Jump to content


Photo

Fossil Record


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

#1 Seek123

Seek123

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Interests:God<br />Music (I play piano, violin, guitar, and bass guitar)<br />Nature and camping (I have achieved my Eagle Scout Rank)<br />Reading<br />Friends<br />Biology<br />Much much more...
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Northwest Indiana

Posted 12 January 2011 - 12:01 PM

I'm sure there have been similar discussions here but I figured I could try and find out what kind of responses we could get from the contemporary members we have. I started this topic on another site run by mainly evolutionists, so I'm interested to see the mixture of ideas I get.

The basic pre-tense of this question is...
If Noah's flood, as described in biblical text, were true, than what would we expect to see? I'm specifically talking about the order in which we find the fossils throughout the strata, as I recall a recent discussion that was mainly focused on the forming of the layers and the strata but did not talk much about the actual fossils found.

The TOE predicts that we would see the simplest organisms changing into more complex organisms, and this is why they claim the fossil record as their evidence without any dispute. I, on the otherhand, would have to say that from a flood perspective we would also expect to see the same type of gradual pattern of deaths, but explained in a different manner.

For instance, the pre-cambrian layer is made up mostly of bottom feeders, no? Would it not sound logical to expect to see at the bottom layers of a global flood event, the most simplistic of bottom feeders, that are the least capable of defending themselves, and are the least capable of fleeing the scene (being at the bottom when the fountains of the deep opened up)?

I would also assume that as the firmament was depleted throughout these 40 days, the environment would become subject to changes such as temperature raises and humidity differences. In nature, what are the first animals to be effected by changes such as temperature and humidity? Reptiles and ambhibians. Especially the larger ones...dinosaur extinction anyone? B)
"As temperatures warm, and the availability of water in aquatic habitats becomes more variable, amphibians are likely to experience lower rates of survival to metamorphosis."
http://www.fs.fed.us...-reptiles.shtml
Mammals can survive longer in the event of environmental changes, this is why we use herpetology, it helps us prepare for possibly dangerous environmental changes. As these creatures die and then become covered with the water, whichever molluscs didn't happen to be near one of the fountains of the deep that could have rapidly caused the bottom feaders to be buried would surely be stirred all throughout the water and eventually settle all over everything explaining why they would apear everywhere throughout the layers.

I suppose that would be a good place to start this discussion with.

#2 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 13 January 2011 - 04:06 AM

Trilobites and other ocean creatures are incredibly complex yet they are at the bottom, so the whole increase in complexity idea just doesn't jive with me. There are also incredibly preserved jellyfish and squid that show no changes over the supposed evolutionary time.

I think that your explanation sounds very plausible. There are also instances in which the fossil order is backwards, with dinos being laid down in sediment before sea creatures. If one looks at the different layers in the geological column as ecological zones, things start to make sense. We have life forms from the bottom of the ocean 4,000 years ago that were rapidly buried together. We have creatures from the redwood forest 4,000 years ago that were rapidly buried together... etc.

#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 13 January 2011 - 08:07 PM

Trilobites and other ocean creatures are incredibly complex yet they are at the bottom, so the whole increase in complexity idea just doesn't jive with me. There are also incredibly preserved jellyfish and squid that show no changes over the supposed evolutionary time.

I think that your explanation sounds very plausible. There are also instances in which the fossil order is backwards, with dinos being laid down in sediment before sea creatures. If one looks at the different layers in the geological column as ecological zones, things start to make sense. We have life forms from the bottom of the ocean 4,000 years ago that were rapidly buried together. We have creatures from the redwood forest 4,000 years ago that were rapidly buried together... etc.

View Post


Yeah, I was looking at a site from Hell Creek, where Mary Schweitzer found the T Rex soft tissue. The bones they showed are in soft bentonite clay, which contains volcanic ash. It's just strange, because you can see they are so accessible, and close to the surface. Like you go to the nearest creek bank, and just dig up "65,000,000 year old" bones. :P
What is interesting is that alot of these bones are in pieces--and scattered. What scattered these bones? Were they broken up violently?

Posted Image


Posted Image

All these bones are found below a dark layer, known as the K-T boundary. But I read in one of the pages it was not a continuous layer. I have read that before, in other areas. Is it possible the KT is an event in the flood that caused this "come and go" layer, and a dividing line between different episodic stages of the flood?



Posted Image

Of course, standard paleontology says the 65my of sedimentation since these dinosaurs has weathered away. Notice the hill in the background. Is it any harder than the foreground? It is not rock, grass is growing on it--so it's soft.
Why would it weather so unevenly?

It seems such a confined area of similar soft clay would weather evenly. A better explanation would be the hill and the lower area formed in close time proximity. In other words, the reason for the hill is that the topology, though it would have weathered, is close to the original, it is contemporary with the lower area.

#4 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 14 January 2011 - 08:01 AM

Yeah, I was looking at a site from Hell Creek, where Mary Schweitzer found the T Rex soft tissue.  The bones they showed are in soft  bentonite clay, which contains volcanic ash.   It's just strange, because you can see they are so accessible, and close to the surface.  Like you go to the nearest creek bank, and just dig up "65,000,000 year old" bones.  :P
What is interesting is that alot of these bones are in pieces--and scattered.  What scattered these bones?  Were they broken up violently?

Posted Image
Posted Image

All these bones are found below a dark layer, known as  the K-T boundary. But I read in one of the pages it was not a continuous layer.  I have read that before, in other areas.  Is it possible the KT is an event in the flood that caused this "come and go" layer, and a dividing line between different episodic stages of the flood?
Posted Image

Of course, standard paleontology says the 65my of sedimentation since these dinosaurs has weathered away.  Notice the hill in the background.  Is it any harder than the foreground?  It is not rock, grass is growing on it--so it's soft.
Why would it weather so unevenly?    

It seems such a confined area  of similar soft clay would weather evenly. A better explanation  would be the hill and the lower area formed in close time proximity.   In other words, the reason for the hill is that the topology, though it would have weathered, is close to the original, it is contemporary with the lower area.

View Post


I doubt that the bones were as accessable as you are indicating here. The first photo shows evidence of painstaking chipping away to reveal the fossil bone, which probably took hours. In the third photo one can see quite a bit of material has been excavated. Disarticulated bones are a common occurence when creatures die, and they can become broken before or after burial.

I think a "continuous" layer at the boundary of the Creataceous and Tertiary would only be expected in some sort of creationist flood model. Standard geologic models would not state that 65 million years of sedimentation has been eroded away. There would be periods of non-depostion involved.

The hill in the background appears to clearly be stratified rock, whether it is relatively soft of not. It forms a scarp, which indicates it is not just soft clay. The vegetation is probably growing in the clays or soils that are the products of erosion and the effect of the bedding surfaces can be seen in its distribution.

This looks like "layer cake" geology with clear stratigraphic units. Using the geologic principles of Superposition and Faunal Succession your concept of them all being deposited at roughly the same time does not work. The fossil content in the Tertiary unit will be very different than in the Cretaceous rocks below showing a lack of them being contemporaneous.

It seems plain from the roughly horizontal nature of the stratigraphic units in the hill that it does not owe its shape to the method of deposition. It exists due to erosinal considerations.

#5 Seek123

Seek123

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Interests:God<br />Music (I play piano, violin, guitar, and bass guitar)<br />Nature and camping (I have achieved my Eagle Scout Rank)<br />Reading<br />Friends<br />Biology<br />Much much more...
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Northwest Indiana

Posted 14 January 2011 - 04:31 PM

As I stated above I posted this in another board run mostly by evolutionists and I recieved this video lecture in response. I haven't finished watching it yet I'm only about 50 minutes in. The first half hour is disputable but when he talks about the cambrian explosion and transitional forms he presents some fairly compelling evidence. I figured I'd share the video and see what you guys think.


#6 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 14 January 2011 - 04:57 PM

Well lets see; 90% of all living species are represented in the fossil record, so it's reasonable to conclude that we should have found 90% of all the transitional species as well. The prevailing excuse is that the evolution of these species were in lower layers where pressure and erosion has destroyed them. But, lets test that as well; There are 10 known orders of trilobites known from the lower paleozoic. Do you known how huge of a classification an order is? In the order primates, there are every kind of animal from lemurs to humans, yet there are 20,000 known species of trilobites and not a single transition from one order to another. Does that mean we have 20,000 species and erosion just happened to wipe out the transitionals? According to evolution, yes.



Thanks.

#7 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 09 February 2011 - 08:01 PM

I doubt that the bones were as accessable as you are indicating here. The first photo shows evidence of painstaking chipping away to reveal the fossil bone, which probably took hours. In the third photo one can see quite a bit of material has been excavated. Disarticulated bones are a common occurence when creatures die, and they can become broken before or after burial.

View Post

The picture seems to speak for itself-- the dino was buried in diggable material at maybe 3 or 4 feet.

I think a "continuous" layer at the boundary of the Creataceous and
Tertiary would only be expected in some sort of creationist flood model.

Why? Catastrophic water suspending various sediments in different areas, over different topologies, and already laid sediments as the water got higher, and at different episodes over a year is going to cause a "layer?" Layers seems to be more accurate.

Standard geologic models would not state that 65 million years of sedimentation has been eroded away. There would be periods of non-depostion involved.


Actually, I watched a show on discovery the other night where they said whole mountains eroded away over the New York basalt through glaciation.
Why wouldn't 65 million years of uniform sedimentation be everywhere? There would have been continual weathering, wind and flash floods. What would have prevented sedimentation for a continuous 65m?


At any rate, using the premise of non depostion, in the picture I submitted there must have been more periods of non-depositition in the fossil area than the hill. I'm trying to imagine in a slow process, why one area so close would receive sediment, and the other wouldn't. It's not a loose sand dune. It would seem to be a much more compact sediment like clay, wouldn't you agree?

On the other hand, in turbulent water and soft sediments, I can imagine both sedimentation and erosion going on at the same time in a confined area.

The hill in the background appears to clearly be stratified rock, whether it is relatively soft of not. It forms a scarp, which indicates it is not just soft clay. The vegetation is probably growing in the clays or soils that are the products of erosion and the effect of the bedding surfaces can be seen in its distribution.

1) Define rock please. I define rock as something you can't dig in, you have to break through it. I used to dig for foundations (farmboy) in my younger years. I used to hit rocks. They stop your shovel and you dig around them.

2) Soil would come from decay of vegatation, so if it's rock underneath, then the soil build up is not much for 65 million years. Bedding planes form in current and from dessication as was shown in Julienne's paper.

This looks like "layer cake" geology with clear stratigraphic units. Using the geologic principles of Superposition and Faunal Succession, your concept of them all being deposited at roughly the same time does not work. The fossil content in the Tertiary unit will be very different than in the Cretaceous rocks below showing a lack of them being contemporaneous.

Though we don't agree on Berthault, I know what I saw in the log flume in water current. Mckee 1965 saw bedding planes formed in Bijou Creek after a flood. If multiple strata could not be formed in upper regime water current(as I believe McKee reports), then creationists would be "up a creek." But it figures that this would be found, as I believe that modern old earth geology is founded on wrong assumptions.

#8 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 10 February 2011 - 06:32 AM

I doubt that the bones were as accessable as you are indicating here. The first photo shows evidence of painstaking chipping away to reveal the fossil bone, which probably took hours. In the third photo one can see quite a bit of material has been excavated. Disarticulated bones are a common occurence when creatures die, and they can become broken before or after burial.


The picture seems to speak for itself-- the dino was buried in diggable material at maybe 3 or 4 feet. Why wouldn't uniform sedimentation be everywhere? There would have been continual weathering, wind and flash floods. What would have prevented sedimentation for a continuous 65m?


I interpreted your post to be saying that the bones were basically just lying on the surface. I’m not sure how easy it is to dig the material, but 3 to 4 feet below the surface is quite a depth even if what was excavated is soft. It is to be expected in the current badland topography that the clays in shales have softened through weathering. That is the nature of bentonite.

I really don’t know what you are saying here about uniform sedimentation unless you are saying that sedimentation of all geologic units is always the same at all places. At any point in geologic time some parts of the earth’s surface are in depositional basins where sedimentation takes place whereas others are emergent areas that are subject to erosion. Through time this can reverse with the opposite is true for the respective areas. This place is currently emergent, with erosion taking place. The top unit is Paleocene, so no sediments from epochs younger than that are present. That speaks strongly against having continuous sedimentation from the boundary of the Cretaceous to the present.

I think a "continuous" layer at the boundary of the Creataceous and
Tertiary would only be expected in some sort of creationist flood model.


Why? Catastrophic water suspending various sediments in different areas, over different topologies, and already laid sediments as the water got higher, and at different episodes over a year is going to cause a "layer?" Layers seems to be more accurate.


OK, if you want “layers” versus a “layer” in your creationist model go ahead and postulate them. That was not my point, which was that world-wide deposition at the boundary of the Cretaceous and Tertiary in a continuous layer found upon all the surface area of the globe would not be found in a standard geologic model but could only be possible in a creationist model with flood waters covering the entire planet up to a level above the highest mountaintops.

Standard geologic models would not state that 65 million years of sedimentation has been eroded away. There would be periods of non-depostion involved.

Using that premise, in the picture I submitted there must have been more periods of non-depositition in the fossil area than the hill. I'm trying to imagine in a slow process, why one area so close would receive sediment, and the other wouldn't. It's not a loose sand dune. It would seem to be a much more compact sediment like clay, wouldn't you agree?

On the other hand, in turbulent water and soft sediments, I can imagine both sedimentation and erosion going on at the same time in a confined area.


I don’t see how it is logical to say that my comment would entail more non-deposition in the fossil area below than in the hill. The hill is most likely fossil-bearing as well, except no dinosaurs are found within it. That in itself presents a huge challenge to your explanation of the sediemnts above and below being basically contemporaneous.

The present topography is not really the result of the original deposition and then non-deposition but from relatively modern erosive processes that have carved the landscape after the fossil-bearing Cretaceous strata and those deposited above them were uplifted. What remains is the result after the rocks in the overburden have been removed with time. The area in the foreground and the hill both received sediment (at different times) and that is why there are rocks present in both places.

And no, I don’t think the hill is clearly not a loose sand dune for I can see the bedding surfaces clearly and they do not show cross-bedding I think it is made up of shale, but that is because of the way it has eroded. I can’t tell how “compact” the sediment might be from the photo.

Yes, it is possible that both erosion and deposition might have taken place in a relatively small part of the area. However, the sediments present records sedimentation (a depositional event) and any erosion taking place at the same time basically removed earlier deposited sediments.

The hill in the background appears to clearly be stratified rock, whether it is relatively soft of not. It forms a scarp, which indicates it is not just soft clay. The vegetation is probably growing in the clays or soils that are the products of erosion and the effect of the bedding surfaces can be seen in its distribution.

1) Define rock please. I define rock as something you can't dig in, you have to break through it. I realize some rock is softer than others, but there is a degree of hardness and/ or brittleness to rock.

I used to dig in my younger years. I used to hit rocks. They stop your shovel and you dig around them.

2) Soil would come from decay of vegatation, so if it's rock underneath, then the soil build up is not much for 65 million years. Bedding planes form in current and from dessication as was shown in Julienne's paper.

Rock is a consolidated aggregate of minerals. A rock has at least some mechanical strength. I think what is seen in the hill would be much too hard for you to shovel into except where weathering has softened it, possibly in the outside inches. Soil would contain some organic material from the decay of vegetation.


Your lack of acceptance of tectonic uplift is the base cause of your erroneous conclusion here. But that is the weakness of being constrained by a model that creates sedimentary layers and then supposes that what is left after the flood event is basically the present topography we see today. Once again, the present surface where soils might form has not been exposed for millions of years. The products of erosion have been carried away from the hill for some time leaving relatively little soil or broken up clays lying in the surface. We are looking at a surface that is much, much younger than 65 million years but essentially much, much older than 4,000 years taken in a general sense.

Then there is that pesky coal bed that cannot fit into your creationist model, and least not logically.

I have not seen Julien’s paper, and I do not know what it says about desiccation, or how desiccation fits into any model you accept, since the sediments shown in the flume experiment in the video were all underwater and water-saturated. Yes, bedding planes can be the result of current action. However, the sediments here are do not appear to be sand as shown in the flume experiment in the video and would not have formed in the same way. They would not be from the same upper flow regime.

This looks like "layer cake" geology with clear stratigraphic units. Using the geologic principles of Superposition and Faunal Succession, your concept of them all being deposited at roughly the same time does not work. The fossil content in the Tertiary unit will be very different than in the Cretaceous rocks below showing a lack of them being contemporaneous.

Though we don't agree on Berthault, I know what I saw in the log flume in water current. Mckee 1965 saw bedding planes formed in Bijou Creek after a flood. If multiple strata could not be formed in upper regime water current(as I believe McKee reports), then creationists would be "up a creek." But it figures that this would be found, as I believe that modern old earth geology is founded on wrong assumptions. 


We do not disagree that water currents create bedding surfaces. All geologists see evidence for this. We see them form in lower flow regimes and in places of relatively little current. This has been observed in laboratory experiments and in actual deposition taking place around the globe. They were noted in high flow regimes long before Berthault made any claims. What makes creationists be up a creek is drawing the conclusion that all strata are formed in high flow regimes as Berthault has done, and the video reiterates.

#9 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 10 February 2011 - 08:00 AM

Sorry to break from your argument, but I just wanted to insert a thought on the fossil record and creation.

Old Earth Creationists postulate that the fossil record follows the order of creation as set forth in Genesis.

Young Earth Creationists postulate that the fossil record was all laid down by the flood.

I think that putting the two together makes sense.

#10 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 12 February 2011 - 12:20 AM

Sorry to break from your argument, but I just wanted to insert a thought on the fossil record and creation.

Old Earth Creationists postulate that the fossil record follows the order of creation as set forth in Genesis.

Young Earth Creationists postulate that the fossil record was all laid down by the flood.

I think that putting the two together makes sense.

View Post


Interesting. Not that I would mix old earth with young earth. I went back to the word to see if the order of creation matched the order of the geological column. And it does.

First you have to have plants:
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Then life from the water:
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Then life from land:
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Since the column starts from the bottom and goes up. If you flip it but still keep the correct order and go top to bottom, it matches the same order.

Thanks MamaElephant.

#11 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 12 February 2011 - 01:39 AM

Interesting. Not that I would mix old earth with young earth. I went back to the word to see if the order of creation matched the order of the geological column. And it does.

First you have to have plants:
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Then life from the water:
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Then life from land:
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Since the column starts from the bottom and goes up. If you flip it but still keep the correct order and go top to bottom, it matches the same order.

Thanks MamaElephant.

View Post


But the geologic column contains fossils of many sea creatures before fossils from life forms that lived on land are found. Plants that have seeds (angiosperms) came even later, and plants bearing fruit later still. The order may in a very, very general sense match what is in Genesis as you note in your short summary of each group of verses, but the very first life mentioned is that of land plants that are only noted in the geologic column as fossil evidence closer to the top than the bottom. The first plants started to grow in water long before any appeared on land. Seeds are an adaptation in forms that lived on the land.

#12 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 12 February 2011 - 04:51 AM

But the geologic column contains fossils of many sea creatures before fossils from life forms that lived on land are found.

View Post

How is that contradictory?

Plants that have seeds (angiosperms) came even later, and plants bearing fruit later still. The order may in a very, very general sense match what is in Genesis as you note in your short summary of each group of verses,  but the very first life mentioned is that of land plants that are only noted in the geologic column as fossil evidence closer to the top than the bottom. The first plants started to grow in water long before any appeared on land. Seeds are an adaptation in forms that lived on the land.

View Post

Two things: The herbs mentioned in scripture are likely not angiosperms. It seems to me that seed has a different meaning here.

The order of the geological column also includes what was buried in sediment in the flood, so... we go back to ecological systems that were closer to sea level or closer to shore being the first layers in the geological column.

I did say it seems to be a mixture of both. I am still working out the details. After I get multiple degrees that would make anything I say worthwhile, I will write a book. :) :lol: Look for it in about 25 years or so.

#13 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 12 February 2011 - 05:18 AM

Then there is that pesky coal bed that cannot fit into your creationist model, and least not logically.

View Post

In flood geology, coal beds were formed from vegatable matter and log mats, just like log mats wer at Mt St Helens. You don't need swamps and hundreds of thousands of years of accumulation of peat. There is one creationist paper that reports a forked coal seam. There is a seam that forks on one that is more level and descends. There is no way a swamp could do this. You can't use original horizontalality, because it forks off the more level seam, and if I remember correctly, forks into a lower seam.

I have not seen Julien’s paper, and I do not know what it says about desiccation, or how desiccation fits into any model you accept, since the sediments shown in the flume experiment in the video were all underwater and water-saturated. Yes, bedding planes can be the result of current action. However,  the sediments here are do not appear to be sand as shown in the flume experiment in the video and would not have formed in the same way. They would not be from the same upper flow regime.

McKee saw multiple strata, and what appeared to be bedding planes betwee. There are layer cake strata at Mt St Helens from ash flows. This is counter intuitive. It seems that it should just mix into a homogenous mixture, but sometimes it does cause strata.

Juliene did research on the effects of dessication to cause bedding planes. That's why creationists don't get in an uproar when challenged. The mechanics are there, just not widely known, as they will quickly be ignored, or pulled into a "local flooding" scenario.

As for your comments on the ages of the bad land clays, these are based on the fossils in the sediments, and other dating methods which rests upon assumptions as to the parent daughter ratio and their actual origin. Not all daughter or parent isotopes in minerals or rocks are there because of decay/ There's no assurance the rocks or minerals are in the same state as they were at origin, and contrarily there is evidence of zircon crystals being mictac, with hydroxides inside them. Radiometric dating is just convenient for the old earth theory. But there are other evidences that contradict it. So which one is right?

#14 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 12 February 2011 - 10:01 AM

But the geologic column contains fossils of many sea creatures before fossils from life forms that lived on land are found. Plants that have seeds (angiosperms) came even later, and plants bearing fruit later still. The order may in a very, very general sense match what is in Genesis as you note in your short summary of each group of verses,  but the very first life mentioned is that of land plants that are only noted in the geologic column as fossil evidence closer to the top than the bottom. The first plants started to grow in water long before any appeared on land. Seeds are an adaptation in forms that lived on the land.

View Post


Thanks for pointing that out. Any new idea needs the bugs worked out. But, I also see a problem with evolution if plants did not come until later. Many sea life require plants in order to survive.

Plankton is vital.

#15 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 13 February 2011 - 01:07 AM

But the geologic column contains fossils of many sea creatures before fossils from life forms that lived on land are found.

How is that contradictory?

Two things: The herbs mentioned in scripture are likely not angiosperms. It seems to me that seed has a different meaning here.

The order of the geological column also includes what was buried in sediment in the flood, so... we go back to ecological systems that were closer to sea level or closer to shore being the first layers in the geological column.

I did say it seems to be a mixture of both. I am still working out the details. After I get multiple degrees that would make anything I say worthwhile, I will write a book.  :P  :D Look for it in about 25 years or so.

View Post


If the geologic column contains animal life in the seas before it shows land plants, it is not showing the same order of creation as a strict line by line reading of Genesis shows.

I don't think you have a basis for determining whether of not the herbs mentioned were angiosperms or whether or not the seeds mentioned have a different meaning. Perhaps you are thinking they have a figurative as well as a literal meaning? If so why stick to "literal" interpretations about the descriptions of the flood? But this distinction really doesn't matter, as fruits are mentioned and are almost certainly referring to angiosperms. But assume the plants mentioned are all gymnosperms, even though this is throwing out a more literal interpretation, and the order in Genesis still does not exactly match what is in the geologic column.

Whatever deposits were left by the flood are part of the geologic record.

#16 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 13 February 2011 - 01:11 AM

Thanks for pointing that out. Any new idea needs the bugs worked out. But, I also see a problem with evolution if plants did not come until later. Many sea life require plants in order to survive.

Plankton is vital.

View Post


Yes, plankton is indeed vital. Plants did come early, and were necessary for the survival of marine animals then and now. Fossils show that plant life thrived in the oceans before land plants emerged.

I agree that in general Genesis is describing to creation of life, and that God is behind that creation.

#17 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 14 February 2011 - 03:30 AM

In flood geology, coal beds were formed from vegatable matter and log mats, just like log mats wer at Mt St Helens.  You don't need swamps and hundreds of thousands of years of accumulation of peat.  There is one creationist paper that reports a forked coal seam.  There is a seam that forks on one that is more level and descends.  There is no way a swamp could do this. You can't use original horizontalality, because it forks off the more level seam, and if I remember correctly, forks into a lower seam.


Although I do not think the accumulation of the shreded tree material at Mt. St. Helen's has much to do with the formation of coal, the aspect I thought was missing in the model you were formulating for this fossil site to form a coal was the overburden necessary for compressing organic material into a coal. No, one does not need swamps and hundreds of thousands of years, but you will not form a coal on the surface with no compaction.

I have seen coal beds that do quite a bit of contortion. Beds often do not stay horizontal due to the actions of folding and faulting.

McKee saw multiple strata, and what appeared to be bedding planes betwee.  There are layer cake strata at Mt St Helens from ash flows.  This is counter intuitive.  It seems that it should just mix into a homogenous mixture, but sometimes it does cause strata.


Ash and mud flows are known all over the world that essentially are stratified. These have been seen to form in modern events, and similar rocks are found within formations from the past.

Juliene did research on the effects of dessication to cause bedding planes.  That's why creationists don't get in an uproar when challenged.  The mechanics are there, just not widely known, as they will quickly be ignored, or pulled into a "local flooding" scenario.


Why don't you post some of Julien's work on this aspect. I have yet to see this posted anywhere and only see vague arm-waving in reference to it. It seems to me that most creationists are just accepting this as a correct explanation without actually seeing the work.

As for your comments on the ages of the bad land clays, these are based on the fossils in the sediments, and other dating methods which rests upon assumptions as to the parent daughter ratio and their actual origin.  Not all daughter or parent isotopes in minerals or rocks are there because of decay/  There's no assurance the rocks or minerals are in the same state as they were at origin, and contrarily there is evidence of zircon crystals being mictac, with hydroxides inside them.  Radiometric dating is just convenient for the old earth theory.  But there are other evidences that contradict it.  So which one is right?


One doesn't need radiometric dating at for what I have posted about the rocks having differet ages, so all you are doing here is adding a red herring. There are totally different fossil assemblages above and below the Creataceous-Tertiary boundary and your creationist model cannot account for this very well. Yes, my comments are based upon the fossils. There are no dinosaur fossils above the boundary even though most of the YECs on thsi very board seem to believe that dinosaurs have lived throughout human history as shown in a different thread. So why are they suddenly missing just above the boundary?

#18 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 14 February 2011 - 04:23 AM

Yes, plankton is indeed vital. Plants did come early, and were necessary for the survival of marine animals then and now. Fossils show that plant life thrived in the oceans before land plants emerged.

I agree that in general Genesis is describing to creation of life, and that God is behind that creation.

View Post


And where would you say the all the oxygen came from to bond with hydrogen to make all the water if water and rain were before plants? Is there another type rain that does not require H2O?

The reason I bring this up is because it's a problem for the fossil record because:

Plants make oxygen, oxygen is needed for rain. But plants cannot survive without water. So water and plants would have to exist at the very same time, which means the source for oxygen for all the water did not come from plants. It had to come from a different source. What was that source and how is it supported by the column?

#19 numbers

numbers

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Houston

Posted 14 February 2011 - 02:19 PM

And where would you say the all the oxygen came from to bond with hydrogen to make all the water if water and rain were before plants? Is there another type rain that does not require H2O?

Oxygen is the third most common element in the universe, it's produced by fusion in stars. Water is formed when the oxygen from stellar fusion chemically combines with hydrogen which is the most common element in the universe. It's a very common process and water can be found in many places in the universe (moon, mars, comets, interstellar media etc.), regardless of the existance of plant life in those places.

http://en.wikipedia....in_the_Universe
http://en.wikipedia....space#Triatomic

The reason I bring this up is because it's a problem for the fossil record because:

Plants make oxygen, oxygen is needed for rain. But plants cannot survive without water. So water and plants would have to exist at the very same time, which means the source for oxygen for all the water did not come from plants. It had to come from a different source. What was that source and how is it supported by the column?

View Post


Here's the chemical equation for photosynthesis
6CO2 + 6H2O + Energy(photons) -> C6H12O6 + 6O2

Notice that there's the same number of O's on both sides of the equation. 18 Oxygen atoms at the start of the process and 18 Oxygen atoms at the end of the process. Plants simply change what the oxygen atoms are bound to, they don't create them. Plants and photosythetic bacteria were the driving source in the production of the O2 in our atmosphere but the water and oxygen atoms themselves pre-date plants.

The standard method of Oxygen formation is Hydrogen + Nitrogen fusing in a star to produce Oxygen. Once a star explodes the atoms are able to form chemical compounds including water. Water and oxygen (atomic oxygen locked up in various chemical compounds like H2O, CO, and CO2) were already existant, well before plants, well before life, and well before the earth itself formed. Water does not need plants in order to exist. Simply get a large enough amount of hydrogen together, wait a bit, and you will produce water.
http://en.wikipedia....nucleosynthesis

#20 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 15 February 2011 - 02:39 AM

Oxygen is the third most common element in the universe, it's produced by fusion in stars.  Water is formed when the oxygen from stellar fusion chemically combines with hydrogen which is the most common element in the universe.  It's a very common process and water can be found in many places in the universe (moon, mars, comets, interstellar media etc.), regardless of the existance of plant life in those places.

http://en.wikipedia....in_the_Universe
http://en.wikipedia....space#Triatomic
Here's the chemical equation for photosynthesis
6CO2 + 6H2O + Energy(photons) -> C6H12O6 + 6O2


Mars and water?

1) Mar's atmosphere is mainly CO2 (95.32%).
2) The poles on Mars gets so cold this CO2 freezes and falls like snow making it look like polar ice caps exist,
3) The atmosphere barometric pressure is 1/4 - 1/8 that of earth. Which means that any water there would boil at around 50 degrees. Which means all evidence of of oceans etc.... Would be in the atmosphere in gaseous state. But that is not what we find. There being mainly CO2 means there was no water.

http://en.wikipedia....osphere_of_Mars

1) No other planet in the solar system has the oxygen earth does in it's atmosphere.
2) No other planet in the solar system has water like earth does.
3) No other planet has an ozone layer.

Notice that there's the same number of O's on both sides of the equation.  18 Oxygen atoms at the start of the process and 18 Oxygen atoms at the end of the process.  Plants simply change what the oxygen atoms are bound to, they don't create them.  Plants and photosythetic bacteria were the driving source in the production of the O2 in our atmosphere but the water and oxygen atoms themselves pre-date plants.

The standard method of Oxygen formation is Hydrogen + Nitrogen fusing in a star to produce Oxygen.  Once a star explodes the atoms are able to form chemical compounds including water.  Water and oxygen (atomic oxygen locked up in various chemical compounds like H2O, CO, and CO2) were already existant, well before plants, well before life, and well before the earth itself formed.  Water does not need plants in order to exist.  Simply get a large enough amount of hydrogen together, wait a bit, and you will produce water.
http://en.wikipedia....nucleosynthesis

View Post


How do you make H2O out of an atmosphere that is mainly CO2?
How do you have oceans where the water boils at 50 degrees F and the normal temp is 70?
How do you have predicted oceans of water on a planet where water no longer exist, and there is no gaseous evidence in the atmosphere that it ever did?
How do you get ice caps of H2O where there is no water? Frozen CO2.

So why would science lie to the public about mars? It's called lying in the tune of a trillion dollars for the mission to mars. How many people would lie for that money?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users