressions are there. If the anoxia was so high as to to preserve this tissue before burial, then there should be an abundance of salt, not just evidence of salt. It would require water like the Dead Sea.

And then, in case you didn't know, dead animals would float on such dense salt water. Also the Dead Sea has no fish. This is not the case in most laggerstatte. There are many fish, conifer pines (e.g. green river), and other animals, suggesting a bountiful ecolological environment, not one like the Dead Sea.

#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 31 December 2010 - 06:35 AM

But how would marine animals far out to see and in deep parts of the sea been rapidly buried, or even affected by a global flood?

View Post


All you have to do is use logic and ask yourself: Which sea life would get covered first in a flood that brought enough stuff up from underground to bury them? First would be the bottom dwellers. And guess what, that's what we find in the geologic column.

Posted Image

So these bottom dwellers being the first to arrive on the scene should not have any complex organs yet because this is supposed to be the beginning of evolution, right? But that is not what we see. Trilobite eyes are some of the most complex eyes on the planet.

Posted Image

The trilobite also have "fully formed" and "functioning" internal organs.

Posted Image

The trilobite also has a more complex Dorsal then what would be expected.

Posted Image

You see this does not go along with what would be implied by what the geological column would tell us if evolution were true (simple to complex evolution of life). No real complex designs were supposed to exist yet. And fully formed functioning organs are not supposed to exist yet either.

And there is Zero evidence of anything evolving into being a trilobite. It's just poof there it is in the column with all it's complexity which more supports what?

The land animals were on higher ground than the sea life would be, right? And since the whole earth is to be flooded in 40 days, how fast do you think water and sediment plus molten lava were coming up? I'd say pretty quick. So even when the land animals ended up in the water to drown, the sea life was already buried as the sediment settled. Laying flood burial time-line according where the life form lived. Then hydrologic sorting took care of the rest.

Quick burial explains soft tissue preservation. Slow millions of years of evolution does not.

Question: What in evolution explanation would allow complex things to exist on lifeforms that are supposed to be at the bottom of the scale for evolving life?

Lots of time and slow burial does not equal tissue millions of years old being preserved.

#18 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 31 December 2010 - 07:06 AM

When asking oneself questions about how the flood produced fossils it is good to keep in mind that the flood lasted for a year (the water rising for 5 months) and wiped out nearly all life. Some animals show rapid burial in sedimentation... buried alive, others have been dashed to pieces. Not all animals drowned in the water and sunk down to the bottom. But in some of the areas I am sure that a corpse could probably stay intact longer than we traditionally observe because there were no live scavengers around.http://biblicalgeolo...gic-column.html

http://biblicalgeolo...ting-Sands.html

#19 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 01 January 2011 - 02:15 PM

When asking oneself questions about how the flood produced fossils it is good to keep in mind that the flood lasted for a year (the water rising for 5 months) and wiped out nearly all life. Some animals show rapid burial in sedimentation... buried alive, others have been dashed to pieces. Not all animals drowned in the water and sunk down to the bottom. But in some of the areas I am sure that a corpse could probably stay intact longer than we traditionally observe because there were no live scavengers around.http://biblicalgeolo...gic-column.html

http://biblicalgeolo...ting-Sands.html

View Post



Hi mama,

Did you forget? There were fish, bacteria, phytoplankton, and alot of diatoms in the water.

This is one of the hypotheses for chalk and limestone deposits. That at least some of them were the result of planktonic blooms that ate all the dead plants and animals.

http://www.answersin...aceous-deposits

#20 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 01 January 2011 - 04:10 PM

Hi mama,

Did you forget? There were fish, bacteria, phytoplankton, and alot of diatoms in the water. 

This is one of the hypotheses for chalk and limestone deposits.  That at least some of them were the result of planktonic blooms that ate all the dead plants and animals.

http://www.answersin...aceous-deposits

View Post

No, just new to the whole YE scene. Thanks for the link. :)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users