Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,137 Year: 3,394/9,624 Month: 265/974 Week: 154/130 Day: 29/73 Hour: 1/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Great Creationist Fossil Failure
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17825
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


(2)
Message 515 of 1163 (787961)
07-24-2016 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 513 by Faith
07-24-2016 9:29 AM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
quote:
Oh I understand all that, all right, I reject it with every sane cell in my body.
Rejecting obvious facts is not usually considered a sign of sanity.
quote:
Today, yes, but the strata could not possibly have been formed in such small bodies of water with such distinctive boundaries. The strata are commonly enormous, huge, flat flat flat thick thick thick blocks of rocK
So if a stratum was said to have formed in a lake you would reject the idea because other strata are a lot bigger. That doesn't really make much sense.
quote:
You think I somehow failed to grasp this? In the case of the strata, however, I'm afraid there is every reason to say that the rock IS the landscape. It's where the whole scenario of the "time period" had to have been played out. There is no separate land "alongside" the rock, all there is is the rock, in many cases spanning hundreds of thousands of square miles, and that's where the imagined landscape had to have been
It's weird. First you argue that we don't have the landscape, only evidence which we use to infer it (and you try to pretend that most of that doesn't exist). Now you are trying to say otherwise. Now obviously the effects of compaction and lithification and sometimes erosion are going to change what was there. That's why we find fossil tree stumps rather than living trees.
quote:
What the bore holes demonstrate above all is the enormous area covered by the strata, as well as their depth, and the order of the rocks and the fossils, however hard to explain in terms of the Flood, just isn't all that important in the light of all the problems for OE theory --although I think the many creationist theories about it must all go some way to explaining it.
Again, not all strata are so extensive and making foolish generalisations hardly helps your case. You've yet to demonstrate any serious problems for the scientific view - which should surprise nobody. Creationist explanations for the order of the fossil record fail miserably - but I invite you to argue otherwise since it actually is on topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 513 by Faith, posted 07-24-2016 9:29 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 520 by Faith, posted 07-24-2016 2:38 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17825
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 521 of 1163 (787980)
07-24-2016 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 520 by Faith
07-24-2016 2:38 PM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
quote:
Calling an interpretation a fact isn't very sane either. I reject the idea that the clues in the rock prove an actual environment
Reading in context the statement you rejected claimed that the rocks contained evidence of past environments. This is a fact. That you reject the interpretation of the evidence - even though the interpretation is eminently sensible - with such vehemence is not good either - but that isn't what you said.
quote:
You can't get a stratum, a thick flat rock that extends over a huge area, from a lakE
Oh, this is one of those arguments where you rely on your own mistaken definitions of words. A stratum is just a layer. It is still a stratum if it has a quite limited extent. And the strata attributed to (individual) lakes do. As I said.
And yes you would get a layer. Why wouldn't you ?
quote:
The problem is that you apparently can't tell when I'm characterizing the opinion I disagree with rather than stating my own opinion, so you think I'm saying both and contradicting myself.
That is sort of confusing when I, certainly, am arguing that things have changed enough that we cannot truly say that we have the landscape, but that we do have evidence of it.
So you certainly weren't accurately characterising my position when you say that the rock is the landscape.
Moreover, I took it as a reference to your idea that the landscape would have been rock when there are creatures living on it. And that is certainly not a view that any of your opponents (or geology) takes at all.
quote:
Eh?
Perhaps the explanation of my position above makes it clearer.
quote:
I keep having the core samples from the Midwest in mind that cover the ENTIRE midwest, that Thin Air posted some time ago. And the problem here is your refusal to give me the credit for knowing that the strata cover different areas, since I've said it often enough. All it takes is not saying it occasionally for you to turn it into an accusation -- the usual cheap shot from you.
The point in question was that some strata do not cover large areas. And since you make the same mistake above either you didn't know that - or you used an argument you know to be false. Take your pick.
quote:
I don't expect anything to surprise you. It could take a big bite out of your butt and you wouldn't get it.
And the usual nastiness from Faith, the sore loser.
quote:
OE has been defeated over and over again; there's no actual order in the fossil record to consider.
The first is just false bluster. For the second, William Smithnand two centuries worth of geology after him say that you are dead wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 520 by Faith, posted 07-24-2016 2:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 522 by Faith, posted 07-24-2016 3:21 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17825
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 524 of 1163 (787986)
07-24-2016 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 522 by Faith
07-24-2016 3:21 PM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
It is funny that someone who claims to be honest has such a negative view of telling the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 522 by Faith, posted 07-24-2016 3:21 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17825
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 543 of 1163 (788199)
07-27-2016 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 542 by Tangle
07-27-2016 1:02 AM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
quote:
The geological column is always complete.
Not really. There are periods of non-deposition and erosion. Local geological columns rarely even contain rock from every geological period.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 542 by Tangle, posted 07-27-2016 1:02 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 545 by Tangle, posted 07-27-2016 2:20 AM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17825
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


(2)
Message 552 of 1163 (788240)
07-28-2016 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 549 by NoNukes
07-27-2016 5:41 PM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
If you think about it, that is the way it must be. You would have to abstract most of the geology out of the column if you wished to reduce everything to a single diagram. Even the most massive volcanic events do not cover the planet, and it would be foolish to expect everywhere to receive the same sediment.
And this leads back to the topic. While the rocks taken alone are not a good guide to the order of the strata (except for radiometric dating, where applicable) the fossil contents of the rock - where present - often are. As William Smith discovered. The fact is not based in any assumptions contrary to YEC belief. The usual false accusation of "brainwashing" hardly applies - if it were not a fact it would easily be disproved (and how could it have been discovered in the first place ?). And so it stands, a clear refutation of flood geology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 549 by NoNukes, posted 07-27-2016 5:41 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17825
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 562 of 1163 (790585)
09-01-2016 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 561 by Faith
09-01-2016 9:51 AM


Re: More amazing sorting
It isn't amazing to us because we accept the scientific view. It should be amazing to you that it is the case that the lowest rocks are so short of fossils.
However, this particular formation is home to some of the strangest fossils known - the Ediacaran fauna.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 561 by Faith, posted 09-01-2016 9:51 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 563 by Faith, posted 09-01-2016 9:55 AM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17825
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 577 of 1163 (790672)
09-03-2016 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 575 by jar
09-02-2016 8:43 AM


Re: Learning what terms mean.
It's rather simple really. The Cambrian was defined, and the Precambrian is everything older. Writing it as "pre-Cambrian" might be a little more obvious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 575 by jar, posted 09-02-2016 8:43 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17825
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 581 of 1163 (793730)
11-05-2016 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 580 by mindspawn
11-05-2016 5:21 PM


Re: More amazing sorting
quote:
The sequence of events in the fossil record fits in with the sequence one would expect from creation.
I don't think so. Lifespan is an odd concept with bacteria anyway, but how long does it take a stromatolite to grow ? And aren't many trilobite fossils cast-off exoskeletons ?
What about land life ? And why so few recognisably modern creatures at all ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 580 by mindspawn, posted 11-05-2016 5:21 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 583 by mindspawn, posted 11-05-2016 5:44 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17825
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 588 of 1163 (793739)
11-05-2016 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 583 by mindspawn
11-05-2016 5:44 PM


Re: More amazing sorting
quote:
You make a good point about the exoskeleton being cast off, I didn't think about that But regarding the order of fossils, surely it's obvious that if bacteria and trilobites are created at the same time in numbers, dead cells of bacteria would exist before the first trilobite casts off it's exoskeleton?
Since bacteria don't die of old age, and since the most famous pre-Cambrian fossils are stromatolites rather than individual bacterial cells it is certainly not obvious.
quote:
It appears that most major present phyla did appear in the Cambrian Explosion, also consistent with creation week.
I don't know why you think that. Especially as you claim that the order of the fossil record indicates deaths rather than creation. The fact that early representatives of the phyla don't necessarily look an awful lot like later forms is another issue. And isn't the late appearance of the Bryozoa rather a big problem for you ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 583 by mindspawn, posted 11-05-2016 5:44 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 590 by mindspawn, posted 11-05-2016 6:40 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17825
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 622 of 1163 (793777)
11-06-2016 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 590 by mindspawn
11-05-2016 6:40 PM


Re: More amazing sorting
quote:
Stromatolites still make my point. It's the correct order.
You are going to have to offer more than assertion if you expect me to believe that.
quote:
Obviously the order of fossilisation relates to death. There would be dead bacteria cells accumulating within hours of creation, and yet the first exoskeleton of a trilobite some time later.
Since, as I pointed out, bacteria do not die of old age, and since you need the stromatolite to form before it could "die" it is hardly obvious that you are correct. Does it really take less time for a stromatolite - of the size found in the Precambrian - to form than it does for a trilobite to reach a size where it needs to moult ? It certainly is not obvious.
quote:
Generally creatures are more likely to fall to the ground and get covered by sediment when dead. Generally a live creature would squirm out of falling sediment, less likely to be buried and fossilised.
So you actually do assume that bacteria have short lifespans and die of old age ? That's not obvious - it is just ignorant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 590 by mindspawn, posted 11-05-2016 6:40 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 625 by mindspawn, posted 11-06-2016 3:29 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17825
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 626 of 1163 (793781)
11-06-2016 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 625 by mindspawn
11-06-2016 3:29 AM


Re: More amazing sorting
quote:
You make good points there, but it does still remain obvious that under creation conditions the accumulation of dead bacteria cells would exist under the layer containing the first trilobite fossils
Since there shouldn't be a layer of dead bacterial cells at all (you haven't even mentioned anything killing them), nor is there such a layer in the fossil record that pretty much leaves your claim dead in the water.
quote:
Its obvious too that these cells wouldn't fossilise immediately, taking time to fossilise into stromatolites.
You don't get stromatolites by fossilising dead bacteria.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 625 by mindspawn, posted 11-06-2016 3:29 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 627 by mindspawn, posted 11-06-2016 3:51 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17825
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 628 of 1163 (793783)
11-06-2016 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 627 by mindspawn
11-06-2016 3:51 AM


Re: Stromatolites
Why couldn't a stromatolite grow over a discarded exoskeleton ? Why couldn't a discarded exoskeleton be around near a stromatolite? Why is there such a huge gap between the oldest stromatolites and the Cambrian explosion ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 627 by mindspawn, posted 11-06-2016 3:51 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 630 by mindspawn, posted 11-06-2016 5:15 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17825
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 633 of 1163 (793789)
11-06-2016 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 630 by mindspawn
11-06-2016 5:15 AM


Re: Stromatolites
quote:
Regarding the huge gap, always the timeframes come up. There appears to be a huge gap in the time periods only in evolutionist's eyes because evolutionists believe in huge timeframes.
In terms of time frames the gap is believed to be huge because the evidence leads us to that conclusion. And I would remind you that there are Old Earth Creationists who accept the evidence of age.
Also, if you are going to deal with the ages - and you just brought it up - any alternative explanation (if you ever come up with one) is going to need to explain why there is such a massive gap at that point.
quote:
Can you tell me the actual height distance in the layers between the stromatolite and the first exoskeleton? Any reason why that difference is impossible to be laid down over a few years while the first trilobite sheds the exoskeleton? A few meters?
It isn't so simple. Relative dating is based on the relationships between the rock strata - and I would maintain that this is closely connected to the order. Height would be hugely variable, given erosion and uplift. So the "gap" would actually be revealed by relative dating, or the order of deposition.
I don't think it unreasonable, given the fact that relative dating and radiometric dating largely agree to conclude that there is an awful lot of deposition between the earliest stromatolite fossils and the Cambrian explosion - and you have yet to offer any reason to expect a gap at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 630 by mindspawn, posted 11-06-2016 5:15 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 636 by mindspawn, posted 11-06-2016 6:07 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17825
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 635 of 1163 (793791)
11-06-2016 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 634 by mindspawn
11-06-2016 5:50 AM


Re: More amazing sorting
Two points in this.
First, we do have evidence if transitional fossils before the Cambrian explosion (and good reasons why they should be rare). Creationists have no evidence, and the same reasons do not apply.
Second, the fact that one (and only one) family of trilobites is specialised for low-oxygen conditions is hardly evidence that such conditions were so common that we should not expect to see fossils of modern Crustacea - or close relatives - from that period.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 634 by mindspawn, posted 11-06-2016 5:50 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 637 by mindspawn, posted 11-06-2016 6:13 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 638 by mindspawn, posted 11-06-2016 6:40 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17825
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 639 of 1163 (793798)
11-06-2016 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 636 by mindspawn
11-06-2016 6:07 AM


Re: Stromatolites
quote:
You say : you have yet to offer any reason to expect a gap at all.
I have offered a reason. The bacteria collected on the surface first.
Put barely like that it is hardly a reason at all - and as I have already pointed out there is no good reason to expect it to be true. Nor is it a reason to expect any significant gap. Or really any gap - if a stromatolite is growing on the sea floor it would hardly be difficult for an exoskeleton to be deposited nearby or even in a stratum with a similar relative date.
quote:
Then after a few years the first exoskeleton would have been deposited. Fossilisation does not occur every time something falls to the ground. Who knows how long the bacteria were multipying before the first exoskeleton actually got fossilised.
In other words you are assuming that quite large stromatolites can form much quicker than trilobites can grow. To the point where every Precambrian stromatolite that we have found had been completely formed long before there were any significant number of moulted exoskeletons. I think that is implausible, and needs more evidence.
quote:
Here's another reason we could have bacteria existing together with trilobites from creation week, but the trilobite fossils are rarely found at the lowest layers
No, it isn't. There is a huge difference between finding incomplete fossils and finding no fossils.
quote:
These animals did all exist together with bacteria in the Pre-Cambrian:
The quoted material refers to fossils found in the Latham Shale which is Cambrian, not Precambrian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 636 by mindspawn, posted 11-06-2016 6:07 AM mindspawn 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