Jump to content


Photo

Fossil Record, Time And The Flood.


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

#21 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 28 November 2011 - 08:59 PM

Miles does it really matter? Are there really problems? I mean a problem is not a problem if it does not really matter.


The part that doesn't matter is the number of gaps because there's no expectation for any particular number of fossils to be found.

The other pieces of your post involved incorrect starting premises. I posted to point out the problems with those premises.

You stated that fossils are never found repeated in more than one layer. That was an incorrect statement because there are many cases of fossils found spanning multiple time periods.
You stated that in order to be accurate the fossil record should contain fossils of living animals. That is incorrect because the fossil record can be accurate without being complete.
You stated that the fossil record matched a specific flood sorting pattern. That was an incorrect statement because we don't find fossils sorted by habitat or mobility or buoyancy.

These findings aren't mentioned by evolutionists today, because it clearly falsifies their ideas. I don't know how a 2ft. diameter tree trunk could possibly slip though hundreds of feet of tiny cracks in the rocks that aren't visible or reported by anyone, but if that's your idea, then it certainly belongs to you and nobody else. When we have thin sedimentary layers in salt deposits that extend for many miles, then it normally falsifies reworking as a plausible explanation.

Here's the complete mention of the tree trunk in that article, I'm not seeing where you are getting that it was found under hundreds of feet of rock in unreworked surrounding material.

Cotter (1931, p. 299) also made this interesting observation: "About the year 1924 a large trunk of wood of a modern type and scarcely at all decomposed was found in the salt in the upper tunnel of the Khewra mine. Dr. Dunn, who examined this wood states that the trunk was about 2 ft. in diameter, and that there were several branches associated with it of about 3 to 4 inches in diameter. Prof. Sahni regarded this wood as modern and resembling an Acacia now found growing in the Salt Range.


There is no way to get these thin sedimentary layers into salt deposits after the fact. But if these salts precipitated out of solution during a flood, then we can clearly fit it into the model while carrying plants, insects, and trilobites during deposition.


I'm going to try to get back to the original topic regarding the fossil record being sorted by floods and examples such as flowers being inconsistant with that idea.

This is a example of a fossilized flower.
https://www.msu.edu/...ossilflower.jpg
This is a example of a fossilized pollen grain. Pollen and spores and similar fossils are called microfossils.
http://www.nzetc.org...awFore237b.html

The paper you link talks about microfossils (pollen, wood fragments, etc.), not about flowers being found (tree stumps are also not flowers). While microfossils could be evidence of flowers existence if they were confirmed to be in-situ, they are not flowers themselves. To make things simple lets say that tomorrow the supposed evolutionist avoidance of evidence of cambrian flowers disappears, and it's announced that there were definitely flowers in existence at the time of the cambrian layers deposition. This still wouldn't change that we haven't found any actual fossilized flowers in cambrian strata and if we are talking about the flood's sorting action on flowers we need to be discussing fossils of flowers, not pollen or other non-flower fossils. When we do find fossilized flowers they are not where the original post says we should expect them as a result of sorting by flood.

If the flood sorted flowers by mobility, their fossils should be found near the bottom of any set of fossils since flowers can't swim or run. Instead we find them above mobile swimmers like trilobites and certain mobile land species.

If the flood sorted flowers by elevation we should find aquatic animals below flowers. Instead we find aquatic mammals above or even with them.

If the flood sorted flowers by buoyancy we should find them above denser objects. Instead we find them below objects like human made stone tools.

#22 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

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

Posted 29 November 2011 - 02:41 AM

The part that doesn't matter is the number of gaps because there's no expectation for any particular number of fossils to be found.


Okay let's use the scientific method to solve this once and for all. If living fossils exist, and the fossil record is laid down by time, then I predict that living fossils will be found in more than one layer conforming both findings. Problem is that's not going to be true because you cannot find support for what did not happen.

The other pieces of your post involved incorrect starting premises. I posted to point out the problems with those premises.

You stated that fossils are never found repeated in more than one layer. That was an incorrect statement because there are many cases of fossils found spanning multiple time periods.


Then the pictures of the fossil record which show clearly that no fossil ever gets repeated is wrong. So all fossil record diagrams need to be fixed. And since you have shown the problem is really on your side, that's not my problem. But let's be honest, the fossil record diagram is not going to be corrected anytime soon because it does not matter.

You stated that in order to be accurate the fossil record should contain fossils of living animals. That is incorrect because the fossil record can be accurate without being complete.


Problem is the fossil record does not record even in one instance that any fossils found ever survived. Not my problem that you are trying to use a cop out on this one and sweep it under the rug. But go ahead, coming up with excuses is very common in evolutionists circles. Again showing it does not matter because evolution and all it's support mechanisms are not required to prove anything unless the evolutionists say it does. So missing living fossils are not a problem unless you say it is, right? Sounds like a bias decision.

You stated that the fossil record matched a specific flood sorting pattern. That was an incorrect statement because we don't find fossils sorted by habitat or mobility or buoyancy.


Let's see, you don't see because you don;t want to see. Sounds about right. Make sure to take your blinders off I did not put up anything that might make you question your belief.

Oh, by the way. I still can show how water sorts layers, can you show what sorts yours in your reality?

#23 Sanae Asani

Sanae Asani

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Netherlands

Posted 30 November 2011 - 10:02 AM

Hello,


I have a question about this. If the flood caused the order of (fossil) layers, shouldn't we expect the heavier things on the bottom, as they sink faster in water? for example the biggest rocks on the bottom and than layers of rocks decreasing in size as the layers are going up? Also, wood floats, so wood should be at the top too, but we also find wood in all fossil layers.

same with fossils, the heavier animals would sink faster, thus they should be at the bottom. that would mean the dinosaurs at the bottom and insects at the top.

But what we see is that there are heavier animals above smaller animals, more like a chaotic order. insect fossils can be found in all layers.

How can we explain that?

#24 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

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

Posted 30 November 2011 - 12:16 PM

Hello,


I have a question about this. If the flood caused the order of (fossil) layers, shouldn't we expect the heavier things on the bottom, as they sink faster in water? for example the biggest rocks on the bottom and than layers of rocks decreasing in size as the layers are going up? Also, wood floats, so wood should be at the top too, but we also find wood in all fossil layers.

same with fossils, the heavier animals would sink faster, thus they should be at the bottom. that would mean the dinosaurs at the bottom and insects at the top.

But what we see is that there are heavier animals above smaller animals, more like a chaotic order. insect fossils can be found in all layers.

How can we explain that?



In a uniform flow model, yes. But, we have mountains and valleys which change flow direction and velocity. According to paleocurrent data the Paleozoic strata flowed from east to south to west across the U.S. and suddenly changed from west to east in the Mesozoic. The Precambrian shows normal paleocurrent data and that is were the majority of plants, insects, etc. are found that have been posted in this thread. The rest should be sorted by unpredictable catastrophic forces as evidenced by the paleocurrent data.



Posted Image

You will notice that there is a topography in the Precambrian strata, but there isn't one in the Paleozoic or the Mesozoic strata but there is a topography on top. This is expected since the Precambrian was the original land surface before the flood.


We also know that flow velocity slows as water volume increases. When you fill a bath tub, the empty tub has very turbid velocity uniformly in the front of the tub. But as the tub fills, the flow at the back of the tub is much less than the flow velocity directly underneath the faucet.

Given the fact that we don't know were any specific organism was in relation to the flow input, then it's impossible to predict which organism will be catastrophically covered by a low water volume sediment flow and which will be carried away and drown in water current. But we can predict evidence of both as some of the examples I have already posted in this thread show.

Entire populations of animals being fossilized are proof that they were overcome with thick layers of sediment before they could drown and float away.


CATACLYSMIC, John R. Horner, "...there were 30 million fossil fragments in that area. At a conservative estimate, we had discovered the tomb of 10,000 dinosaurs ...there was a flood. This was no ordinary spring flood from one of the streams in the area but a catastrophic inundation. ...That's our best explanation. It seems to make the most sense, and on the basis of it we believe that this was a living, breathing group of dinosaurs destroyed in one catastrophic moment." Digging Dinosaurs, 1988, p.131.


Enjoy.

#25 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

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

Posted 30 November 2011 - 04:57 PM

Hello,


I have a question about this. If the flood caused the order of (fossil) layers, shouldn't we expect the heavier things on the bottom, as they sink faster in water? for example the biggest rocks on the bottom and than layers of rocks decreasing in size as the layers are going up? Also, wood floats, so wood should be at the top too, but we also find wood in all fossil layers.

same with fossils, the heavier animals would sink faster, thus they should be at the bottom. that would mean the dinosaurs at the bottom and insects at the top.

But what we see is that there are heavier animals above smaller animals, more like a chaotic order. insect fossils can be found in all layers.

How can we explain that?


There are several factors. If you think all big heavy things sink faster your be wrong. Hippos are very buoyant (float easily in water). And they are how big and how heavy?

1) Buoyancy of the said animal can become a determining factor.
2) When a animal dies it does not always sink right away.
3) Because insects are on the ground most would get covered with the water and sediment (mud) that came up.
4) Wood does float but not all wood is free to do so. Wood quickly covered in mud would not float. Wood that is still alive as trees would still be attached to the ground.
5) And the bigger and smaller rock sorting. Where the rocks end up depends on at what point did they enter into the water sorting. You see when the fountains of the deep broke up, not only was there sediments being spewed up but rock as well. It took 40 days for all the water to come up and also rain down. Sediments and rocks were also coming up during those 40 days as well. Why? Because the earth has movable tectonic plates, and the water underneath them acted as a support was now being removed. The tectonic plates had to move more together as the circumference of the earth decreased. So by the same volume of water that came up to the surface, the earth would also lose in circumference. Kinda like a balloon letting out a little air and not being as big as it was. So as the tectonic plates moved more rock was broken up and spewed up with the water. And because layers were already being laid these rocks, regardless of size, would end up spread all over the column.

So basically what you would have in the rock and layer sorting is sediments and rocks of all sizes being continually spewed up for a 40 day period. This would mean that you would get layer and layer of practically the same type of sorting which means there would be layers repeated, some would be several times as shown in the picture below.

Posted Image

To make it easier to understand. The different size rocks and sediments spewed up on day 1 are going to settle and not wait for the "same" type of different sizes of rocks and sediments to come up on the other 39 days. So the first 24 hours are going to be settled according what came up and what had time to settle. And next 24 hours the same thing. And this will go on for 40 days. So having a constant flow of the same material for 40 days means layers will repeat themselves and the sorting of rock and sediment is not only determined by size but by when they also came up.

#26 Sanae Asani

Sanae Asani

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Netherlands

Posted 30 November 2011 - 05:18 PM

There are several factors. If you think all big heavy things sink faster your be wrong. Hippos are very buoyant (float easily in water). And they are how big and how heavy?

1) Buoyancy of the said animal can become a determining factor.
2) When a animal dies it does not always sink right away.
3) Because insects are on the ground most would get covered with the water and sediment (mud) that came up.
4) Wood does float but not all wood is free to do so. Wood quickly covered in mud would not float. Wood that is still alive as trees would still be attached to the ground.
5) And the bigger and smaller rock sorting. Where the rocks end up depends on at what point did they enter into the water sorting. You see when the fountains of the deep broke up, not only was there sediments being spewed up but rock as well. It took 40 days for all the water to come up and also rain down. Sediments and rocks were also coming up during those 40 days as well. Why? Because the earth has movable tectonic plates, and the water underneath them acted as a support was now being removed. The tectonic plates had to move more together as the circumference of the earth decreased. So by the same volume of water that came up to the surface, the earth would also lose in circumference. Kinda like a balloon letting out a little air and not being as big as it was. So as the tectonic plates moved more rock was broken up and spewed up with the water. And because layers were already being laid these rocks, regardless of size, would end up spread all over the column.

So basically what you would have in the rock and layer sorting is sediments and rocks of all sizes being continually spewed up for a 40 day period. This would mean that you would get layer and layer of practically the same type of sorting which means there would be layers repeated, some would be several times as shown in the picture below.

Posted Image

To make it easier to understand. The different size rocks and sediments spewed up on day 1 are going to settle and not wait for the "same" type of different sizes of rocks and sediments to come up on the other 39 days. So the first 24 hours are going to be settled according what came up and what had time to settle. And next 24 hours the same thing. And this will go on for 40 days. So having a constant flow of the same material for 40 days means layers will repeat themselves and the sorting of rock and sediment is not only determined by size but by when they also came up.


thank you for this understandable reply

yet i have a few points:
1)animals living mostly in water (like hippo's, fish, sea-mammals, crocodiles) are ofcourse adapted for bouyancy, still this doesnt explain the real heavy animals like (land-)dinosaurs . those wouldnt float, would be impossible as thier bones would be very dense to support their weight.
3) i was talking about all insects, also the flying ones.
4) this doesnt explain for specific example mangroves and sea grasses (and other low-elevation plants), those should be the lowest plants in the fossil record (living in lower habitats than any other plants), but are never fossilized except in the highest fossil levels. you cant tell me all of those fossils are from the uprooted ones, as bogs, clay-grounds, etc, preserve fossils extremely well.
5) again thank you for this explanation

another few points:
species, who would be living in the same habitat and with nearly the same characteristics, if they lived together, (for example dolphins and ichthyosaurs, living in identical environments and having nearly identical hydrodynamic properties) should have been sorted together, but are never found together in the actual fossil record.

If fossils were deposited by a flood, they should to be more dense at lower elevations, and less dense concentrations at the tips of mountains. this is not the case.
or if it is as you claim: the 'floating ones' should be at higher elevations, and the 'not floating ones' at lower elevations. this is also not the case.

#27 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 30 November 2011 - 07:22 PM

Okay let's use the scientific method to solve this once and for all. If living fossils exist, and the fossil record is laid down by time, then I predict that living fossils will be found in more than one layer conforming both findings. Problem is that's not going to be true because you cannot find support for what did not happen.


Here you go.

Ordovician horseshoe crab fossil
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080207135801.htm
Jurassic horseshoe crab fossil
http://www.clemson.edu/public/geomuseum/collections/fossils/arthropods/horseshoe_crab.html

Fern fossil from carboniferous
http://louisvillefossils.blogspot.com/2010/04/st-clair-pennsylvania-fern-fossils.html
Fern fossil from Jurassic
http://www.h5.dion.ne.jp/~nspicnic/mine/f/fernSHIRAKAWAe.htm
Article on Eocene fern fossil (no picture)
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2443281

Ginkgo fossils from Jurassic and Eocene
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginkgo

Then the pictures of the fossil record which show clearly that no fossil ever gets repeated is wrong. So all fossil record diagrams need to be fixed. And since you have shown the problem is really on your side, that's not my problem. But let's be honest, the fossil record diagram is not going to be corrected anytime soon because it does not matter.


Is this something like what you are looking for?
http://www.devoniantimes.org/who/images/p-lobefin.gif
How about this? Notice how it labels first appearance and last appearance and that those ranges can cross periods.
http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/Bio10Tuat02-fig-Bio10Tuat02_057a.html

Here's a more visual representation using arrows to mark continuation to present and X's to mark extinction with lines showing the crossing of periods.
http://www.geology.ohio-state.edu/~vonfrese/gs100/lect32/xfig32_06.jpg

Since you used the coelacanth as an example in your opening post, here's a chart showing the range of ceolocanth fossils, note that the group crosses era's which also addresses your statement above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth#Timeline_of_genera

You didn't provide any examples so I can't tell exactly what picture you are talking about of but have you considered that perhaps you misinterpreted what it was intended to show? Could you have been looking at a diagram showing the first occurrences or examples of the most common fossils in a period, rather than a diagram intending to show duration of existence?

Problem is the fossil record does not record even in one instance that any fossils found ever survived. Not my problem that you are trying to use a cop out on this one and sweep it under the rug. But go ahead, coming up with excuses is very common in evolutionists circles. Again showing it does not matter because evolution and all it's support mechanisms are not required to prove anything unless the evolutionists say it does. So missing living fossils are not a problem unless you say it is, right? Sounds like a bias decision.

How recent does a fossil need to be for you to consider it as recording survival?

Here's an article tracing camel spider fossils from upper carboniferous period 300 MYA to the Miocene 10-30MYA
http://www.solpugid.com/Fossil%20History.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark#Evolution
Modern sharks began to appear about 100 million years ago.Fossil mackerel shark teeth date to the Lower Cretaceous. One of the most recently evolved families is the hammerhead shark (family Sphyrnidae), which emerged in the Eocene.[96] The oldest white shark teeth date from 60 to 65 million years ago, around the time of the extinction of the dinosaurs.
http://www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?article_id=39467210581 great white jaw - 4.5 million years ago
There's plenty of younger individual teeth fossils as well, they just don't write news articles about them since most interest is in older fossils not younger.

It's not that gaps in the fossil record aren't a problem because I say so. Gaps aren't a problem because they are expected and explainable by factors such as changes in habitat, decreases in population size, and just plain chance in fossil formation, fossil survival, and fossil discovery.
If you are specifically refering to Lazarus Taxons, missing fossils for those aren't a problem by definition. A lazarus taxon is defined by appearance, disappearance and reappearance. If fossils were found to fill in gaps they would no longer be lazarus taxons and would instead just be standard living fossils. It's like saying that since people can be married, and bachelors are people, there could be married bachelors. By definition this is not true, once a bachelor is married he is no longer a bachelor.


Let's see, you don't see because you don;t want to see. Sounds about right. Make sure to take your blinders off I did not put up anything that might make you question your belief.

Oh, by the way. I still can show how water sorts layers, can you show what sorts yours in your reality?

I've provided several examples of how objects are ordered via time of formation.
Here's another example of something with layers sorted by time. http://t3.gstatic.co...C-TmSysNO7mR_vw
The pink sand on the bottom is on the bottom of the bottle because it was placed in the bottle before the other colors of sand. Each color was placed after the color underneath and before the color above. To apply this to geology simply think of each color as a being added by a separate event or set of events over a period of time. For example, think of the pink sand as lava from an eruption, and the other colors as some other various events like flooding or periods of plant growth. The order of the layers would correspond to the order of the events.

#28 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

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

Posted 30 November 2011 - 08:00 PM

thank you for this understandable reply

yet i have a few points:
1)animals living mostly in water (like hippo's, fish, sea-mammals, crocodiles) are ofcourse adapted for bouyancy, still this doesnt explain the real heavy animals like (land-)dinosaurs . those wouldnt float, would be impossible as thier bones would be very dense to support their weight.


Think of it this way. The animals were not thrown into the flood. They were there as the flood water rose. The animals that had enough buoyancy could possible swim while the ones who did not goy buried and drowned.

So the fish got buried first because they were already in the water and the sediments from the ocean floor breaking up buried them first. And because there was much more sediments in the beginning of this process because of the initial breaking up, the fish were buried quickly right where they lived in the water. This is why the fossil record shows bottom dwellers first, mid ocean dwellers second, and top dwellers last. Land animals came next.

3) i was talking about all insects, also the flying ones.


Can they fly for 40 days? Can they continually fly for even one day? Some insects only live for a few days anyway.

4) this doesnt explain for specific example mangroves and sea grasses (and other low-elevation plants), those should be the lowest plants in the fossil record (living in lower habitats than any other plants), but are never fossilized except in the highest fossil levels. you cant tell me all of those fossils are from the uprooted ones, as bogs, clay-grounds, etc, preserve fossils extremely well.



How hard is the sand on the sea floor? Now if swift swirling waters were to continually go over the sea floor for 40 day like a flowing river, do you think the sand down there would not wash away taking with it the plants?


another few points:
species, who would be living in the same habitat and with nearly the same characteristics, if they lived together, (for example dolphins and ichthyosaurs, living in identical environments and having nearly identical hydrodynamic properties) should have been sorted together, but are never found together in the actual fossil record.


This conclusion is based on assumptions about evidence about things that cannot be tested. Just because ichthyosaurs seems to be related to dolphins does not mean they did exactly the same things or like to live in the same area of water. They may have lived deeper, and may have used gills instead of breathing air. Working from fossils and not actual tissue means you have to guess what the tissue contained. This may have been the only dolphin like fish that had gills.

If fossils were deposited by a flood, they should to be more dense at lower elevations, and less dense concentrations at the tips of mountains. this is not the case.
or if it is as you claim: the 'floating ones' should be at higher elevations, and the 'not floating ones' at lower elevations. this is also not the case.


Here is something for you to ponder. What happens to the tectonic plates when what is underneath them comes up and there is no longer support for them to stay where they are at? They move. And since there is less circumference to the surface of the earth which direction do they move when all the water underneath them is gone? They move together. Now since this is done over a 40 day period and there are layers and fossils buried already, when the mountains get pushed up from the tectonic plates coming together, the fossils end up in the mountains in the same quantity as well because they were already there.

Here's something for you to ponder. It is claimed that it took the river that runs through the Grand Canyon 5 million years to cut out the canyon as we observe it today. What this also means is the top of the Canyon has been exposed to 5 million of vertical where from rain. 5 million years is a very long time right? So should there be any evidence of the horizontal wear for us to observe after 5 million years? And should the cuts into the rock be as deep as the bottom of the canyon, next to the river, where the cuts are much fresher? In the picture below is a comparison of the wear on the top and bottom of the canyon. Notice that the horizontal wear at the top after 5 million years is just as deep as the bottom.

Attached File  Compare_21.jpg   41.44KB   1 downloads

Here's some more to ponder. After 5 millions years of removing of all the sediments required to make the Grand Canyon. Where did the sediments go? That much matter does not just disappear when you only have a river moving it.

But let's do the flood as the mechanism. In the flood for that much sediment to disappear you would have to have a fault line that acted like a drain plug for the sediment to go into and disappear. In the picture below it shows that a major fault line goes right through the middle of the Canyon.

Attached File  grand_canyon_snippet.gif   75.72KB   1 downloads

And because water was all around this fault which acted like a drain plug for the flood waters means that the formation of the canyon should be in all directions from the fault line point. And that is what we see.

Now since I have jumped through some hoops for you maybe you can do one for me. Can you show me how time sorts layers?

#29 Sanae Asani

Sanae Asani

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Netherlands

Posted 01 December 2011 - 05:37 PM

Think of it this way. The animals were not thrown into the flood. They were there as the flood water rose. The animals that had enough buoyancy could possible swim while the ones who did not goy buried and drowned.

So the fish got buried first because they were already in the water and the sediments from the ocean floor breaking up buried them first. And because there was much more sediments in the beginning of this process because of the initial breaking up, the fish were buried quickly right where they lived in the water. This is why the fossil record shows bottom dwellers first, mid ocean dwellers second, and top dwellers last. Land animals came next.

there is also fact that there are fossils from animals "that have enough bouyancy and could sim" at lower altitudes. and the fact that the 'floating animals are scattered amongst all layers, not only the top layer of the fossil order. again, it doesnt explain that.


Can they fly for 40 days? Can they continually fly for even one day? Some insects only live for a few days anyway.



there would be enough floating materials where they could rest.

How hard is the sand on the sea floor? Now if swift swirling waters were to continually go over the sea floor for 40 day like a flowing river, do you think the sand down there would not wash away taking with it the plants?


i am not talking about sand, but clay, bogs.

also, the currents at the bottom would be very less intense the more water is at top, that's basic fluid-behaviour due to the pressure of the water above it.

This conclusion is based on assumptions about evidence about things that cannot be tested. Just because ichthyosaurs seems to be related to dolphins does not mean they did exactly the same things or like to live in the same area of water. They may have lived deeper, and may have used gills instead of breathing air. Working from fossils and not actual tissue means you have to guess what the tissue contained. This may have been the only dolphin like fish that had gills.



you claim my arguments are only assumptions? but i see in your reply alot of may have's. my 'assumptions' have quit alot of evidence from paleobiologist. now, i am not well versed in that field, but i'm sure i could look it up if you are interested (but thats going off topic)


Here's something for you to ponder. It is claimed that it took the river that runs through the Grand Canyon 5 million years to cut out the canyon as we observe it today. What this also means is the top of the Canyon has been exposed to 5 million of vertical where from rain. 5 million years is a very long time right? So should there be any evidence of the horizontal wear for us to observe after 5 million years? And should the cuts into the rock be as deep as the bottom of the canyon, next to the river, where the cuts are much fresher? In the picture below is a comparison of the wear on the top and bottom of the canyon. Notice that the horizontal wear at the top after 5 million years is just as deep as the bottom.

Attached File  Compare_21.jpg   41.44KB   1 downloads


1) why is there only one Grand Canyon. why isn't there at least one on every continent? Did not the Flood waters "retreat" from all continents?
2)If this was true, wouldn't one expect a huge, straight, washed out chasm? Creationists fail to realize that the Grand Canyon has mini-valleys inside it which suggest that slow erosion had to take place from any rain water that fell onto the canyon sides or rock sides, since a huge volume of water would just carve out a wide, straight path.

Here's some more to ponder. After 5 millions years of removing of all the sediments required to make the Grand Canyon. Where did the sediments go? That much matter does not just disappear when you only have a river moving it.

But let's do the flood as the mechanism. In the flood for that much sediment to disappear you would have to have a fault line that acted like a drain plug for the sediment to go into and disappear. In the picture below it shows that a major fault line goes right through the middle of the Canyon.


there already is a delta in the rift valley downstream of the Grand Canyon where sediments have collected.
the currents in the Gulf of California where the Colorado river empties into consistently carry away any sediments dumped there out to sea, thus preventing the formation of a delta at the mouth of the Colorado.
a significant portion of granite and other rocks in the Grand Canyon dissolve, rather than erode in water, and thus, are unable to make a significant contribution to delta sedimentation.

Attached File  grand_canyon_snippet.gif   75.72KB   1 downloads

And because water was all around this fault which acted like a drain plug for the flood waters means that the formation of the canyon should be in all directions from the fault line point. And that is what we see.


why did it only "retreat" at this one location?
and how did the Flood lay down part of the geologic column while at the same time washing it out?

Now since I have jumped through some hoops for you maybe you can do one for me. Can you show me how time sorts layers?


i am not a chronostratigrapher , but i am pretty sure, that it generally is older at the bottom of layers, younger at the top of the layers. but offcourse, earthquakes, landslides, vulcanic eruptions, erosion, (and even floods ;)) and more surface altering forces can disrupt the order locally

#30 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 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 02 December 2011 - 06:29 PM

Preliminary note--This debate is usually clouded by an argument of definitions(semantics), and the nature of superposition. No one should say in my opinion that superposition is completely falsified, and is not a principle of geology, but it's application in traditional sedimentation chronology is--namely that strata are deposited as successive layers, and separated by periods of inactivity, causing bedding planes.

--------------------------------------------------
Post in response to Miles:

I didn't watch the whole video, but the first part seems to conform to the principle of superpositon. Look at the ruler, which gets covered first, the bottom of the ruler or the top of the ruler? If you dug straight down (not diagonally or horizontally) at the ruler, you'd be getting older and older as you traveled down. This would hold for any vertical line down in that example. Superposition states that in general above is younger than below, not that off to the side is younger than below (that's dependant on the principles of original horizontality and lateral continuity). It's also easy to see the diagonal layers at the start and around 1:20 in the video so anyone looking would be able to tell that the sediment was deposited at an angle.

Miles,
The point is "isochrons." Did you watch the diagram of the T1 and T2 isochron layers, and the given particles within? A particle in T1 was laid before a particle inT2, but it is higher in the stratum. The reason being is the isochron layering.

You will find foundational definitions, that University of Colorado sedimentologist Pierre Julienne uses to formulate his conclusions of observational research.

Pierre Julienne-"The sediments accumulated on the bed from time T1 to time T2 DEFINE what is called a layer of sediment. A layer of sediment IS the accumulation of sediment between the initial time T1 and the subsequent time T2...."

[It is displayed by a cycle of finer particles on the bottom of the bed, coarser particles in the middle of the lamination, and then fine particles on top--all explained by Julienne--AFJ]


"The accumulation of sediments displays clear stratification....It is important to understand that the chronology of the formation of the deposits depends on the layers, and not on the strata."

Found in link below, between 7:05 and 8:20.

You seem to want to argue with experimentation, by clouding it with the technicalities in the nature of superposition, and are thereby missing the point. The following video, done at the University of Colorado, shows the physics equations, and experimentation of the principles of sedimentation. You should take notes, and evaluate, before dismissing facts.

The math for fine and course particles, and their segregation in current, is as follows: E=7/10mv^2. The kinetic energy of a particle increases at the given rate where the mass by the velocity squared increases. The effect of this equation on particles of different sizes, causes the particles with less mass to segregate to the bottom of the bed, while the coarser particles roll on top and between a subsequent isochron layer of finer particles--forming microstrata or laminae.

Pierre Julinne in the first video.

#31 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 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 04 December 2011 - 12:46 PM

The paper you link talks about microfossils (pollen, wood fragments, etc.), not about flowers being found (tree stumps are also not flowers). While microfossils could be evidence of flowers existence if they were confirmed to be in-situ, they are not flowers themselves. To make things simple lets say that tomorrow the supposed evolutionist avoidance of evidence of cambrian flowers disappears, and it's announced that there were definitely flowers in existence at the time of the cambrian layers deposition. This still wouldn't change that we haven't found any actual fossilized flowers in cambrian strata and if we are talking about the flood's sorting action on flowers we need to be discussing fossils of flowers, not pollen or other non-flower fossils. When we do find fossilized flowers they are not where the original post says we should expect them as a result of sorting by flood.

If the flood sorted flowers by mobility, their fossils should be found near the bottom of any set of fossils since flowers can't swim or run. Instead we find them above mobile swimmers like trilobites and certain mobile land species.

If the flood sorted flowers by elevation we should find aquatic animals below flowers. Instead we find aquatic mammals above or even with them.

If the flood sorted flowers by buoyancy we should find them above denser objects. Instead we find them below objects like human made stone tools.

The only thing that's sorted is the circular date ranging and ad hoc scenarios that evolution, and geotime require. Actually, if you want to find Cambrian fossils that are higher than flowers, go to the Candian Rockies, and you'll find them on the side of mountains. But of course, there is no other possibility than it was once the sea bottom, so there is no winning. Whatever needs to be done to explain the reason will be done.

Now think, what would happen if we found a flower in the Cambrian biota? It would be earth shattering news (kind of like heme in dino bones), but the timescale would simply be adjusted. Either by moving the extinction date of the Cambrian biota to a later period, or moving the particular flower's date of first appearance. Then alas, there is "order in the fossil record."

And your argument for pollen is not logical. If I am understanding you correctly, then pollen doesn't really count? If there is pollen, from pine trees (which I've seen in books), and flowers, before they were supposed to be there, then they have to acknowledge and just move their date ranges, or invent some kind of reworking story.

#32 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 04 December 2011 - 08:15 PM

Preliminary note--This debate is usually clouded by an argument of definitions(semantics), and the nature of superposition. No one should say in my opinion that superposition is completely falsified, and is not a principle of geology, but it's application in traditional sedimentation chronology is--namely that strata are deposited as successive layers, and separated by periods of inactivity, causing bedding planes.

--------------------------------------------------
Post in response to Miles:


Miles,
The point is "isochrons." Did you watch the diagram of the T1 and T2 isochron layers, and the given particles within? A particle in T1 was laid before a particle inT2, but it is higher in the stratum. The reason being is the isochron layering.

Yes I saw the part about T1 and T2, and it was consistent with the principle of superposition as is the quote you listed.

Look at that video where it identifies the layers T1 and T2 are in. Notice that the video shows the layer containing T2 (younger) is on top of the layer containing T1 (older) at every point. That's exactly what superposition states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_superposition
Sedimentary layers are deposited in a time sequence, with the oldest on the bottom and the youngest on the top.

It seems like that video is a demonstration of http://en.wikipedia..../Cross-bedding. If you didn't know anything about the experiment and were just presented with a freeze frame around 1:14 you could clearly tell that the sediment was deposited at an angle based on the streakiness. Imagine if in that experiment, you were shrunk down to scale and started digging from the top, no matter where you started you'd never encounter any violation of the principle that the sediment you were digging through was deposited more recently than the sediment underneath it.

I'd prefer to stick to the specific claims of the first post so I'll let you have the final word as far as the video goes. It looks like that video has already been discussed on this forum in this thread and I don't see anything I could mention that Geode hasn't already done a better job of saying. http://www.evolution...opic=2106&st=40


Now think, what would happen if we found a flower in the Cambrian biota? It would be earth shattering news (kind of like heme in dino bones), but the timescale would simply be adjusted. Either by moving the extinction date of the Cambrian biota to a later period, or moving the particular flower's date of first appearance. Then alas, there is "order in the fossil record."

And your argument for pollen is not logical. If I am understanding you correctly, then pollen doesn't really count? If there is pollen, from pine trees (which I've seen in books), and flowers, before they were supposed to be there, then they have to acknowledge and just move their date ranges, or invent some kind of reworking story.


To understand my point it may be useful to go back to the original post and see the claims that were made. The original post said that we find fossils sorted by either habitat, mobility, or buoyancy. I posted some examples that contradicted those sorting mechanisms. I used flowers as an example because they are fairly immobile, live at ground level, and found only in more recent layers. I didn't use pollen as an example because pollen can be carried in air or in water over long distances and into lower layers through cracks so it isn't as useful a counter example for all 3 types of sorting proposed. Pollen fossils doesn't count as flower fossils because pollen grains are not flowers.

Whether flowers existed or not isn't the point of the example, it's whether or not the fossils we have found are sorted in the order claimed by the original post. The flower fossils we have found don't fit sorting by habitat elevation because we find non-burrowing land animals below them. They don't fit sorting by mobility because we find them above more mobile animals. They don't fit sorting by buoyancy because we find less buoyant artifacts and animals above them.

#33 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

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

Posted 04 December 2011 - 09:15 PM

Wikipedia is not always a good source. I would suggest using it less often.

#34 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

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

Posted 05 December 2011 - 08:00 PM

The only thing that's sorted is the circular date ranging and ad hoc scenarios that evolution, and geotime require. Actually, if you want to find Cambrian fossils that are higher than flowers, go to the Candian Rockies, and you'll find them on the side of mountains. But of course, there is no other possibility than it was once the sea bottom, so there is no winning. Whatever needs to be done to explain the reason will be done.

Now think, what would happen if we found a flower in the Cambrian biota? It would be earth shattering news (kind of like heme in dino bones), but the timescale would simply be adjusted. Either by moving the extinction date of the Cambrian biota to a later period, or moving the particular flower's date of first appearance. Then alas, there is "order in the fossil record."

And your argument for pollen is not logical. If I am understanding you correctly, then pollen doesn't really count? If there is pollen, from pine trees (which I've seen in books), and flowers, before they were supposed to be there, then they have to acknowledge and just move their date ranges, or invent some kind of reworking story.



The latest discovery proves it. Modern plankton cells discovered 100 million years before they were believed to have evolved.

"If Darwin’s theory were true, would you expect to find fossils that haven’t changed for a billion years? Would you expect that kind of stasis for organisms that lived in vastly different conditions than today? Would you expect, furthermore, to find an explosion of diverse forms of life suddenly, without ancestors? Rather than mourn their fate, evolutionists flaunt these falsifying fossils as trophies of their theory.

Mongolian cells unchanged for a billion years: PhysOrg reported the discovery of fossil planktonic cells called tintinnids that appear virtually identical to those alive today, but are alleged to be as much as 715 million years old."


My link

If plankton have been around and unchanged for 750 million years, then where are all of the pure chalk deposits in the Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, etc? Why is pure chalk only found with certain fossils in them?

And how can something as prolific as plankton just show up and disappear from the fossil record for 100 million years? At that time in history, the planet was believed to be covered by oceans and every spot you looked at that age should have plankton fossils in it.

Enjoy.

#35 digitalartist

digitalartist

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New York, NY

Posted 13 December 2011 - 10:46 AM

Problem is the fossil record does not record even in one instance that any fossils found ever survived. Not my problem that you are trying to use a cop out on this one and sweep it under the rug. But go ahead, coming up with excuses is very common in evolutionists circles. Again showing it does not matter because evolution and all it's support mechanisms are not required to prove anything unless the evolutionists say it does. So missing living fossils are not a problem unless you say it is, right? Sounds like a bias decision.


This of course causes a major problem for those that believe in the flood. If, as the Bible indicates, Noah had some of every kind of land animal on the ark, then after the flood and even into today, there should be those animals that can no longer be found. If as you say there is not one instance that any fossils found ever survived, then that would not be the case and the Bible would be in error.

#36 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

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

Posted 13 December 2011 - 11:11 PM

Hi, digitalartist.

This of course causes a major problem for those that believe in the flood. If, as the Bible indicates, Noah had some of every kind of land animal on the ark, then after the flood and even into today, there should be those animals that can no longer be found. If as you say there is not one instance that any fossils found ever survived, then that would not be the case and the Bible would be in error.


Actually, empirical fossilization rates of living species are preserved up to 99%. Should we also expect to see 99% of all extinct species in the fossil record as well.

http://www.answersin...s-fossil-record

Modern species are being fossilized through slow gradual rates in the present and the geologic column in the past is catastrophic, so past species should be more complete than modern species.


Enjoy.

#37 KBC id

KBC id

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Atlanta, Ga.

Posted 16 December 2011 - 03:27 PM

This of course causes a major problem for those that believe in the flood. If, as the Bible indicates, Noah had some of every kind of land animal on the ark, then after the flood and even into today, there should be those animals that can no longer be found. If as you say there is not one instance that any fossils found ever survived, then that would not be the case and the Bible would be in error.


Hmmm. I see a point here. I guess the problem would be in knowing what was actually on the ark. Of course there is another problem here as well. The division of species is a modern thing and it should be understood that such inconsistencies as wolves vs dogs might upset an attempt to determine what would logically have been eliminated. Suppose for instance there were dogs prior to the flood but Noah only preserved wolves... later after the flood the wolves could have respeciated dogs right? so in this case one would see dogs prior and after the flood giving an erronious looking fossil record?.

#38 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 17 December 2011 - 06:18 AM

Hi, digitalartist.



Actually, empirical fossilization rates of living species are preserved up to 99%. Should we also expect to see 99% of all extinct species in the fossil record as well.

http://www.answersin...s-fossil-record

Modern species are being fossilized through slow gradual rates in the present and the geologic column in the past is catastrophic, so past species should be more complete than modern species.


Enjoy.


The figure of 99% of living species found as fossils was for mammals currently found in Europe, if one looks for them as fossils worldwide. The same study found a figure of only 88% if one looks for mammals still alive there today as fossils. But we would expect higher rates of preservation for mammals than many other forms, as all mammals possess hard parts.

Modern species are being fossilized through gradual processes and rapid processes that are at times catastrophic. The rocks formed in the past show evidence of the same thing, so I do not think one can support a conclusion that the fossil record should be more complete in the past than what is presently forming. Actually just the opposite is what is not only found to be the case, but should be expected. That is because this is not just a function of the effectiveness of initial fossilization, but also how much of the original stratigraphic record that contains the fossils still exists following all the orogenic activity, erosional activity, metamorphism and subduction. Much of the stratigraphic record for times past is missing in many places.

We can see the removal of earth material containing the remnants of past life during any given year. How many people buried in the past ten years are still buried? This percentage would be high. What about the figure for the past 100 hundred years? The percentage is going to be lower. Cemeteries disappear in floods, etc. The percentage for the past 1000 years? Far lower, and probably is without doubt in single digits and lower than the 2% figure cited for species found as fossils troughout the rock record.

Kurt Wise gives this conclusion in the link you have provided:

So, do we have any way to test these two predictions? Has the fossil record preserved most of the species of the past, as expected by young-age creationists, or has the fossil record preserved a very small percentage of past species, as expected by those who believe the earth is old?
One way to determine how good the fossil record is at preserving species is simply to count how many living species are also known as fossils, regardless of whether the fossils were made before, during, or after the Flood. At least two studies have done that. In one study Björn Kurtén determined that 88% of the mammal species living in Europe today are also present in the fossil record in Europe, and 99% are present in the fossil record somewhere on earth.

In another study, James W. Valentine, in his PhD dissertation, found that 76.8% of the marine mollusk species currently living along the southern California and Baja California coast are also found in the fossil record.

These studies suggest that the fossil record is good at preserving past species—much closer to the expectations of young-age creationists than the expectations of those who believe that the earth is old.


The problem is that he has ignored what I stated above. The high percentage figures for still living forms are apparently accepted by both YECs and those who believe the earth is old. But neither group can really come up with an accurate figure of how many species existed in the past and therefore not an accurate percentage figure of fossils to total forms. The figures given by Dr. Wise are based upon assumptions of average ranges of species. The estimate of the total number of species varies widely since others have used different assumptions. I would bet both YECs and others might agree on the initial preservation figure.

#39 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,111 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 17 December 2011 - 08:44 AM

...
Modern species are being fossilized through gradual processes and rapid processes that are at times catastrophic. The rocks formed in the past show evidence of the same thing, so I do not think one can support a conclusion that the fossil record should be more complete in the past than what is presently forming....

Just for interest sake, what would be an example of fossils like this ones....
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

forming through slow gradual processes? It doesn't have to be the exact species of course. Any animal larger then a rabbit would suffice.

#40 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 17 December 2011 - 11:36 AM

Just for interest sake, what would be an example of fossils like this ones....
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

forming through slow gradual processes? It doesn't have to be the exact species of course. Any animal larger then a rabbit would suffice.


The preservation of these fossils is better than average, but all parts appear to be articulated. This probably meant burial where anoxic conditions existed but since the rocks are fine-grained rather low energy in terms of any water involved is most likely. Their condition could be an indication of depostion with a lake or something similar. Such conditions exist today. Vertebrates living nearby sometimes do in fact die (sometimes by drowning) and end up at the bottom where they are being buried and preserved. Bogs have swallowed up animals larger than rabbits, including men and the preservation is remarkable.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users