Jump to content


Photo

Living Fossils Disprove Evolution.


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

#1 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

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

Posted 16 April 2011 - 10:29 PM

The fossil record is supposed to be a time-line that totally supports evolution. Such a time-line would have evidence of how everything survived or died, or how they changed. But recent finds of living fossils show a huge problem as to why no living fossil is ever found in any other layer then it's lowest one.

Because if you go by the fossil record as being some what accurate, no living fossil should be alive. What this puts into question is what exactly was the fossil record recording? Was it Evolution, or was it the flood?

If the fossil record supports the evolution time-line, we would expect these things:

1) No complexity in the lower layers because evolution is about simple life evolving into complex life. But we do not see that.

Also, if the fossil record supports evolution, there should not be any complexity in the lowest layer. Yet the trilobite has fully formed organs.

Posted ImagePosted Image

And so does the nautilus which is also found in the lowest layer and is a living fossil.

Posted Image

Being found in the lowest layer means there is no evolution tree going to these sea creatures. So the question of how they evolved complex, can never be answered. But if you use deductive logic, creation is the only answer.

2) Living fossils such as the Sea Pen and the Coelacanth should have should have time-lines in the fossil record that prove they survived until now, and did not change.

Attached File  living_fossil_record.jpg   22.49KB   1 downloads

Every living fossil found has this problem. It would be explainable if one or two were found in other layers. But that is not the case.

If the fossil record supports the flood:

1) There would be no problem with complexity in the lower layers. The Bible says that the fountains of the deep were broken up, which means the burying process started at the bottom of the oceans. Which means bottom dwellers first, both complex and simple, got buried first. Which is what we see.

Then as the sand and silt rose from the floor of the ocean, the ocean dwelling animals there would get buried and that is what we see in the fossil record. Then land animals were next, which is what we see.

2) Living fossils would not be a problem because the fossil record was not laid over time. It was laid during the flood which makes it to where it was every animal got caught in it. Not the amount of time they lived and died off. So time-lines of survival would not be an issue.

#2 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 April 2011 - 02:05 PM

Ike complexity is purely subjective. I've said as much before and gotten agreements from several creationists here.

Second, living fossils like horseshoe crabs and cockroaches have are good survivors the way they are. Change is not an inevitability.

What the fossil record does show is a number of things.

Banded iron formations below any aerobic life. The chemistry fits perfectly.

No terrestrial mammals below invertebrates.

That's where the fossil record really shines.

#3 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 20 April 2011 - 08:07 PM

Ike complexity is purely subjective.  I've said as much before and gotten agreements from several creationists here.

Second, living fossils like horseshoe crabs and cockroaches have are good survivors the way they are.  Change is not an inevitability. 

What the fossil record does show is a number of things. 

Banded iron formations below any aerobic life.  The chemistry fits perfectly.

No terrestrial mammals below invertebrates. 

That's where the fossil record really shines.

View Post


There is empirical evidence that the flood laid the fossil record.



If you have better evidence, with working processes, I'm all ears.

Also, does majority agreement make new truths and realities, or does evidence with actual working processes?

#4 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 22 April 2011 - 11:57 AM

Ike complexity is purely subjective.  I've said as much before and gotten agreements from several creationists here.

View Post


I just looked up the exact definition of subjective and could not help but to laugh.

Subjective: taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias; "a subjective judgment".

So complexity is all in the mind, and there is no complexity as far as evolution is concerned?

And me pointing it out, makes me bias? :angry:

Well in one post I did point out that evolution, to the point claimed, can only be seen in a virtual world. I guess that is about as subjective as it gets.

#5 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 22 April 2011 - 01:15 PM

I just looked up the exact definition of subjective and could not help but to laugh.

Subjective: taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias; "a subjective judgment".

So complexity is all in the mind, and there is no complexity as far as evolution is concerned?

And me pointing it out, makes me bias?  :angry:

Well in one post I did point out that evolution, to the point claimed, can only be seen in a virtual world. I guess that is about as subjective as it gets.

View Post

The "evidence" of evolution is completely subjective. So is the taxonomy. Yes, I just went there. :P

#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 22 April 2011 - 10:42 PM

Second, living fossils like horseshoe crabs and cockroaches have are good survivors the way they are. Change is not an inevitability.


Single celled bacteria are the best survivors, so what was their need to evolve into multicellular organisms? Aren't they fine the way they are, too?

No terrestrial mammals below invertebrates.

That's where the fossil record really shines.


It might shine on paper, but that wild hypothesis dulls quickly if you look at the rocks.

Angiosperms and insects are found, not just in three places in Pakistan below the cambrian, but also in three different countries.

http://www.mcremo.com/saltrange.html

Bird tracks were reported in the Permian Hermit Shale of the Grand Canyon (Gilmore 1927) and from the Carboniferous of Nova Scotia ( Sternberg 1933).

http://www.grisda.or...igins/09067.htm

More recently, bird tracks were found in the late triassic.

http://www.uncommond...ic-shore-birds/

The fossil record simply doesn't yield the expected results of ToE without nonsense such as "Birdlike" or "It must be a tectonic underthrust."




Enjoy.

#7 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 23 April 2011 - 07:37 PM

Ike complexity is purely subjective.  I've said as much before and gotten agreements from several creationists here.

View Post

I just looked up the exact definition of subjective and could not help but to laugh.

Subjective: taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias; "a subjective judgment".

So complexity is all in the mind, and there is no complexity as far as evolution is concerned?

And me pointing it out, makes me bias? :D

Well in one post I did point out that evolution, to the point claimed, can only be seen in a virtual world. I guess that is about as subjective as it gets.

View Post


What’s funny here Ike, is that our “theistic” friend here is making a subjective observation about an objective fact: There is complexity in ALL of life; from the multitudinous lines of information in the smallest of things (like the cell and DNA) to the incomprehensible intricacies of the human brain. Further, it doesn't matter who agrees with a wrong statement; what matters is tht the statement is wrong. Or, as G.K. Chesterton said - "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions."


It does cause one to ponder the intent and reasoning of some.

#8 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 24 April 2011 - 04:50 AM

It might shine on paper, but that wild hypothesis dulls quickly if you look at the rocks.

Angiosperms and insects are found, not just in three places in Pakistan below the cambrian, but also in three different countries.

http://www.mcremo.com/saltrange.html

Bird tracks were reported in the Permian Hermit Shale of the Grand Canyon (Gilmore 1927) and from the Carboniferous of Nova Scotia ( Sternberg 1933).

http://www.grisda.or...igins/09067.htm

More recently, bird tracks were found in the late triassic.

http://www.uncommond...ic-shore-birds/

The fossil record simply doesn't yield the expected results of ToE without nonsense such as "Birdlike" or "It must be a tectonic underthrust."
Enjoy.

View Post


Jason,
Great find. This abstract in your first link demolishes the claim of perfect order. The cambrian is 450 million years before the Euocene. Yet the "euocene" insects and plant dating ranges need to be moved back to the Cambrian by this find. Or they'll have to move the extinction dates of an entire Cambian group of biota to the Euocene. That means we now have a 450 million year stasis in the Cambrian biota, which have been claimed by scientist to be the foundational "body plans" for every phylla. http://www.fossilmus.../Chengjiang.htm



Either scenario is not supportive of the ToE. However, in the creative fiat model, insects, advanced plants, and the Cambrian biota lived at the same time in different locations. Two are land, one is marine. In the flood model, the plants and insects were mixed into a Cambrian settting or visa versa. Check out the evidence as it sits in the rocks, not on charts.

Paleobotanical Anomalies Bearing on the Age of the Salt Range Formation of Pakistan:
A Historical Survey of an Unresolved Scientific Controversy

For Presentation at XXI International Congress of History of Science, Mexico City, July 8-14, 2001

by Michael A. Cremo, Research Associate in History and Philosophy of Science, Bhaktivedanta Institute, 9701 Venice Blvd. Suite 5, Los Angeles, CA 90034, USA. Phone (310) 837-5283,  Fax (310) 837-1056,  E-mail mcremo@compuserve.com

Abstract

The age of the Salt Range Formation in the Salt Range Mountains of Pakistan was a matter of extreme controversy among geologists from the middle nineteenth century to the middle twentieth century. Of great importance in the later discussions were fragments of advanced plants and insects discovered in the Salt Range Formation by researchers such as B. Sahni. According to Sahni, these finds indicated an Eocene age for the Salt Range Formation. But geological evidence cited by others was opposed to this conclusion, supporting instead a Cambrian age for the Salt Range formation. Modern geological opinion is unanimous that the Salt Range Formation is Cambrian. But Sahni's evidence for advanced plant and insect remains in the Salt Range Formation is not easily dismissed. It would appear that there is still a contradiction between the geological and paleontological evidence, just as there was during the time of active controversy. During the time of active controversy, E. R. Gee suggested that the conflict might be resolved by positing the existence of an advanced flora and fauna in the Cambrian. This idea was summarily dismissed at the time, but, although it challenges accepted ideas about the evolution of life on earth, it appears to provide the best fit with the different lines of evidence. The existence of advanced plant and animal life during the Cambrian is consistent with accounts found in the Puranic literature of India.



#9 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 25 April 2011 - 06:04 AM

There is empirical evidence that the flood laid the fossil record.



If you have better evidence, with working processes, I'm all ears.

Also, does majority agreement make new truths and realities, or does evidence with actual working processes?

View Post


Ikster, the video clip you provided was sensational. May it be used far and wide.

But where, oh, where is our resident evolutionist geologist, geode? I'd like to see how he handles those examples by direct, experimental observations. Boom!

#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 25 April 2011 - 07:32 PM

Sure, it's a google video. You go to google search engine type in "drama in the rocks". Click on video link and there you are. If you select youtube link it's in several parts. Select the one that is a little over 30 minutes and that's the whole video. And because that video is not for sale in the US because of international laws on trade in that country, if you have a way to download it. Better do it. Because if it goes off of google or youtube, there won' be any resource left to watch it on.

#11 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 27 April 2011 - 04:47 AM

Ikster, the video clip you provided was sensational. May it be used far and wide.

But where, oh, where is our resident evolutionist geologist, geode? I'd like to see how he handles those examples by direct, experimental observations. Boom!

View Post


This video gets posted quite frequently in this forum. I was not the first to comment upon the false claims made in it, but I as well wrote several posts last year about some of the baseless conclusions set forth, especially explaining why the experiment shown actually validates the principle or Law of Superposition instead of showing it to be wrong as is claimed. But this is not the only false claim made, and I commented upon others.

An informed viewer will be put on guard right from the very beginning. Right from the start a term not defined by geologists as given (“banks”) is used. These “banks” are explained in a photo with so-called “polystrate” tree fossils as if the stratigraphic units shown were deposited with clinoform depositional surfaces (shown in an overlay) when they were clearly deposited in horizontal units. The so called banks are separated by bedding surfaces that also are surfaces of essentially equivalent time.

Right at the beginning a frequently used strawman argument is set forth, that it has been assumed that the “banks” have taken millions of years to deposit. What is really true is that years before the video was produced geologists studying this stratigraphic section in which the fossil trees were found published findings and concluded that “catastrophic sedimentation events with high rates of deposition” were involved in the burial of the tree trucks. It was concluded for the rocks shown in the photo (apparently from the Pottsville Formation) that “The autocyclic mechanism for the preservation and stacking of clastic swamp paleosols (early compaction of buried peat bodies and the creation of local sediment accommodation space ) was the controlling factor in the distribution of facies in the vegetated coastal area over a relatively short time scale (hundreds to thousands of years). Allocyclic mechanisms (tectonism, eustacy) would have controlled the facies and thickness of depositional or genetic sequences basin-wide over much longer periods of time ( 10,000 to 100,000 years)."

Demko, T.M., and Gastaldo, R.A., 1992, Paludal environments of the Mary Lee coal zone, Pottsville Formation, Alabama: Stacked clastic swamps and peat mires: International Journal of Coal Geology, v. 20, p. 23-47.

The host in the video says, “Now the curious thing is that we are told any one of these banks takes millions of years to form.” This was not true of what was being published in the geologic literature before he intoned that false statement as can be seen above. The time frame for thicker sections than that being shown was in a range of 10,000 to 100, 000 years with individual units (having the fossilized trees) being subject to “catastrophic sedimentation events with high rates of deposition.” But it would appear that the makers of the video thought it best to argue against a strawman rather than the truth.

The same conclusion about sedimentation rates had been reached by R.A. Gastaldo years before that publication of the paper I cited.

Gastaldo, R.A., 1986. Implications on the paleoecology of autochthonous Carboniferous lycopods in clastic sedimentary environments. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol., 53:191-212.

Gastaldo, R.A., 1986. Selected aspects of plant taphonomic processes in coastal deltaic regimes. In: T.W. Broadhead (Editor), Land plants: Notes for a short course. Univ. Tennessee Dep. Geol. Sic. Studies in Geology 15, pp. 27-44.

But this was and is the conclusion being reached by several mainstream workers, not just those mentioned who had studied the specific area.

The overlay of so-called “layers” in shown that “you can’t see”…there is a good reason for that because these surfaces do not exist in these rocks (as they do in the experiment that is later shown in the video). The rocks shown are not those of a prograding delta and are of particles with different specific gravities. The material to form coal could not accumulate in a situation shown in the experiment. But the rocks shown in the photo are only identified as being in Alabama. The sediments with the fossilized tree trunks are in fact claystones, made of far finer material that what the experiment used, and with other factors such as cohesiveness that leads to a different forms of sedimentary units being deposited.

A student paying just moderate attention in a Geology 101 class would be able to see the way this video distorts geology to make conclusions not properly founded in the experiment that is shown. This experiment did in fact result in providing empirical data that explains some processes of sedimentation and some sedimentary deposits. However, empirical evidence of a worldwide flood is not provided, nor even for localized floods. What is shown is that sediment being transported by unidirectional moving water can result in progradational sedimentary units showing lamination. Other variations in the original parameters (that were not shown in the video) demonstrated that a variation in the velocity of the water will have an effect on lamination in the resulting deposits. This is explained in the mathematical basis for kinetic energy of the particles involved.

There are also serious limitations on how the experiment can be applied as an analogue for rock units that are found. The experiment shown used only two sizes of sand grains (0.2mm and 0.6mm) with the same specific gravity and revealed what forms when using one velocity of the water that carries the sand. But an attempt at a sweeping generality is made that all sedimentary rocks are deposited in the same fashion. It isn’t even reasonable to say that it accounts for a significant portion of such rocks. It is not a realistic example of conditions that would exist in either the “uniformitarian” model or a “flood” model. Having only two grain sizes in a sediment supply with the same specific gravity would be rare in an actual depositional environment. The physics is explained of how this results in laminations. Change the grain sizes or velocity and a different result will be shown, yet the video appears to make the claim that all rocks are deposited “sideways” in the same way with the same result (progradational deposition as in deltas) and with similar differentiation of sediment grain sizes.

The experiment does not offer evidence of flooding conditions, for deltas showing topset, foreset and bottomset deposition can be observed worldwide as they form when rivers enter “standing” bodies of water in non-flood conditions. In addition, sediments can be shown to form with different bedforms in flume experiments such as this one:

Braided Streams

The resulting sedimentary features are quite different than what formed in the experiment in the video. The sediments do not prograde.

Actually all of this assault on valid geologic principles is only made in an attempt to claim that fossils cannot be used to date rocks and it fails to make this case. Aligned grains along the surfaces of the “layers” and other indications of their existence can be found to define these depositional surfaces of that represent time lines as well. They can be seen with study, and are detectable. In the block diagram below deltaic deposits are shown with a dramatic marker bed (volcanic material), but you can detect such surfaces in the shots of the sediment in the flume as well.

Posted Image

Geologists have long been very aware of the difference between chronostratigraphic and lithostratigraphic units. I was personally aware of this 26 years before the video was produced. Dr. Berthault boldly makes a sweeping generality from the false concept presented, that fossils are only useful for Paleoecology and not dating. He is dead wrong and it is no wonder that he and his work has been ignored by everyone except those attempting to prove evolution is a false concept. The distortions he makes of geology fail to provide the foundation for this claim.

Older fossils will be below such surfaces, and younger ones above. Faunal Succession remains valid.

Early on the video shows an outcrop limestone, shale and sandstone which the makers would have us believe was deposited in the same way as shown in the flume experiment even though it clearly is not progradational and is made up of a mixture of grains with different specific gravities and in the case of the limestone is not even deposited as clastic particles at all.

So at the end of all this what we have are false assumptions or conclusions based upon false assumptions. The video heavily implies that all sedimentary rocks are deposited in a similar fashion to what was shown in the flume experiment. This can be shown in other flume experiments or direct observations of deposition in a field setting to be incorrect. Time lines and the boundaries of lithologic changes often are parallel. Then it is wrongly claims that this makes any fossil content in sedimentary rocks useless for dating purposes. Following upon this a claim is then made that the fossil life we find in rocks all basically perished in one great flooding event, but no valid basis has been made for this conclusion.

#12 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

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

Posted 27 April 2011 - 06:36 AM

This video gets posted quite frequently in this forum. I was not the first to comment upon the false claims made in it, but I as well wrote several posts last year about some of the baseless conclusions set forth, especially explaining why the experiment shown actually validates the principle or Law of Superposition instead of showing it to be wrong as is claimed. But this is not the only false claim made, and I commented upon others.

An informed viewer will be put on guard right from the very beginning. Right from the start a term not defined by geologists as given (“banks”) is used. These “banks” are explained in a photo with so-called “polystrate” tree fossils as if the stratigraphic units shown were deposited with clinoform depositional surfaces (shown in an overlay) when they were clearly deposited in horizontal units. The so called banks are separated by bedding surfaces that also are surfaces of essentially equivalent time.

A frequently used strawman argument is set forth, that it has been assumed that the “banks” have taken millions of years to deposit.  What is really true is that years before the video was produced geologists published findings of the section in which the trees were found and concluded that “catastrophic sedimentation events with high rates of deposition” were involved.  It was concluded for the rocks shown in the photo (apparently from the Pottsville Formation)  that “The autocyclic mechanism for the preservation and stacking of clastic swamp paleosols (early compaction of buried peat bodies and the creation of local sediment accommodation space ) was the controlling factor in the distribution of facies in the vegetated coastal area over a relatively short time scale (hundreds to thousands of years). Allocyclic mechanisms (tectonism, eustacy) would have controlled the facies and thickness of depositional or genetic sequences basin-wide over much longer periods of time ( 10,000 to 100,000 years)."

Demko, T.M., and Gastaldo, R.A., 1992, Paludal environments of the Mary Lee coal zone, Pottsville Formation, Alabama: Stacked clastic swamps and peat mires: International Journal of Coal Geology, v. 20, p. 23-47.

The host in the video says, “Now the curious thing is that we are told any one of these banks takes millions of years to form.” This was not true of what was being published in the geologic literature as can be seen above. The time frame for thicker sections than being shown was in a range of 10,000 to 100, 000 years with individual units having the fossilized trees being subject to “catastrophic sedimentation events with high rates of deposition.” But it would appear that the makers of the video thought it best to argue against a strawman rather than the truth.

The same conclusion about sedimentation rates had been reached by R.A. Gastaldo years before that publication of the paper I cited.

Gastaldo, R.A., 1986. Implications on the paleoecology of autochthonous Carboniferous lycopods in clastic sedimentary environments. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol., 53:191-212.

Gastaldo, R.A., 1986. Selected aspects of plant taphonomic processes in coastal deltaic regimes. In: T.W. Broadhead (Editor), Land plants: Notes for a short course. Univ. Tennessee Dep. Geol. Sic. Studies in Geology 15, pp. 27-44.

But this was and is the conclusion being reached by several mainstream workers, not just those mentioned who had studied the specific area.

The overlay of so-called “layers” in shown that “you can’t see”…there is a good reason for that because these surfaces do not exist in these rocks (as they do in the experiment that is later shown in the video). The rocks shown are not those of a prograding delta and are of particles with different specific gravities. The material to form coal could not accumulate in a situation shown in the experiment. But the rocks shown in the photo are only identified as being in Alabama. The sediments with the fossilized tree trunks are in fact claystones, made of far finer material that what the experiment used, and with other factors such as cohesiveness that leads to a different forms of sedimentary units being deposited.

A student paying just moderate attention in a Geology 101 class would be able to see the way this video distorts geology to make conclusions not properly founded in the experiment that is shown. This experiment did in fact result in providing empirical data that explains some processes of sedimentation and some sedimentary deposits. However, empirical evidence of a worldwide flood is not provided, nor even for localized floods. What is shown is that sediment being transported by unidirectional moving water can result in progradational sedimentary units showing lamination. Other variations in the original parameters (that were not shown in the video) demonstrated that a variation in the velocity of the water will have an effect on lamination in the resulting deposits. This is explained in the mathematical basis for kinetic energy of the particles involved. 

There are also serious limitations on how the experiment can be applied as an analogue for rock units that are found. The experiment shown used only two sizes of sand grains (0.2mm and 0.6mm) with the same specific gravity and revealed what forms when using one velocity of the water that carries the sand. But an attempt at a sweeping generality is made that all sedimentary rocks are deposited in the same fashion.  It isn’t even reasonable to say that it accounts for a significant portion of such rocks. It is not a realistic example of conditions that would exist in either the “uniformitarian” model or a “flood” model. Having only two grain sizes in a sediment supply with the same specific gravity would be rare in an actual depositional environment. The physics is explained of how this results in laminations. Change the grain sizes or velocity and a different result will be shown, yet the video appears to make the claim that all rocks are deposited “sideways”  in the same way with the same result (progradational deposition as in deltas) and with similar differentiation of sediment grain sizes.

The experiment does not offer evidence of flooding conditions, for deltas showing topset, foreset and bottomset deposition can be observed worldwide as they form when rivers enter “standing” bodies of water in non-flood conditions. In addition, sediments can be shown to form with different bedforms in flume experiments such as this one:

Braided Streams

The resulting sedimentary features are quite different than what formed in the experiment in the video. The sediments do not prograde.

Actually all of this assault on valid geologic principles is only made in an attempt to claim that fossils cannot be used to date rocks and it fails to make this case. Aligned grains along the surfaces of the “layers” and other indications of their existence can be found to define these depositional surfaces of that represent time lines as well.  They can be seen with study, and are detectable. In the block diagram below deltaic deposits are shown with a dramatic marker bed (volcanic material), but you can detect such surfaces in the shots of the sediment in the flume as well.

Posted Image

Geologists have long been very aware of the difference between chronostratigraphic and lithostratigraphic units. I was personally aware of this 26 years before the video was produced. Dr. Berthault boldly makes a sweeping generality from the false concept presented, that fossils are only useful for Paleoecology and not dating. He is dead wrong and it is no wonder that he and his work has been ignored by everyone except those attempting to prove evolution is a false concept. The distortions he makes of geology fail to provide the foundation for this claim.

Older fossils will be below such surfaces, and younger ones above. Faunal Succession remains valid.

Early on the video shows an outcrop limestone, shale and sandstone which the makers would have us believe was deposited in the same way as shown in the flume experiment even though it clearly is not progradational and is made up of a mixture of grains with different specific gravities and in the case of the limestone is not even deposited as clastic particles at all.

So at the end of all this what we have are false assumptions or conclusions based upon false assumptions. The video heavily implies that all sedimentary rocks are deposited in a similar fashion to what was shown in the flume experiment. This can be shown in other flume experiments or direct observations of deposition in a field setting to be incorrect. Time lines and the boundaries of lithologic changes often are parallel. Then it is wrongly claims that this makes any fossil content in sedimentary rocks useless for dating purposes. Following upon this a claim is then made that the fossil life we find in rocks all basically perished in one great flooding event, but no valid basis has been made for this conclusion.

View Post


If the evidence does not conform to evolution, there will always be a problem with it. right? Why not just admit it?

Also, unlike your post. The video shows observed testing and processes that can be repeated (empirical). To debunk the video, you would have to provide similar type testing that also can be repeated in a lab. Otherwise your words are just words, and your personal opinion. Which because you believe in evolution will always be against "anything YEC".

#13 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 27 April 2011 - 06:38 AM

Sure, it's a google video. You go to google search engine type in "drama in the rocks". Click on video link and there you are. If you select youtube link it's in several parts. Select the one that is a little over 30 minutes and that's the whole video. And because that video is not for sale in the US because of international laws on trade in that country, if you have a way to download it. Better do it. Because if it goes off of google or youtube, there won' be any resource left to watch it on.

View Post


Actually a VHS copy can be yours for slightly less than 15 euros from this site. However, I would guess that it would be in a PAL format.

Melodrama in the Rocks

#14 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1031 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 27 April 2011 - 06:43 AM

This video gets posted quite frequently in this forum. I was not the first to comment upon the false claims made in it, but I as well wrote several posts last year about some of the baseless conclusions set forth, especially explaining why the experiment shown actually validates the principle or Law of Superposition instead of showing it to be wrong as is claimed. But this is not the only false claim made, and I commented upon others. ...

View Post

Perhaps you should place a link to where you already posted to this. Actually I didn't see where they claim that the "Law of superposition" is wrong. What I recall is that they did demonstrate something concerning banks and layers. The claim was made that layers/banks do not represent ages. And that is something easily validated by two points:
* You do actually find fossils in the layers, which indicates rapid burial.
* The sediment layers do consist of relatively homogeneous material. Something I wouldn't expect, if they were formed over "millions" of years.

But I don't want to derail the thread. What I just said may be more at home in the thread you are going to point out.

#15 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 27 April 2011 - 06:38 PM

Actually a VHS copy can be yours for slightly less than 15 euros from this site.  However, I would guess that it would be in a PAL format.

Melodrama in the Rocks

View Post


I can see you haven't changed a bit, refusing to be corrected even by the strongest (& clearest) empirical data.

The problem with your position is that it is unbiblical. The Word of God states in both the old and the new testaments that Noah's flood covered the entire earth and the evidence bears up what the writers of scripture....AND the written tradition of over 250 cultures of the ancient world testifies. But I learned a long time ago that none of that is good enough for you.

#16 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

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

Posted 27 April 2011 - 06:56 PM

I can see you haven't changed a bit, refusing to be corrected even by the strongest (& clearest) empirical data.

The problem with your position is that it is unbiblical. The Word of God states in both the old and the new testaments that Noah's flood covered the entire earth and the evidence bears up what the writers of scripture....AND the written tradition of over 250 cultures of the ancient world testifies. But I learned a long time ago that none of that is good enough for you.

View Post


With due respect to geode:
Evolution is all about conformism. It's not the believer's fault, it's what's required. It's everywhere I post or get e-mails.

Also, if you go download the free version of Real Player, it has an option that allows you to download the video play it and convert it to a different format if needed.

#17 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 28 April 2011 - 01:50 AM

I can see you haven't changed a bit, refusing to be corrected even by the strongest (& clearest) empirical data.

The problem with your position is that it is unbiblical. The Word of God states in both the old and the new testaments that Noah's flood covered the entire earth and the evidence bears up what the writers of scripture....AND the written tradition of over 250 cultures of the ancient world testifies. But I learned a long time ago that none of that is good enough for you.

View Post


My position is just fine in terms of my concept of what is written in the Bible, whcih really says nothing about the subject of geology. Yes, I am sure that what occured as chronicled by the writers of the flood that Noah encountered (and those of some other flood traditions) appeared to affect and essentially cover the world as they knew it. But they knew of only a small percentage of our planet. Pushing their experience into a literal worldwide flood is your privilege, but geologic data does not support it. It does not bear up to investigation of what is found in the rock record.

You are right, a literal interpretation of Bible verses that is shown to be impossible is not good enough for me. I will not willfully ignore scientific facts to allow for a interpretation of the Bible that could not have happened, and that has nothing to do with the important aspects of my faith in Christ and His teachings. God gave us a brain to use, and to seek the truth is His creation, not to hide our heads in the sand.

P.S. And as to you quoting me. Yes, in actual fact the video is on offer for just under 15 euros.

#18 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 28 April 2011 - 02:05 AM

My position is just fine in terms of my concept of what is written in the Bible, whcih really says nothing about the subject of geology.  Yes, I am sure that what occured as chronicled by the writers of the flood that Noah encountered (and those of some other flood traditions) appeared to affect and essentially cover the world as they knew it. But they knew of only a small percentage of our planet. Pushing their experience into a literal worldwide flood is your privilege, but geologic data does not support it. It does not bear up to investigation of what is found in the rock record.

You are right, a literal interpretation of Bible verses that is shown to be impossible is not good enough for me. I will not willfully ignore scientific facts to allow for a interpretation of the Bible that could not have happened, and that has nothing to do with the important aspects of my faith in Christ and His teachings. God gave us a brain to use, and to seek the truth is His creation, not to hide our heads in the sand.

P.S. And as to you quoting me. Yes, in actual fact the video is on offer for just under 15 euros.

View Post

I have a question. I'm not sure how much weight you give to the Hebrew Bible but many TE and Old Earth Creationists give the meaning of the word "yom" in Genesis the semantic that applies to an indefinite period of time. I've asked Hebrew Scholars about this and they say that The Bible puts a quantifier in front of "yom" which is never done when "yom" means an indefinite period of time. Have you ever heard of this? And if so, how do you reconcile it?

I could write a more detailed post about why Biblically the flood must be universal but I'm about to get on the road again shortly.

#19 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 28 April 2011 - 02:26 AM

Yes, I am sure that what occured as chronicled by the writers of the flood that Noah encountered (and those of some other flood traditions) appeared to affect and essentially cover the world as they knew it. But they knew of only a small percentage of our planet.

View Post


This raises the question as to whether the author of Genesis wrote his account "as he knew it" or "as God knew it". I understand that the human perspective would, to some degree, influence how the scriptures were written, but on the other hand we can't presume that the writer was simply recording what he had "scientifically observed".

For example, there is no way the author could have observed creation, detailed how deep the flood waters would have covered the mountains, given any mention of its geographical extent, or recorded any of the events that occured during the flood (unless he was one of the eight on the ark).

Either we believe that this information was given through divine inspiration, or we don't.

Sure we can use our brains, just as we can use our hands or our feet. They are simply tools, and as tools they have boundaries in which they can serve us. Unless God gave us the same ability as the author of Genesis, to understand and have faith in things that we haven't "observed", then I would be inclined to do the very thing that you are doing - putting my brain on the highest possible pedistal imaginable and declaring it to be a "lamp for my feet and a light on my path".

But I do believe God has given us that ability. If that weren't the case I would never have become a Christian in the first place.

#20 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 28 April 2011 - 02:26 AM

If the evidence does not conform to evolution, there will always be a problem with it. right? Why not just admit it?

Also, unlike your post. The video shows observed testing and processes that can be repeated (empirical). To debunk the video, you would have to provide similar type testing that also can be repeated in a lab. Otherwise your words are just words, and your personal opinion. Which because you believe in evolution will always be against "anything YEC".

View Post


What a pity that you paid little or no attention to what I wrote. I did not attempt to refute the empirical results that were shown in the experiment. It shows prograding sediments and the patterns that would repeat if the conditions were held the same. It is the conclusions that relied upon a distorted application of what was shown in the experiment and upon a distortion geologic principles to which I took exception. They might as well of done an experiment about the amount of time it takes to burn toast at a given temperature in a toaster, and made a wrong application of that data. It would be repeatable empirical results and just about as relevent.

I offered the example of a braided stream pattern that formed in a laboratory setting that can be repeated time and time again that goes against the sweeping generality of the formation of sedimentary rocks offered in the video. This does in fact refute that part of the video. I gave a real example of a marker bed in clinoform bedding the refutes the conclusions about the inabaility to distinguish the "layers" of rock than contain fossils and ascertain their relative ages. I pointed out that this was also shown in the actual experiment shown in the video but not pointed out.

The video's goal was to comment upon evolution. My post was really to point out the very poor conclusions about geology that were drawn from geologic evidence. They dragged evolution into this. My comments would have been the same regardless of whether or not it was mentioned.

If the evidence does not conform to evolution, there will always be a problem with it. right? Why not just admit it?

The evidence shown in the experiment does not go one way or the other in terms of the validity of evolution. No, I do not approach geology with this bias, but the makers of the video apparently are not concerned with whether or not the evidence shown on its own supports their YEC viewpoint and were forced to resort to distortions of valid science to smooth past this problem. The claim to refute the Principle of Superposition is one of the worst examples of this that I have ever encountered.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users