Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Great Creationist Fossil Failure
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(8)
Message 121 of 1163 (786327)
06-20-2016 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Faith
06-20-2016 1:40 AM


Re: The Redwall Limestone: A Case In Point
What? The supposed order of the fossil record is an illusion, period ...
Come on now. It's not an illusion that we find (for example) trilobites and blastoids and rugose corals in rocks dated to the Carboniferous, and lobsters and sand-dollars and stony corals in rocks dated to the Paleogene. Paleontologists are not merely looking at the rocks and hallucinating. There is order in the fossil record, and it is incumbent on you to explain it.
Now, when a paleontologist says to me: I found an assemblage of marine fauna, and when I look at the lead and uranium content of zircons found above those strata, I make such-and-such measurements --- then I can confidently say: then it will contain no lobsters, no tabulate corals, no rugose corals, no teleost fish, no ichthyosaurs, no whales ... and I will be right every time.
The only way you can predict such a thing is by accepting as a brute fact that the fossil record will always conform to the predictions made by old-Earth evolutionists using their much-despised methods of radiometric dating. You cannot predict it from the book of Genesis, but only from the empirical fact that the fossil record always looks as though the evos are right.
Will you admit that this is in fact a point to us?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Faith, posted 06-20-2016 1:40 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 06-20-2016 2:03 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 125 by edge, posted 06-20-2016 5:30 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 122 of 1163 (786342)
06-20-2016 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Dr Adequate
06-20-2016 11:49 AM


Re: The Redwall Limestone: A Case In Point
I'd be happy to grant you a point here and there if you all ever granted me even one, let alone the dozen or so I should have had by now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-20-2016 11:49 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by PaulK, posted 06-20-2016 2:15 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 124 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-20-2016 2:16 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 123 of 1163 (786344)
06-20-2016 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Faith
06-20-2016 2:03 PM


Re: The Redwall Limestone: A Case In Point
Why should you have had a dozen points by now ? Can you even give three that we really should have granted - and did not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 06-20-2016 2:03 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 124 of 1163 (786345)
06-20-2016 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Faith
06-20-2016 2:03 PM


Re: The Redwall Limestone: A Case In Point
I'd be happy to grant you a point here and there if you all ever granted me even one, let alone the dozen or so I should have had by now.
Unfairly, I treat things supported by evidence as more significant than things supported by Because Faith Says So.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 06-20-2016 2:03 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 06-21-2016 5:34 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 125 of 1163 (786363)
06-20-2016 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Dr Adequate
06-20-2016 11:49 AM


Re: The Redwall Limestone: A Case In Point
Come on now. It's not an illusion that we find (for example) trilobites and blastoids and rugose corals in rocks dated to the Carboniferous, and lobsters and sand-dollars and stony corals in rocks dated to the Paleogene. Paleontologists are not merely looking at the rocks and hallucinating. There is order in the fossil record, and it is incumbent on you to explain it.
It is incumbent as long as Faith says the scientists are wrong, yes.
The insurmountable problem that Faith has is that, to her, all fossils were deposited in one year, and as such, they are all the same age. That is an undeniable presupposition on her part. She only has so much time to work with, so accepting various ad hoc explanations is the only alternative.
When those explanations conflict, all we can get is a shrug out of Faith. It literally doesn't matter.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-20-2016 11:49 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by dwise1, posted 06-21-2016 10:28 AM edge has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 126 of 1163 (786386)
06-21-2016 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by edge
06-20-2016 5:30 PM


Re: The Redwall Limestone: A Case In Point
Speaking of limestone, it consists of the shells of microscopic marine animals. I understand that the shape of the shells differ from era to era as those animals evolved.
That should raise two questions:
1. Do we see patterns of faunal succession in limestone's component animals?
2. How could the Flood explain such perfect segregation of such different microscopic animals into such incredibly high concentrations to form layers of such thickness, and do so for successive layers interspersed by other kinds of sediment?
Just using your post as the springboard for this question. Anyone sufficiently familiar with limestone geology is welcome to jump in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by edge, posted 06-20-2016 5:30 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by edge, posted 06-21-2016 11:48 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 127 of 1163 (786388)
06-21-2016 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by dwise1
06-21-2016 10:28 AM


Re: The Redwall Limestone: A Case In Point
Speaking of limestone, it consists of the shells of microscopic marine animals. I understand that the shape of the shells differ from era to era as those animals evolved.
Limestone has become a highly specialized field of stratigraphy. There are multiple classification systems that I cannot even begin to describe.
However, limestones are said to make up 10% of the stratigraphic record (this probably seems low to us because we only see the continental deposits), and they do record the evolution of marine life. Just think of the evolution of corals, foraminifera, brachiopods, crinoids, etc. In fact, most of the fossil record depends up on the organic origin of calcium carbonate shells and skeletons and would be expected to occur in limestone. Even the Chalk is considered to be a type of limestone, and (in reference to the break-up of Pangea) it is even turned to marble in Ireland where volcanism related the rifting of the Atlantic indicates a high heat flow as rifting started.
Many limestones are so fine-grained that organic remains are not visible. This is due to the ease with which calcite recrystallizes under geological conditions. It also dissolves and reprecipitates locally, destroying original textures.
And there are some limestones that are simple chemical precipitates, such as travertine.
And you might look up the word 'coquina' as a special type of limestone with macroscopic fossil shells and corals, etc.
So, the answer is yes, we do see faunal succession in limestone. I will later present some photos of limestone with Triassic crinoid discs and brachipods that I collected some years ago.
The answer to your second question is posed for any YECs willing to tackle the problem. I'm pretty sure that won't happen.
ETA: You are not the originator of the "Incompetent Design Theory", are you?
Edited by edge, : No reason given.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by dwise1, posted 06-21-2016 10:28 AM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 06-21-2016 4:01 PM edge has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 128 of 1163 (786414)
06-21-2016 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by edge
06-21-2016 11:48 AM


Limestones, trilobites and so-called faunal succession.
Even the Chalk is considered to be a type of limestone, and (in reference to the break-up of Pangea) it is even turned to marble in Ireland where volcanism related the rifting of the Atlantic indicates a high heat flow as rifting started.
Good to know. I thought there must be evidence of volcanism somewhere in the UK as the continents broke apart right there. Cross sections of Ireland I've found at Google Image are only partial or identified as "England and Ireland." I suppose that shows similarity of the strata, at least, which would mean they were all laid down before being tectonically deformed just as England's were. In which case, again, it's odd it didn't happen when the rifting occurred. But of course it's quite consistent with the interpretation that the Flood laid them all down and then the tectonic disturbances occurred afterward, not during some mythical "time period" imposed on a section of the strata.
So, the answer is yes, we do see faunal succession in limestone. I will later present some photos of limestone with Triassic crinoid discs and brachipods that I collected some years ago.
How on earth could you possibly determine that the organisms found in higher limestones descended from lower? You have absolutely no way of knowing that, it is merely an assumption based on the ToE that this must be the case. Anywhere in the fossil record variations on the same Kind are found there is complete lack of anything to indicate which evolved from which. Trilobites for instance occur at various levels, and their variations appear to have been segregated just like so much else in the strata, but for all you know the lower could have evolved from the higher, you can't possibly know for sure.
Evolution within the Kind is of course the likely explanation for the many different kinds of organisms in the limestones and for the many different kinds of trilobites, but there is no real justification whatever for assuming the higher descended from the lower, it's all based on the seeming order in the fossil record overall.
But that order is pure fantasy. Evolution from Kind to Kind is another thing altogether from evolution within the Kind. There is no real basis for putting mammals above reptiles or for any other ordering in that fantastical scheme of supposed faunal succession. I do have the advantage of knowing for sure that mammals and reptiles were created at the same time of course, and the whole collection of fossils in the entire geological column too, whereas you are limited to your fallible imagination. No, I don't know why various creatures got grouped together in the Flood, but I know that they did and that the seeming order is an illusion. I also know from my own argument about population genetics, that developing new varieties or species requires the loss of genetic diversity, mutation contributing nothing to reverse the trend, only to slow it down or muddy it up, that evolution of different varieties and species is limited to the Kind and becomes less and less genetically possible as evolution proceeds, so that the idea of getting a mammal from a reptile even in hundreds of millions of years is physically impossible. There are lots of other reasons why the idea is impossible too, such as the rapidity of evolution which would take every creature to extinction in much less than a million years. And again the silliness of their all being encased in a specific kind of rock. You really should be able to see the silliness of that.
Again, we don't know exactly HOW the segregation of the species occurred in the Flood, but we do know that the standard ToE explanation are absurd and impossible, AND the only "evidence" you have for it is sheer imagination, you have no REAL physical evidence for the fossil order.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by edge, posted 06-21-2016 11:48 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-21-2016 4:43 PM Faith has replied
 Message 134 by edge, posted 06-21-2016 6:26 PM Faith has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 129 of 1163 (786417)
06-21-2016 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Faith
06-21-2016 4:01 PM


Re: Limestones, trilobites and so-called faunal succession.
I thought there must be evidence of volcanism somewhere in the UK as the continents broke apart right there.
There was some vulcanism, yes. Well done.
How volcanoes shaped Britain's landscape
Of course today, those long enduring volcanic fires are extinguished. The last hurrah of the UK volcano was about 55 million years ago, when an extraordinary fiery outburst accompanied the wrenching open of the North Atlantic ocean.
All along what is now the western shores of Scotland, huge volcanic centres erupted colossal quantities of magma. The islands of Arran, Mull and Skye are among the remains of a chain of volcanoes that draped much of northern Britain and Ireland in enormous amounts of lava and volcanic ash.
Deeper fracture lines radiating out from these centres injected Hebridean magma as far south as the North Sea coast of Yorkshire, travelling the 400km in something like five days!
But such volcanic violence was not to last. Over millions of years, the spreading of the Atlantic seaway shunted eastward Hebridean volcanoes away from the well of superheated rock that originally fed them, so that, today, that upwelling now feeds the craters and geysers of Iceland.
How on earth could you possibly determine that the organisms found in higher limestones descended from lower?
If you do not know what faunal succession is, perhaps you should not be discussing paleontology.
Maybe you should have read my book, the one you have so often claimed to have read and to be largely in agreement with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 06-21-2016 4:01 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Faith, posted 06-21-2016 5:08 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 130 of 1163 (786420)
06-21-2016 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Dr Adequate
06-21-2016 4:43 PM


Re: Limestones, trilobites and so-called faunal succession.
Of course today, those long enduring volcanic fires are extinguished. The last hurrah of the UK volcano was about 55 million years ago, when an extraordinary fiery outburst accompanied the wrenching open of the North Atlantic ocean.
SO nice when I agree with the facts isn't it? I surmised this from the volcano icons on Google Earth some time ago. Lots of dead volcanoes along the Atlantic rim.
All along what is now the western shores of Scotland, huge volcanic centres erupted colossal quantities of magma. The islands of Arran, Mull and Skye are among the remains of a chain of volcanoes that draped much of northern Britain and Ireland in enormous amounts of lava and volcanic ash.
Not millions of years ago, though, just a few thousand.
If you do not know what faunal succession is, perhaps you should not be discussing paleontology.
This is a scurrilous tactic of yours that ought to earn you some moderator rebuke. If you are going to claim I'm wrong about something it's your job to prove it.
Google, Wikipedia: "The principle of faunal succession, also known as the law of faunal succession, is based on the observation that sedimentary rock strata contain fossilized flora and fauna, and that these fossils succeed each other vertically in a specific, reliable order that can be identified over wide horizontal distances. "
Nothing about this that I don't get.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-21-2016 4:43 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by PaulK, posted 06-21-2016 5:14 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 131 of 1163 (786421)
06-21-2016 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Faith
06-21-2016 5:08 PM


Re: Limestones, trilobites and so-called faunal succession.
If you are aware that faunal succession does not involve descent, please explain why your apparent objection to faunal succession began:
How on earth could you possibly determine that the organisms found in higher limestones descended from lower?
And might I also suggest that someone who is so keen on throwing unjustified accusations should be a little less sensitive when others make quite reasonable inferences.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Faith, posted 06-21-2016 5:08 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Faith, posted 06-21-2016 5:24 PM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 132 of 1163 (786422)
06-21-2016 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by PaulK
06-21-2016 5:14 PM


Re: Limestones, trilobites and so-called faunal succession.
Correction: For "descended from" substitute "evolved later than."
abe: However, perhaps you recall the discussion about how the mammalian ear evolved from the reptilian. Descent is implied from reptile to mammal. That's what evolution means, you know, descent with modification. It doesn't have to be direct descent but it IS descent and the claim about the form of the ear shows that evos think it is.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by PaulK, posted 06-21-2016 5:14 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by PaulK, posted 06-22-2016 12:34 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 133 of 1163 (786423)
06-21-2016 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Dr Adequate
06-20-2016 2:16 PM


Re: The Redwall Limestone: A Case In Point
I treat things supported by evidence as more significant than things supported by Because Faith Says So.
Your evidence for faunal succession is nothing but the imaginative assessment of plausibility, it is NOT real evidence.
And I've given lots of evidence for my various claims. REAL evidence. Lots and lots and lots of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-20-2016 2:16 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-21-2016 6:36 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 137 by edge, posted 06-21-2016 6:36 PM Faith has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 134 of 1163 (786428)
06-21-2016 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Faith
06-21-2016 4:01 PM


Re: Limestones, trilobites and so-called faunal succession.
Good to know. I thought there must be evidence of volcanism somewhere in the UK as the continents broke apart right there. Cross sections of Ireland I've found at Google Image are only partial or identified as "England and Ireland."
Except for the tiny fact that your previous section by Smith was hundreds of miles away from this disturbance. In fact, it's a very different setting.
I suppose that shows similarity of the strata, at least, which would mean they were all laid down before being tectonically deformed just as England's were.
Not really. Pre-Devonian rocks were deformed by the Caledonian Orogeny. That's what we actually see as one goes northwest from southern GB.
This map show the extent of the Caledonian Orogeny:
Caledonian orogeny - Wikipedia
This accounts for a lot of the deformation in Ireland and Scotland, as well as some of the less intense folding near Wales on your section.
The section you referred to does not show much effect from that event. This is the same problem that you had with the Grand Canyon argument last year where you disregarded what was going on in the rest of the world and focused on one small region of the earth. Remember when you said that there was no tectonism going on while the GC sediments were being deposited? That also was demonstrably false.
In late Cretaceous to Paleogene time, the yellow region above was sundered between the continental land masses with coastlines shown in light gray. As you can see it is nowhere near London.
The largest igneous event of the region was the North Atlantic Large Igneous Province about 60my ago. It's effects are shown in this diagram:
Again you see minimal effects reaching southern Great Britain.
In which case, again, it's odd it didn't happen when the rifting occurred.
Actually, there was igneous activity during rifting as shown above and there were older events attending the Caledonian orogeny and others.
But of course it's quite consistent with the interpretation that the Flood laid them all down and then the tectonic disturbances occurred afterward, not during some mythical "time period" imposed on a section of the strata.
Actually, not at all. All of these events show that passage of time during which organisms, including corals evolved. Some became extinct and others appeared. The Cretaceous Chalk is from a very different fossil community than the Triassic limestones that I am familiar with, and the Paleozoic limestones that cover much of North America.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 06-21-2016 4:01 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Faith, posted 06-21-2016 6:36 PM edge has replied
 Message 148 by Faith, posted 06-22-2016 12:39 AM edge has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 135 of 1163 (786431)
06-21-2016 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Faith
06-21-2016 5:34 PM


Re: The Redwall Limestone: A Case In Point
Your evidence for faunal succession is nothing but the imaginative assessment of plausibility, it is NOT real evidence.
You still don't know what faunal succession is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 06-21-2016 5:34 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024