|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Fossil sorting for simple | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 989 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
I did the same thing - misread Lunkhead's statements.
{Comments from minnemooseus/Adminnemooseus - At the time of the original version, I didn't give either the message or the context a close study. My hazy recollection of my then impression, was that Bill's message was a little off target, but still had significant good information. Perhaps a better "deletion" message would have been nice - Something like "Deleted pending rewrite". Although not wrong in this topic, some of Bill's material might be better as part of a "Geologic Column" topic.} [This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-16-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 989 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
Bill writes:
Yes, I thought about adding that, but sometimes I don't want to confuse people who don't have much geologic knowledge. Also, I guess I'm also waiting for people to ask questions before giving a more detailed answer. I've written long posts only to have them completely ignored or dismissed with a handwave before and I just don't feel like wasting anymore time with people who are uninterested in learning. I think I should probably not do that anymore, however.
rox writes:
Fossils from different time periods are not found in the same'depositional stratum.' Meaning that you will never find Jurassic forams being deposited with forams only found in Tertiary rocks. You might find them in the same vicinity, but they will beseparated by either other strata or unconformities (e.g., erosional). In case of articulated skeletons, ichnofossils, and fragile fossils, this is true. However, in case of smaller shells, bones, teeth, and microfossils, this isn't true. Such fossils, like any sedimentary particle, can be eroded out of older rocks, transported, and redeposited in younger sediments, which can eventually become new sedimentary rocks, by a process called "reworking." I've seen reworking in action on the shores of Pyramid Lake, Nevada. Some beaches on the lake are white because they are composed of tiny gastropod shells being eroded [by wave action] out of localized fossiliferous outcrops. The fossils are not that old, probably several thousand years. My problem is that I'm either too simplistic or get too complex in my explanations. I just can't seem to find that happy medium - especially if I'm rushed. However, you always do a great job explaining geologic concepts. [This message has been edited by roxrkool, 02-16-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Steve Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Unseul Inactive Member |
Erm, although i am in no way a rocks layers person im sure i can cover this one.
The 11 points made all are merely references to the bible, the bible is not self proving, therefore is a pointless source in an attempt to prove that the bible is true. Next is the fact it says that the flood sorting hasnt been disproved i think that a quick search on several of these topics will soon show that it has. It then goes on to the classic misuse of the second law of thermodynamics. And then states that 700 scientists believe this claptrap. However scientist covers a lot these days, and so who knows who they are. By most of these theory i hereby states that The Force exists and proof can be seen by reading all the star wars books and watching the films, the force is mentioned i would imagine 1000's of times. There are thousands of people including many scientists i would imagine that class their religion as Jedi, suggesting that they all believe in the force. Because the original films etc were based a long time ago in a galaxy far far away we can ascertain its truth since we have seen galaxies far far away that are also very old.... Unseul Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.... Do unto others before they do unto you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5196 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Steve,
Citing websites with no additional discussion is against forum rules. Use cites as a reference only. The core argument must come from yourself. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Please note that Mark is right. You have to pull what parts of the site you think supports your arguement.
In this case that seems particulary true since your site doesn't touch on the issues being discussed in this thread at all. At least that is the way it appears to me. Perhaps you can re read the OP and point out how the various sorting issues are answered by your reference. You need to do that very specifically and explain it in your own words. At this point you haven't even begun. It appears you don't even understand the size of the problem you have.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Steve Inactive Member |
You guys are very funny. When will you give me specifics like you are asking of me.
The links specifically detail what this thread is about and they don't use the bible as the source, they use scientific discovery. Is your web browser linking properly? The funny thing is that I know that until you all actually experience life to its fullest and realize yours and sciences limits, you'll never understand anything. You all remind me of the flat earth society people. No matter what evidence you show them they just will not accept it. They look right through it. Even the bible says the world is round: Isiah 40:22It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
The Flat Earth Society said that the Earth was circular, too.
You would really think that anybody who understands the difference between a circle and a sphere would know better than to try to quote Isaiah 40:22. Especially in a context that mentions the Flat Earth Society.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Well, here are a few from this thread you can start with. Try explaining the questions raised in
Message 3 Message 44 Message 46 and Message 54 Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
I read over your first link. It did not touch the question of this thread to my notice. Maybe I have a reading comprehension problem.
In any case, it is your job to defend you postition. This thread says that all the so called scientific explanations of the ordering of fossils are inadequate. Where does your link offer an explanation that works?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
There are two paragrpahs where the word "fossil" appears. Both are highly inaccurate. Neither truly deals with the genuine sorting.
Thus the fossils of former living plants and animals, as found in the sedimentary rocks of the earth’s crust, are used to date the rocks and to determine the particular geologic age of the formation containing them. This is done primarily on the assumption that rocks containing simple fossils must be older, and those containing complex fossils must be younger, since all things have developed by a process of evolution over the ages.
In fact the primary use of fossils to date rocks is the use of index fossils. If a fossil can be identified as beign both reasonably common and restricted to a relatively narrow stratigraphic range - then it can be used to identify other formations containing that fossil as being of the same age. This method goes back to before Darwin - William Smith is attributed as originating it back in 1815. Sedgewick and Murchison were applying the idea in the 1830s. Complexity is not a factor - nor should it be since the majority of fossils are hard-shelled marine organisms. The evidence that there had been some increase in complexity (in the sense that the upper bound of complexity went up - let us not forget that insects and bacteria are still incredibly successful) was a product of this investigation. Not a premise. How could it be ? For instance since the vast majority of fossils I found as a boy were the remains of molluscs, presumably the beds I searched should have been dated before the appearance of any vertebrates. But in fact they are dated as Jurassic - where does complexity come into that ? See also the discussion of Cuvier's work in the early 19th Century, below.
It is significant that, before the time of Lyell and Darwin, and their followers and popularizers (Marx, Spencer, Huxley, Nietzsche, et al.), the dominant theory of geology for the preceding century, that of the great awakening in science, had been the Flood theory, which understood the sedimentary rocks and their fossil contents as having been originally deposited as sediments during the awful year of the Great Flood and the century or so following.
Even relatively early investigators such as de Maillet (pub 1748 but probably written at least 30 years earlier) and Buffon (1778) explained rock formation primarily in terms of the retreat of a primordial ocean (Neptunism). While some Neptunists attributed fossil-bearing strata to the Flood, Werner, perhaps the leading figure of Neptunist theory did not, preferring to rely on the evidence of the rocks.. A rival school attributed geological history to volcanic action (Vulcanism or Plutonism). Although this school also goes back to the first half of the 18th century the best known exponent was James Hutton (1788) who accepted that sedimentary rocks were typically laid underwater but (correctly) attributed crystalline rock to volcanic action. However an understanding of the order of the fossil record did not truly arrive until Cuvier's work in the Paris basin in the early 19th century. While Cuvier did appeal to flooding to explain extinction he did not appeal to a single universal flood - the evidence was too clearly against it. Cuvier recognised a basic succession in the fossil record - from a period where there were no vertebrates except perhaps fish, then reptiles, then mammalian megafana and only then did humans appear in Europe. But his view was not based on a belief in evolution. He rejected the "transformist" ideas of his day, and died in 1832 well before Darwin published. Indeed when Cuvier wrote in 1812 Lyell had not published either. So Cuvier's views are not based on Darwin, Lyell or even the earlier ideas of evolution put forward by Lamarck.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Steve Inactive Member |
Okay, let me make it real simple for you.
Give me the exact dates of these publications, a bibliography if you will. Give me these researchers background, funding and such and then give me their evidence. You're not being specific. You're saying that such and such a person believed in such and such a thing, but you're not telling me why they believed what they believed, where was their research done and so forth. Do you seriously believe that 500 flood stories exist by chance?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
That's all a bit off topic and beside the point, steve.
The point is to explain the fossil ordering. The discussion above was just commenting on what bits about fossils there were in your links. The deal is that they do NOT discuss the ordering or explain it. We are waiting. When you've done with this one there are others perhaps even harder to explain. I can save you some time by letting you know in advance that there aren't explanations. We've been asking for them for months.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
steve, I believe there have been as many a 500 floods. Lots of little floods. All over the place.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Give me the exact dates of these publications, a bibliography if you will. Give me these researchers background, funding and such and then give me their evidence. Why on earth do you need all that. That is ancient history and just there to fill in a bit of it for you. It is not relevant to the topic under discussion. You don't need the publications, you need a couple of history book is all.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024