Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Mattias

The Epistemology Corner: How Do We Know What We Know?

Recommended Posts

Hi Mike,

 

Let's say I draw a ball 50 times from a barrel that has 100 balls that are either blue or red; and in all 50 draws, I pull out a red ball, what can I say about the number of blue balls in the barrel? Mathematically, it's still possible that the barrel contains blue balls....but, those odds are not very good. A statistically reasonable inference is that the barrel contains NO blue balls.

 

It works the same way with fossils; dinosaurs and lions (for example) are never found in the same geologic layers. Dinosaurs are always at or below the KT boundary and lions are always above it .....and there have been thousands of these fossils found. I think we have reached the point that a very reasonable inference is that they did not live in the same time and place ......

 

Which means you have dissed all of our documentation no matter how much or how legitimate it is and there is no use in discussing the matter further with you on this topic. Nonetheless, I will leave that up to the discretion of my brethren.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not just the fossils of the stegosauri and the tigers that we don't find in the same layer. We find no stegosaurus descendants after the K-T event and we find only less developed ancestors of tigers prior to what we measure as 3M years ago. We can back-track its evolution to its ancestors who lived co-temporal with the dinosaurs.

 

I see the following explanations for the dinosaur pictures:

- fake

- some fossils where found and reconstructed

- something other was depicted

- somehow some dinosaurs survived the K-T event and lived until a 1000 years ago and we just missed it

- there is a god who is deliberately deceiving us and last-thursdayism might as well be true (=creationism)

 

Also, if you drew 50 times from a barrel, if there is only 1 blue ball, you have 50% chance of not drawing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fjuri:

 

Its not just the fossils of the stegosauri and the tigers that we don't find in the same layer. We find no stegosaurus descendants after the K-T event and we find only less developed ancestors of tigers prior to what we measure as 3M years ago. We can back-track its evolution to its ancestors who lived co-temporal with the dinosaurs.

 

 

 

We don't believe in the 65 million yr old KT event, period. I thought that was clear by now. Your dating methods are fraught with assumptions and we don't accept what you're saying about it.

 

 

 


I see the following explanations for the dinosaur pictures:

 

- fake

- some fossils where found and reconstructed

- something other was depicted

- somehow some dinosaurs survived the K-T event and lived until a 1000 years ago and we just missed it

- there is a god who is deliberately deceiving us and last-thursdayism might as well be true (=creationism)

 

 

 

There is too much evidence from ancient times that man and dino's were contemporary. You just dissed what you've seen because of your prejudices. Dinosaurs were described in some detail by the writer of the book of Job (chapters 40 & 41), the oldest book in the Bible. So, again, we don't accept your notions about this but with very good reasons.

 

Lastly, God doesn't deceive anyone: you have deceived yourselves. Your time frame for earth's history is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not just the fossils of the stegosauri and the tigers that we don't find in the same layer. We find no stegosaurus descendants after the K-T event and we find only less developed ancestors of tigers prior to what we measure as 3M years ago. We can back-track its evolution to its ancestors who lived co-temporal with the dinosaurs.

 

We don't believe in the 65 million yr old KT event, period. I thought that was clear by now. Your dating methods are fraught with assumptions and we don't accept what you're saying about it.

 

Of course, I was too 'blunt' (by lack of a better word) and didn't explain enough what I meant. I realize you don't believe in a 65M KT event.

 

I'll try and hyperbole and temporary look at the topic as if the Flood happened.

I searched on the "answers in genesis" website, but there was no theory on how the different layers of rocks were deposited. Creationists aren't sure yet which layer or layers should be attributed to the Genesis Flood. 

 

"Despite the slow and gradual ideology of modern geology, the evidence is clearly explained by the biblical model—specifically relating the majority of the fossil-bearing geologic record to the Genesis Flood. Although there is much discussion among creationists about the details relating the Flood and creation to the geologic column, all agree that the majority of the fossil-bearing rock record is a product of the Genesis Flood and that any model must first be aligned with Scripture. Details such as exactly where the pre- Flood/Flood/post-Flood boundaries lie in the geologic column are still being evaluated. Nevertheless, the evidence of a global flood and rapid processes is overwhelming." 

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/geologic-time-scale/geologic-column/

 

What could be understood here is that there is a pre-flood part of the Column, there is a flood part of the Column, and there is a post-flood part of the column. Without going into detail you can make the following conclusions:

- Fossilization happened before, during, and after the Flood. Therefore claiming fossils are evidence for the flood is a vacious statement (right Wiz?). It would happen either way.

- There is a possibility to determine relative ages from the geological column. Obviously pre-flood fossils are older than post-flood fossils.

 

Since you've stated a micro-form of evolution happened, you would agree that the tigers we see today might have looked slightly different in an earlier time. We have seen no record of dinosaur fossils in the latest parts of the column, one might even conclude post-flood. We can see no record of tigers in the same part of the column as the dinosaurs. We do see creatures, closely-but-not-quite-fully resembling the tigers in the same part of the column as the dinosaurs. Would you mind telling me what conclusions you would be able to draw up till now, my evolutionary point of view might draw some faulty conclusions. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fossilization happened before, during, and after the Flood. Therefore claiming fossils are evidence for the flood is a vacious statement (right Wiz?). It would happen either way.

- There is a possibility to determine relative ages from the geological column. Obviously pre-flood fossils are older than post-flood fossils.

 

Since you've stated a micro-form of evolution happened,

 

You're talking to the wrong person. I'm not Wiz and I never made such a statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're talking to the wrong person. I'm not Wiz and I never made such a statement.

 

You're probably right, fjuri out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We call this Evolution Fairytale Forum....and folks, THAT is a fairytale. The idiocy of believing that some meteor or a great volcano caused the dinosaurs to become extinct never mind the fact that there were obviously contemporary with man and ancient man in particular not only depicted them in artwork but some even utilized them for work (i.e. the chinese emperor during the time of Marco Polo used them for pulling their chariots).

 

 http://www.discoverynews.us/DISCOVERY%20MUSEUM/DinosaurWorld/AncientCivilizations/Dinosaur_Artwork_in_Ancient_Civilizations.html

Excellent ! ! !

 

If the Chinese emperor during the time of Marco Polo was using dinosaurs to pull chariots, there should be no problem producing the remains of just ONE of these dinos in the same layer as those who rode the chariots....

 

If they were contemporaneous with lions and tigers and bears, as Calypsis claims, then we should find just ONE of these in the same layer as lions or tigers or bears.  Do we find ANY dinos with lions?  Do we find ANY dinos with tigers?  Do we find ANY dinos with bears?  For that matter, do we find ANY dinos with the humans who are alleged to have used them as beasts of burden?

 

How about even a harness used to attach those dinos to the chariots? Can you produce just that much?

 

If they existed together, why do we find lions in the same layers with humans; tigers in the same layers with humans; and bears in the same layers with humans; but no dinos in the same layers as any of them?

 

 

No, it is their so-called 65 million yr old K-T extinction that didn't exist, at least not at the time frame they are telling us. Science doesn't propose anything........'evolutionists' propose it. I don't deny that there have been catastrophic events such as meteors hitting the earth causing great damage, but we have made it clear here on EFF that there isn't a single dating method that is used by neo-Darwinists that is not subject to assumptions, especially as to the problem of original content of the samples they use. Bonedigger in particular has pointed this out numerous times. But some people don't care about such documentation.

Regardless of the time frame of the event, it's pretty clear the dinos went extinct at about the same time as some 70-80% of the other species on the planet.  I bet Calypsis would go so far to say that virtually 100% of life went extinct at the same time.

 

As for assumptions... both sides make them.  In fact, when you get to the details, virtually everything we know is based on assumptions.  The question isn't whether or not there are assumptions.  It's whether or not those assumptions are reasonable (or true).

 

..... there is a plethora of good evidence that man and dinosaur existed together...unless that is, we just wish to deliberately diss the historical and geological evidence for it altogether.

What is the geological evidence that man and dinosaur existed together?  All of the evidence I've seen is that they lived separately with a layer of iridium, shocked quartz, and microspherules  consistent with a major impact event between them.

 

We don't believe in the 65 million yr old KT event, period. I thought that was clear by now. Your dating methods are fraught with assumptions and we don't accept what you're saying about it.

Ignoring, the date of the event, we have ample geological evidence that some event of that kind took place.... right down to the impact crater itself.

 

With regard to assumptions.... we make all kinds of assumptions all the time.  Without making assumptions, science and learning become impossible.  The question isn't whether or not there are assumptions, but if those assumptions are reasonable or true.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Excellent ! ! !

 

 

 

Not for piasan it isn't.

 

If the Chinese emperor during the time of Marco Polo was using dinosaurs to pull chariots, there should be no problem producing the remains of just ONE of these dinos in the same layer as those who rode the chariots....

 

 

 

How about this one: http://www.asianscientist.com/2012/03/in-the-lab/guidraco-venator-dragon-ghost-hunter-flying-toothed-reptile-liaoning-china-2012/

 

Or this one: https://ourworldheritages.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/salah-seorang-ilmuwan-menjelaskan-tentang-struktur-tubuh-fosil-hewan-yang-diperkirakan-naga.jpg

 

Quote: "The discovery in Yunnan and the River Liachoe

Other finds have occurred in the province near a village in Fuyuan, southwest China on January 22, 2007. Local residents found the fossils of small-sized dragon that has been attached to the stone slab in a cave on a hill.

 

Or how about this onehttp://www.bjreview.com.cn/science/images/attachement/jpg/site23/20080404/000c76db430d095fd4fd10.jpg

 

Quote: Dr. Xu Li, Deputy Curator of the Henan Provincial Geological Museum, said they moved the fossils to the museum to ensure better research results, but she admitted that her museum needed the dinosaur skeleton of high research value to unveil a new exhibition hall. Do you get that? The Chinese are not making any distinction between dragons and dinosaurs. But there never should have been a distinction because the Bible is right and the neo-Darwinists are in error. They always have been.

 

The truth is that we don't know for sure what kind of dragons pulled the emperors chariot but we are not going to ignore the historical record just because of the prejudiced opposition of neo-Darwinian dogmatists. The evidence is there and there is a lot of it.

 

 

 He should be far more concerned as to why we do not find any simple life forms in the pre-Cambrian and why there is an explosion of complex life forms that appear abruptly in the Cambrian.  

If they were contemporaneous with lions and tigers and bears, as Calypsis claims, then we should find just ONE of these in the same layer as lions or tigers or bears.  Do we find ANY dinos with lions?

 

 

 

He only retains what he thinks he can twist, bend, and play with to manipulate the facts. I made it clear earlier that my notion of lions, tigers, and bears was a reference to their supposed ancestors....all of whom breathed the same air, drank the same water, and walked on the same ground as the dinosaurs that supposedly all died during that K-T boundary time frame ....also which I stated clearly is the wrong time frame for that cataclysmic event.   

 

From the written words of Marco Polo himself:

The following is an excerpt from Marco Polo's book in which he describes a dinosaur:

Don't like to read? Watch the movie: Forbidden History to learn more.

"Leaving the city of Yachi, and traveling ten days in a westerly direction, you reach the province of Karazan, which is also the name of the chief city....Here are seen huge serpents, ten paces in length (about 30 feet), and ten spans (about 8 feet) girt of the body. At the fore part, near the head, they have two short legs, having three claws like those of a tiger, with eyes larger than a forepenny loaf (pane da quattro denari) and very glaring."

The jaws are wide enough to swallow a man, the teeth are large and sharp, and their whole appearance is so formidable, that neither man, nor any kind of animal can approach them without terror. Others are met with of a smaller size, being eight, six, or 5 paces long; and the following method is used for taking them. In the day-time, by reason of great heat, they lurk in caverns, from whence, at night, they issue to seek their food, and whatever beast they meet with and can lay hold of, whether tiger, wolf, or any other, they devour;

http://www.forbidden-history.com/marco-polo.html

 

 But since piasan has never had a problem with dissing God's written word, he will certainly have no problem dissing Marco Polo also.

 

Do we find ANY dinos with tigers?  Do we find ANY dinos with bears?  For that matter, do we find ANY dinos with the humans who are alleged to have used them as beasts of burden?

 

 

 

Why would there be since this was long after the world-wide cataclysm of the flood?

 

How about even a harness used to attach those dinos to the chariots? Can you produce just that much?

 

 

 

Ridiculous question. Such objects would have decomposed and turned into dust long ago.

 

If they existed together, why do we find lions in the same layers with humans; tigers in the same layers with humans; and bears in the same layers with humans; but no dinos in the same layers as any of them?

 

 

Well, they are still digging. We shall see. But the old evolutionists argument was that 'we never find human fossils' period. I've had that one thrown at me in years gone by many times.

 

Regardless of the time frame of the event, it's pretty clear the dinos went extinct at about the same time as some 70-80% of the other species on the planet.  I bet Calypsis would go so far to say that virtually 100% of life went extinct at the same time.

 

 

 

 

He likes to do my thinking for me. He fails miserably.

 

As for assumptions... both sides make them.  In fact, when you get to the details, virtually everything we know is based on assumptions. 

 

 

 

Marco Polo's book was not an assumption it is part of the historical record. Likewise the plesiosaur fished up by the Japanese in 1977 and the ones found and photographed at Monterey Bay in 1925, plus the....etc.etc. etc. But piasan doesn't care about the multiplicity of evidence on this. He prefers to believe the lies to direct personal witness and testimony. He prefers to what he has never seen as opposed to what many human beings have seen...both in the past and the present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mike,

 

Let's say I draw a ball 50 times from a barrel that has 100 balls that are either blue or red; and in all 50 draws, I pull out a red ball, what can I say about the number of blue balls in the barrel? Mathematically, it's still possible that the barrel contains blue balls....but, those odds are not very good. A statistically reasonable inference is that the barrel contains NO blue balls.

 

It works the same way with fossils; dinosaurs and lions (for example) are never found in the same geologic layers. Dinosaurs are always at or below the KT boundary and lions are always above it .....and there have been thousands of these fossils found. I think we have reached the point that a very reasonable inference is that they did not live in the same time and place ......

Emphasis added.

 

SN, I just have to laugh every time you make those kind of statements. All you are really demonstrating is that you are clueless as to how biostratigraphy actually works. For more than a century, the absence of dinosaurs has been used to define the terrestrial KT boundary. When you declare that we never find dinosaurs above the KT boundary, all you're saying is that we "never find dinosaurs where we never find dinosaurs". Impressive. In terms of your analogy, when a blue ball does get pulled, it just gets disqualified as contamination, or, more properly, "reworking". Let me give you a couple examples ranging from one end of recent history to the other. Francis Holmes, in his 1870 publication "Phosphate Rocks of South Carolina and the Great Carolina Marl Bed" (available at archive.org here), makes the curious statement on page 31:

 

It was in this Post-Pleiocene age, the period when the American Elephant, or Mammoth, the Mastodon, Rhinoceros, Megathereum, Hadrosaurus, and other gigantic quadrupeds roamed the Carolina forests, and repaired periodically to these Salt-lakes or Lagoons, or as they are called in Kentucky, "Salt-licks;" and during a series of indefinite ages, engaged as they were first sipping brine, then licking salt, and depositing their fecal remains, and ultimately their bones and teeth, in fact their dead bodies, in these great open " crawls" or pens, thus preparing, as ordained before- hand by the Great Master-Builder of our Earth, a storehouse of rich material for Man's use.

Emphasis added.

 

Now Holmes was an old earth creationist, professor of geology at Charleston College, and was certainly familiar with Lyell's geologic history (he refers to it constantly in explaining the geologic history of South Carolina). That's the only time he mentions Hadrosaurus in the whole book, but it was significant enough that the engraved cover of the book has a picture of Hadrosaurus foulkii standing next to a man (evidence of which was also found in the same Ashley Beds).

The most recent (non-creationist) reference to it that I can find is in David Weishampel and Luther Young's 1996 book "Dinosaurs of the East Coast" where they state (page139):

 

In addition, two hadrosaurid teeth came from Kingstree in Williamsburg County, although they were mixed with Paleocene and Pleistocene fossils and their stratigraphic source is uncertain

Notice how they automatically dismiss the possibility that the association was genuine?

 

But let's look at a present day example and the controversy surrounding the age of the Ojo Alamo sandstone, which has abundant dinosaur fossils including hadrosaurs and the sauropod Alamosaurus, and is found in the San Juan Basin of northwest New Mexico and southwest Colorado. For more than a decade James Fassett (retired USGS) and his colleagues have argued that the Ojo Alamo is Paleocene. For the same duration, Spencer Lucas and his colleagues have vehemently opposed him, arguing, variously: that the dinosaur bones are reworked remnants from the underlying Kirtland Formation (refuted by Fassett through a chemical comparison of bones from both); that the lower part of the Ojos Alamo is Cretaceous and the dinosaur bones in the upper part have been reworked (an attempted end-around of Fassett's chemical analysis); and even, arguing that the presence of Alamosaurus alone proves that it's Cretaceous. Fassett and Co have used: stratigraphic continuity with the Nacimiento (which has abundant Paleocene mammal fossils); Paleocene pollen found in the Ojo Alamo; magnetostratigraphy (in which they inadvertently reveal how easy it is to manipulate reversal sequences to match a preferred timeline); and other lines of evidence. If you're interested, you can follow one of the more recent exchanges in Paleontologia Electronica, the open access online journal published by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (yes, I am a member). Fassett's 2009 paper can be found here, the critique by Lucas, et al. here, and Fassett's response here. In the first, in the Geochronology section, Fassett states:

 

The presence of abundant dinosaur bone in the Ojo Alamo Sandstone in the San Juan Basin has bedeviled researchers for more than 80 years because all other paleontological data, and the physical stratigraphic relations discussed above, indicated that the Ojo Alamo was Paleocene in age. Indeed, had it not been for the presence of abundant dinosaur remains in the Ojo Alamo Sandstone, its Paleocene age would probably never have been questioned. Because the last occurrence of dinosaur bone has always been considered by vertebrate paleontologists to mark the end of the Cretaceous Period, various explanations were suggested to explain away the presence of these dinosaur remains in what otherwise appeared to be Paleocene rocks.

 

Notice how he reiterates what I said about dinosaurs being used to define the end of the Cretaceous? Once again we see a huge disparity between your romanticized view of how things work, and how they actually work, in practice, in the real world. In the end Lucas and company are going to win the argument. Not because the evidence warrants it. But rather because it is axiomatic that dinosaurs died out at the end of the Cretaceous. All evidence to the contrary will eventually be overridden by that axiom.

Tell me SN. Is this hadrosaur bone assemblage found in the Ojo Alamo sandstone a blue ball, or a red ball?

fig38.jpg

 

By the way, Pi, there is no concentration of iridium or shocked quartz to be found anywhere in that sequence in the San Juan Basin. Using your illogic of "absence of evidence equals evidence of absence", we would have to conclude that there was no asteroid impact during that time. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Emphasis added.

SN, I just have to laugh every time you make those kind of statements. All you are really demonstrating is that you are clueless as to how biostratigraphy actually works. For more than a century, the absence of dinosaurs has been used to define the terrestrial KT boundary. When you declare that we never find dinosaurs above the KT boundary, all you're saying is that we "never find dinosaurs where we never find dinosaurs". Impressive. In terms of your analogy, when a blue ball does get pulled, it just gets disqualified as contamination, or, more properly, "reworking". Let me give you a couple examples ranging from one end of recent history to the other. Francis Holmes, in his 1870 publication "Phosphate Rocks of South Carolina and the Great Carolina Marl Bed" (available at archive.org here), makes the curious statement on page 31:

 

 

Emphasis added.

Now Holmes was an old earth creationist, professor of geology at Charleston College, and was certainly familiar with Lyell's geologic history (he refers to it constantly in explaining the geologic history of South Carolina). That's the only time he mentions Hadrosaurus in the whole book, but it was significant enough that the engraved cover of the book has a picture of Hadrosaurus foulkii standing next to a man (evidence of which was also found in the same Ashley Beds).

The most recent (non-creationist) reference to it that I can find is in David Weishampel and Luther Young's 1996 book "Dinosaurs of the East Coast" where they state (page139):

 

 

Notice how they automatically dismiss the possibility that the association was genuine?

But let's look at a present day example and the controversy surrounding the age of the Ojo Alamo sandstone, which has abundant dinosaur fossils including hadrosaurs and the sauropod Alamosaurus, and is found in the San Juan Basin of northwest New Mexico and southwest Colorado. For more than a decade James Fassett (retired USGS) and his colleagues have argued that the Ojo Alamo is Paleocene. For the same duration, Spencer Lucas and his colleagues have vehemently opposed him, arguing, variously: that the dinosaur bones are reworked remnants from the underlying Kirtland Formation (refuted by Fassett through a chemical comparison of bones from both); that the lower part of the Ojos Alamo is Cretaceous and the dinosaur bones in the upper part have been reworked (an attempted end-around of Fassett's chemical analysis); and even, arguing that the presence of Alamosaurus alone proves that it's Cretaceous. Fassett and Co have used: stratigraphic continuity with the Nacimiento (which has abundant Paleocene mammal fossils); Paleocene pollen found in the Ojo Alamo; magnetostratigraphy (in which they inadvertently reveal how easy it is to manipulate reversal sequences to match a preferred timeline); and other lines of evidence. If you're interested, you can follow one of the more recent exchanges in Paleontologia Electronica, the open access online journal published by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (yes, I am a member). Fassett's 2009 paper can be found here, the critique by Lucas, et al. here, and Fassett's response here. In the first, in the Geochronology section, Fassett states:

 

 

 

Notice how he reiterates what I said about dinosaurs being used to define the end of the Cretaceous? Once again we see a huge disparity between your romanticized view of how things work, and how they actually work, in practice, in the real world. In the end Lucas and company are going to win the argument. Not because the evidence warrants it. But rather because it is axiomatic that dinosaurs died out at the end of the Cretaceous. All evidence to the contrary will eventually be overridden by that axiom.

 

Tell me SN. Is this hadrosaur bone assemblage found in the Ojo Alamo sandstone a blue ball, or a red ball?fig38.jpg

By the way, Pi, there is no concentration of iridium or shocked quartz to be found anywhere in that sequence in the San Juan Basin. Using your illogic of "absence of evidence equals evidence of absence", we would have to conclude that there was no asteroid impact during that time. :P

 

Interesting stuff, BD .... although I tend to think that you over-dramatize the debate between scientists and the politics behind it.  Lucas and Fassett actually co-authored a paper claiming that some dinosaurs did survive into the early Paleocene.  So, unless Lucas had a sudden change of heart, that doesn't sound like vehement opposition to me.

 

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/impact2000/pdf/3139.pdf

 

I'm guessing that their "debate" centered on just how far into the Paleocene they survived.  According to this Wiki article, there are a handful of potential pieces of evidence (including Ojo Alamo Sandstone, Hell Creek Formation, & China) that show dinosaurs living during the early Paleocene approximately 60+ million years ago.  This includes the hadrosaur femur which according to the article is ~ 64.5 million years old.  It also discusses that many scientists dismiss these fossils as reworked and that a partial skeleton (more than one bone from a specimen) found above the K-T Boundary would defeat the reworked argument; however, none as yet have been found according to the article.  I don't know what bearing this statement has on your hadrosaur bone assemblage (possible blue ball) pictured above.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene_dinosaurs

 

At any rate, BD, it's possible that I was wrong in my statement that NO dinosaurs have been found above the K-T boundary; but, not drastically wrong .... current evidence shows that they may have survived several thousand to perhaps a couple of million years after the K-T extinction event.  In some ways, that makes sense to me.  In all of Cal's talk of monsters scaring the good people of Lake Champlain, he did have a valid point concerning the idea that all non-avian dinosaurs perished during the K-T event even though some species survived.  That does seem statistically strange to me; however, that's still a long ways from pulling chariots in China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In reading through the articlets, BD, it sounds like this debate is very much ongoing. Lucas, Sullivan, and company claim that there is no intermixing of these dinosaur fossils with other clearly paleocine-only fossils. And, this appears to be the only case discovered so far showing non-avian dinosaurs potentially above the KT-boundary; maybe you did find the one blue ball in a sea of red, BD, then again maybe you didn't. I don't know who is correct here. Do you? It does seem odd that this would be the only trace of such an event, but not impossible I guess. At any rate, personally I think it would be cool if they established that some non-avian dinosaurs survived the KT Extinction event...although you still have a long road to walk to convince me that they are now terrorizing the poor people of lake Champlain....

 

I actually lean towards Fassett and Co. Mainly because of the stratigraphic continuity argument, which is based on Fassett himself spending half his tenure at USGS analyzing the subsurface geology of the entire basin (as opposed to the cursory local analysis Lucas and company have devoted to the region), and his isopach map. All of that data gives a better picture of the regional geology.

However, this is not the "only case" of a blue ball. It's just the latest that hasn't yet been buried under the "axiom".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Emphasis added.

 

SN, I just have to laugh every time you make those kind of statements. All you are really demonstrating is that you are clueless as to how biostratigraphy actually works. For more than a century, the absence of dinosaurs has been used to define the terrestrial KT boundary. When you declare that we never find dinosaurs above the KT boundary, all you're saying is that we "never find dinosaurs where we never find dinosaurs". Impressive. In terms of your analogy, when a blue ball does get pulled, it just gets disqualified as contamination, or, more properly, "reworking". Let me give you a couple examples ranging from one end of recent history to the other. Francis Holmes, in his 1870 publication "Phosphate Rocks of South Carolina and the Great Carolina Marl Bed" (available at archive.org here), makes the curious statement on page 31:

 

Emphasis added.

 

Now Holmes was an old earth creationist, professor of geology at Charleston College, and was certainly familiar with Lyell's geologic history (he refers to it constantly in explaining the geologic history of South Carolina). That's the only time he mentions Hadrosaurus in the whole book, but it was significant enough that the engraved cover of the book has a picture of Hadrosaurus foulkii standing next to a man (evidence of which was also found in the same Ashley Beds).

The most recent (non-creationist) reference to it that I can find is in David Weishampel and Luther Young's 1996 book "Dinosaurs of the East Coast" where they state (page139):

 

Notice how they automatically dismiss the possibility that the association was genuine?

 

But let's look at a present day example and the controversy surrounding the age of the Ojo Alamo sandstone, which has abundant dinosaur fossils including hadrosaurs and the sauropod Alamosaurus, and is found in the San Juan Basin of northwest New Mexico and southwest Colorado. For more than a decade James Fassett (retired USGS) and his colleagues have argued that the Ojo Alamo is Paleocene. For the same duration, Spencer Lucas and his colleagues have vehemently opposed him, arguing, variously: that the dinosaur bones are reworked remnants from the underlying Kirtland Formation (refuted by Fassett through a chemical comparison of bones from both); that the lower part of the Ojos Alamo is Cretaceous and the dinosaur bones in the upper part have been reworked (an attempted end-around of Fassett's chemical analysis); and even, arguing that the presence of Alamosaurus alone proves that it's Cretaceous. Fassett and Co have used: stratigraphic continuity with the Nacimiento (which has abundant Paleocene mammal fossils); Paleocene pollen found in the Ojo Alamo; magnetostratigraphy (in which they inadvertently reveal how easy it is to manipulate reversal sequences to match a preferred timeline); and other lines of evidence. If you're interested, you can follow one of the more recent exchanges in Paleontologia Electronica, the open access online journal published by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (yes, I am a member). Fassett's 2009 paper can be found here, the critique by Lucas, et al. here, and Fassett's response here. In the first, in the Geochronology section, Fassett states:

 

 

Notice how he reiterates what I said about dinosaurs being used to define the end of the Cretaceous? Once again we see a huge disparity between your romanticized view of how things work, and how they actually work, in practice, in the real world. In the end Lucas and company are going to win the argument. Not because the evidence warrants it. But rather because it is axiomatic that dinosaurs died out at the end of the Cretaceous. All evidence to the contrary will eventually be overridden by that axiom.

Tell me SN. Is this hadrosaur bone assemblage found in the Ojo Alamo sandstone a blue ball, or a red ball?

fig38.jpg

 

By the way, Pi, there is no concentration of iridium or shocked quartz to be found anywhere in that sequence in the San Juan Basin. Using your illogic of "absence of evidence equals evidence of absence", we would have to conclude that there was no asteroid impact during that time. :P

Hi Bonedigger,

 

Your posts have been top rate and it makes me think.  The problem I have is that I have very little understanding of the fossil debate and sometimes feel that I am learning calculus backwards, so to speak.  So the below is a very basic question.

 

The main issue seams to me that creation took 7 days.   There are fossils that came before humans, like the Cambrian fossils.  Is this right?

 

Did these Cambrian animals live longer than a week before man entered the picture?  is so does this create a problem for the literal 7 day creation event?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bonedigger,

 

Your posts have been top rate and it makes me think.  The problem I have is that I have very little understanding of the fossil debate and sometimes feel that I am learning calculus backwards, so to speak.  So the below is a very basic question.

 

The main issue seams to me that creation took 7 days.   There are fossils that came before humans, like the Cambrian fossils.  Is this right?

 

Did these Cambrian animals live longer than a week before man entered the picture?  is so does this create a problem for the literal 7 day creation event?

 

Hi Bruce.

I'll be more than happy to answer your questions. First of all, why do you think Cambrian fossils came before humans? Did they die before man was even created? In most Flood scenarios, Cambrian fossils just represent the first shallow marine water ecosystem burial stages of the Flood on the continents. In other words, the geologic column represents, in general, the ecological depositional sequence produced as the flood waters encroached upon the land, successively burying shallow, to deep, and then deeper water marine fauna, while at the same time, farther and farther inland, and higher and higher altitude, terrestrial fauna, as the earth was overwhelmed and inundated at the time of Noah. In other words, the fossil sequence we find in the strata was an ecological burial sequence, not a life sequence.

Does that answer your question as to how the fossil record relates to (most) YEC earth histories?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting stuff, BD .... although I tend to think that you over-dramatize the debate between scientists and the politics behind it.  Lucas and Fassett actually co-authored a paper claiming that some dinosaurs did survive into the early Paleocene.  So, unless Lucas had a sudden change of heart, that doesn't sound like vehement opposition to me.

 

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/impact2000/pdf/3139.pdf

 

I'm guessing that their "debate" centered on just how far into the Paleocene they survived.  According to this Wiki article, there are a handful of potential pieces of evidence (including Ojo Alamo Sandstone, Hell Creek Formation, & China) that show dinosaurs living during the early Paleocene approximately 60+ million years ago.  This includes the hadrosaur femur which according to the article is ~ 64.5 million years old.  It also discusses that many scientists dismiss these fossils as reworked and that a partial skeleton (more than one bone from a specimen) found above the K-T Boundary would defeat the reworked argument; however, none as yet have been found according to the article.  I don't know what bearing this statement has on your hadrosaur bone assemblage (possible blue ball) pictured above.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene_dinosaurs

 

At any rate, BD, it's possible that I was wrong in my statement that NO dinosaurs have been found above the K-T boundary; but, not drastically wrong .... current evidence shows that they may have survived several thousand to perhaps a couple of million years after the K-T extinction event.  In some ways, that makes sense to me.  In all of Cal's talk of monsters scaring the good people of Lake Champlain, he did have a valid point concerning the idea that all non-avian dinosaurs perished during the K-T event even though some species survived.  That does seem statistically strange to me; however, that's still a long ways from pulling chariots in China.

 

Hmm. You edited your post after I responded to it. Nonetheless, I'm not overdramatizing anything. When you title your paper as "NO DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE OF PALEOCENE DINOSAURS IN THE SAN JUAN BASIN" the way Lucas & Co. did, you are vehemently opposing the arguments of Fassett and Co. But, of course, embedded in your whole response is the a priori assumption that their whole timeline has anything to do with the actual history of the earth. But, I guess, that's a whole nother topic.

 

BTW. I showed you the hadrosaur bone assemblage because the 2000 article you cited predates it (and the 2009 response by Lucas, et al.)

 

BTWII. Fassett and Co. have recently (2012) published a supposed U-Pb Paleocene date for the dinosaur bones in the Ojo Alamo. Unfortunately, their original article is no longer open access (here). The responses, however, still are (1)(2)(3)(4)(5). Yet again Lucas is opposing Fassett.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bruce.

I'll be more than happy to answer your questions. First of all, why do you think Cambrian fossils came before humans? Did they die before man was even created? In most Flood scenarios, Cambrian fossils just represent the first shallow marine water ecosystem burial stages of the Flood on the continents. In other words, the geologic column represents, in general, the ecological depositional sequence produced as the flood waters encroached upon the land, successively burying shallow, to deep, and then deeper water marine fauna, while at the same time, farther and farther inland, and higher and higher altitude, terrestrial fauna, as the earth was overwhelmed and inundated at the time of Noah. In other words, the fossil sequence we find in the strata was an ecological burial sequence, not a life sequence.

Does that answer your question as to how the fossil record relates to (most) YEC earth histories?

 

TY Bonedigger,

 

That is great answer.  TY.

 

Bruce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a good answer Bruce, I agree, and that point BD makes is an essential one, for if the fossil record is a burial of eco-zones then not finding dinosaurs in certain zones evolutionists would call more, 'modern' would be a WEAK debate point, for you would not expect creatures to be in certain zones unless catastrophic events caused some kind of mixing of zones such as at Fossil Bluff in Tasmania. Is it a coincidence that a watery-catastrophe can explain evidence so well in so many mysterious examples such as Fossil Bluff?

 

Fjuri/Storman Norman, it is important to remember that Darwin already knew about the fossil record. To believe he would theorize that, for example, mammals were the first complex creatures on earth from whence we all evolved, would be highly obtuse, for there was no prediction for evolution, it did not predict the order of the fossils, it merely imbibed the order as a theory. It walked hand in hand with the facts, unless you can show me how it predicted the order before the order was known. How then can the fossils ever go against evolution since it theorizes to match it?

 

It is like telling me to flip a 'heads' when you know you have a coin with 'tails' on both sides. The fossil record was IMBIBED. It matches by definition that it is hypothesized to be a record of evolution on earth. And you ignore mis-matches when they happen, as they constantly do.

 

Imagine I had a theory that there was a murder because someone died, and I then collected the facts, and theorized according to the facts. This does not mean that the facts then favour the theory because they fit, for that would be circular reasoning. We all have the same facts, and we then hypothesize an answer to fit those facts. It is only a proportion of WEAK, circumstantial evidence that might seem to favour evolution, but even that order in the fossils is no reason to accept evolution any more than finding a superman costume in your husband's cupboard would be evidence he is superman, Norman.

 

We have the same facts, and we all have assumptions as Piasan said, and our flood model says that the order in the rocks is an order of ecological preservation which makes tremendous sense because of the total and general absence of transitionals for evolution. So then Norman, I could apply your own reasoning, that probably by generality, there is no evolution since 100% of the evidence does not show transitionals and we would expect it mostly to show them. 

 

Since we hypothesize that dinosaurs were buried and preserved in certain rocks, the 'later' rocks would not have dinosaurs in them because the only 'later' ones would be extant ones on the new earth after the flood receded.

 

 

 

CMI: Nicolas Steno, who lived about 100 years before Hutton, is considered by many to be one of the fathers of modern geology because of four geological principles he formulated. One of these, known as the Law of Superposition, relating to sedimentary rock layers, states that lower layers are older than higher layers because the lower ones needed to be present before the higher ones could be deposited on top of them

http://creation.com/geochronology-uncertainties

 

100 years before Hutton this priniciple which means we can deduce that Darwin would have hypothesized that the lower rock organisms basically give rise to the top ones, but please note that this would also be the case with the flood, and would also be the case in any scenario, unless there is a perculiar exception, so Darwin and evolution arguing from the bottom layers to the top, would be like agreeing that the sun is a star, agreeing to a sound law is bound to make it seem like you are accurate in your theorizing, is it not? So then the "order" in the rocks is by no means anything to do with evolution, since such a law came 100 years before Hutton. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike W,

You challenged me with the following.

So then, IF turtles evolved, we would expect as evidence, their transitionals in rocks with rich preservation.(Modus Ponen)

We do not find their transitionals, therefore turtles did not evolve. (Modus Tollens)

I responded with transitionals in the following.

#49

Then you dropped the ball! Where is your response? Do you run away from the tough ones?  :running1:   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike W,

 

You said you are “an expert in logics.†I learned a long time ago never to call myself an "expert". Now, I let others make their judgements based on my content.

 

In #429

 

I challenged you. But you did not respond. How can an "expert" not respond? I see the web site interpreted part of my Boolean expression as some sort of an emoticon. So, I’ll re-write and give you a hint.

 

 

How else can the following be represented?

  1.         _____
        z = x ∙ y

     
  2.         _   _
        u = s ∙ t

     

Please provide alternative expressions for z and u and describe how you got them.

 

The hint is the following:

_
x  stands for the “not†operator applied to x.

∙  stands for the “and†operator.

+  is equivalent to the “or†operator.

 

:^)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How else can the following be represented?

  1.         _____

        z = x ∙ y

     

  2.         _   _

        u = s ∙ t

     

Please provide alternative expressions for z and u and describe how you got them.

 

The hint is the following:

_

x  stands for the “not†operator applied to x.

∙  stands for the “and†operator.

+  is equivalent to the “or†operator.

I remember this from my navy computer "A" school.  Basically you can change the "or" and "and"  and change the viniculum (IIRC) by either breaking it or joining it as appropriate.  For example:

___   ___         ____

 a    +  b     =    a ∙ b

 

We had to do this all the time when designing logic circuits because the electronics inverts everything at every step.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott, you equivocated with what I meant by turtle evolution, IMHO. Providing evidence as turtles that are already turtle won't show us any transitionals towards turtledom, such as showing us the transitionals for the turtle, showing how the pectoral girdle evolved into the interior of the rib cage. Such transitionals would be very powerful evidence for evolution, but there are none, because every creature alive, is not in transition, but they are in a state of completed design.

 

I meant we should be expected to find pre-turtle ancestors.

 

I am not an expert in Boolean code, I have never learnt symbolic codes. Are you saying logic can not be understood unless you understand a code?

 

That might be like arguing that Harry Potter can't be understood if you can't read it in french. Think about it, if I can't discuss logic in a certain language, all that would mean is that I don't know the language, it wouldn't follow that I don't understand the logic, for if you speak the logic in plain english I shall understand it.

 

Largely I am not an educated person, everything I know is self-taught, and mostly I figure things out without having been taught them. Which is amusing, because later on I will find they have names.

 

Most people can't figure out things in this way I find, they have to be taught them step by step.

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Emphasis added.

 

SN, I just have to laugh every time you make those kind of statements. All you are really demonstrating is that you are clueless as to how biostratigraphy actually works. For more than a century, the absence of dinosaurs has been used to define the terrestrial KT boundary. When you declare that we never find dinosaurs above the KT boundary, all you're saying is that we "never find dinosaurs where we never find dinosaurs". Impressive. In terms of your analogy, when a blue ball does get pulled, it just gets disqualified as contamination, or, more properly, "reworking". Let me give you a couple examples ranging from one end of recent history to the other. Francis Holmes, in his 1870 publication "Phosphate Rocks of South Carolina and the Great Carolina Marl Bed" (available at archive.org here), makes the curious statement on page 31:

 

 

You ignore that there is many times the normal concentration of iridium at the KT boundary than normal.

You ignore that the measurement of these concentrations  led to the the estimation of size and location of an impact of an asteroid/comet.

You ignore that using this data the Chicxulub crater was found.

Now that is what makes me laugh!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember this from my navy computer "A" school.  Basically you can change the "or" and "and"  and change the viniculum (IIRC) by either breaking it or joining it as appropriate.  For example:

___   ___         ____

 a    +  b     =    a ∙ b

 

We had to do this all the time when designing logic circuits because the electronics inverts everything at every step.

A miracle has occurred! I have found some actual grey matter on the theistic side! Do you remember whose theorem allows us to do this?

 

This isn't just codes. This is manipulations of semantics without losing truth. And really, if you cannot manipulate logical expressions symbolically, you're not an expert. But you did pass the minimum grey matter test. Not to worry... 

 

I must admit, however. I did listen to some Harry Potter on the way to the gym. It was in English.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott, you equivocated with what I meant by turtle evolution, IMHO. Providing evidence as turtles that are already turtle won't show us any transitionals towards turtledom, such as showing us the transitionals for the turtle, showing how the pectoral girdle evolved into the interior of the rib cage. Such transitionals would be very powerful evidence for evolution, but there are none, because every creature alive, is not in transition, but they are in a state of completed design.

 

:)

 

We are not allowed to get bogged down in terms on this web site per the rules. So maybe we are done talking on this for now. I don't want to be banished. But you can respond to my post if you wish. The scientific community has been pretty clear on what they think a transitional is. And, I have provided links to show a few examples of how this term can be interpreted to BD and Mike S. We are also not allowed to provide links. Again, I am stymied by the rules as presented to me. But I'm not going to go with the creationist definition of "transitional". Respond if you wish to my original post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The scientific community has been pretty clear on what they think a transitional is. And, I have provided links to show a few examples of how this term can be interpreted to BD and Mike S. But I'm not going to go with the creationist definition of "transitional". Respond if you wish to my original post.

 

Yes, the "Scientific Community" is Pretty Clear as in "Crystal"....

 

 

 â€œâ€¦instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species†{Emphasis Mine}
J. H. Schwartz, Sudden Origins, New York, USA (1999) p. 89
Dr. Schwartz is a professor of physical anthropology and history and philosophy of science at the University of Pittsburgh and a research associate at the American Museum of Natural History.  
 
 
Henry Gee PhD (Paleontology, Evolutionary Biology) Senior Editor Nature...

“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.â€

Henry Gee PhD; In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, 1999, pp. 116-117

 

"New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting story. We call these new discoveries 'missing links', as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices. In reality, the physical record of human evolution is more modest. Each fossil represents an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps." {Emphasis Mine}

Henry Gee PhD; In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, 1999,  p. 32
 
Evolutionist review of (H. Gee) In Search of Deep Time...
 
"We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions."
Bowler, Peter J., Review In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.
 
 
Ernst Mayr PhD Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University....

 

"Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series."

Ernst Mayr; What Evolution Is, 2001, p.14.

 

Douglas Futuyma PhD (Professor evolutionary Biology)....

 

“…one of the most striking and potentially embarrassing features of the fossil record. The majority of major groups appear suddenly in the rocks, with virtually no evidence of transition from their ancestors.â€

Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, p. 82.
 
Dr. Niles Eldredge, Curator of Invertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History:

 

"Darwin's prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record."
 
"There seems to have been almost no change in any part we can compare between the living organism and its fossilized progenitors of the remote geological past. Living fossils embody the theme of evolutionary stability to an extreme degree...We have not completely solved the riddle of living fossils."

 

 

Looks like we have GAPS......"evolution of the GAPS"!   :cry:

 

 

regards

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Svigil, the evolution-definition of transitional is tautologous, because it applies to anything. (A tautology is something which is always true so can't be falsified, as opposed to a contradiction which is something that is always false) Please tell me how I would prove a turtle was NOT a transitional? Impossible under the evolutionary-definition, for they treat everything as transitional. So logically it can be shown that an intermediate between two states, would be a logical definition, if the term is to mean something.

 

They call everything a transitional, logically it can be shown that the term, 'transitional' must mean something, it must mean one organism is transitioning as part of an evolution.

 

And this is the magic-act that is evolution, that nobody can show any transition because they will say, "ahh, but evolution doesn't have to happen there doesn't have to be a direction".

 

Look it is quite simple, if turtles evolved Scott, and they evolved a pectoral girdle on the interior of their rib cage, then since we have rich fossilized rocks from the time they were supposed to evolve, we should see there many transitionals, and how this incredible engineering feat was achieved. As it is we find none.

 

So if you want to prove a turtle evolved, then logically you have to provide evidence. But if you are saying that your claim is that a turtle has evolved into a turtle, then I agree with you, but in such a case 'evolution' can be shaved away by Occam's razor (the principle of parsimony).

 

Thus we can see a conspicuous absence of evidence for turtle-evolution, as we can see a conspicuous absence of evidence for bat-evolution. (what I mean is the evolution of something into a bat, and the evolution of something into a turtle). We see a conspicuous absence of evidence for all of the cambrian crown-forms. Organisms generally appear abruptly in the fossil record, without a trace of an evolutionary history.

 

The difference between a conspicuous absence of evidence and an argumentum ad ignorantiam is that the modus tollens applies where it can be shown that evidence would be directly expected. Thus you would argue from ignorance if you merely argued that absence of evidence is evidence of absence unless it can be shown you would certainly expect the presence of evidence.

 

In the case of macro-evolution, the expected evidence of intermediate forms, does not exist when there is no reason for it to hide itself from us. For more information, I advise reading Enoch's post, those problems are real, they are simply ignored by the mainstream scientists, but I do not care for ipse dixit arguments anyway Scott. 

 

Google, "ipse dixit".   :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms