Fossil sorting for simple

There are birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians alive today. And there were birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians alive a hundred million years ago. And all four are found throughout the last hundred million years of the fossil record. If Walt's story about the different types of animals descending to different levels were the correct explanation, then the one that sank lowest in Walt's water tank would be found lowest in the fossil record in the ground. But we don't. We find birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians at all levels, and this falsifies Walt's theory that their relative density controlled the fossil layer in which they're found.Another problem with Walt's theory is that fossils aren't found suspended in water but in rock. He needs to propose a mechanism by which the ordering of the dead animals in the water is maintained while the water is somehow replaced with rock. He also needs to explain why the deeper you dig, the older the rocks you find when dated radiometrically. This explanation from Walt contradicts the previous one. If the density of dead animals in the water controls their level in the fossil record, then now high an animal manages to climb before being overtaken by the flood is irrelevant. According to Walt, after death the animal is supposed to sink to the proper density level, making the fact that he first climbed Mt. Everest irrelevant.If you decide to discard the water density theory and instead adopt this "how high can you climb" theory, then there are other problems. Walt has to explain how it is that animals of a certain type all managed to reach the same level, whether they were young or old, weak or strong when the flood hit. And how there were no anomalous events, such as a Tyrannosaurus Rex who had just finished a meal of a modern cow when the flood hit, with one or both of them ending up in the wrong level, even in the water density theory. And he must explain why non-mobile life, such as plants, trees, coral, etc, which couldn't escape to higher ground, are all found in the expected levels with their mobile life counterparts which presumably ran or floated to the right levels. Well, yes, of course there is, the whole thing troubles me in fact. For those of us who have respect and concern for science education, we find it distressing when ideas which are not supported by the evidence and which in many cases are contradicted by the evidence are presented as if they were legitimate science.--Percy

Hi, Simple!I'm going to go way, way back all the way to...my post of last night, Message 47. Your reply didn't give any indication that you understood the contradictions inherent in Walt's proposals, and so I'd like to go over them again. You said in your reply: I didn't ignore any of the factors you mentioned, like density while living, decay gasses and so forth. You said that as evidence Walt described an experiment where a bird, a mammal, a reptile and an amphibian, all dead, were placed in a water tank and allowed ot find their level, and that, "This order of relative bouyancy correlates closely with 'the evolutionary order'".In case it isn't clear, this means that the bird found one level in the tank, the mammal found a different level, the reptile found yet another different level, and the amphibian a different level still. In Walt's words (by way of you), they ordered themselves in the tank. Walt is presenting this as an explanation for why birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians are all found in different levels.The problem is that they aren't all found in different levels. Birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians are all found in all layers of at least the last 100 million years of the fossil record.The idea that the fossil layer corresponds to the depth in the flood at which a dead animal eventually floated is actually fundamentally flawed, and this can be seen with just birds alone. If Walt's idea were true, then birds should only be found at one level. But birds are found at all levels back to about 125 million years ago. Not only that, but birds of all different sizes, shapes and types are found at all levels. Even if for the sake of argument we assume Noah's flood was real, floating level does not explain the distribution of fossils in the ground. Theory is supported by evidence, not by science. The evidence can gradually be described for you over the course of this discussion.--Percy

We're only assuming it is important because you brought it up yourself. This is you writing in Message 43 just yesterday: So it's a bit confusing to see you offering Walt Brown's boyancy solution yesterday, and then to see you asking why this is important today. Perhaps you could clarify your position for us?Whatever your answer, the important question for you is how a 6,000 year old flood explains the distribution of fossils we find in the ground. If your answer is the same as Walt Brown's then we can respond with the evidence that contradicts this idea. If your answer is some other approach then we can explore that with you, also. Just let us know which way you're going, okay?The consensus view within geology is that there is no evidence for a global flood 6,000 years ago, or ever, for that matter. Floods tend to leave very specific evidence, and when in the 19th century the young science of geology began searching for evidence to confirm a flood they sincerely believed had taken place, what they instead found was evidence of no flood, finding instead much evidence of immense antiquity.More than 150 years later the evidence has grown and grown, and as we discuss this in this thread we can present some of that evidence to you. Some of it has already been presented. Someone mentioned shark's teeth, describing how the teeth shed by ancient sharks while still alive sink to the bottom (shark's teeth grow throughout their lifetimes - new teeth push out the old ones), but that shed teeth are found in the same geologic layers as shark jaws with the teeth still present, something that couldn't happen if the shark died in Noah's flood.Someone else mentioned the pollen of ferns and grasses and the layers in which they are found, explaining how they couldn't be found in the different layers if they all lived at the same time and were entombed by the flood.I can mention another piece of evidence. Fine particulate matter can only deposit in quiet waters. It takes a long time for such material to build up deep layers. One early evidence of an ancient earth was the discovery of layer after layer of fine grained material which could only have been deposited in quiet seas over millions of years. Had the layers been deposited by a flood then the layers would have contained large grained material, because only heavy sand and pebbles and boulders can fall out of energetic water.--Percy

Your question actually involves two issues.The first is the possibility that something we haven't yet imagined took place. Most certainly this must be conceded. I don't think it's been mentioned yet in discussions with you, but in science there is never any final answer. New evidence might be discovered, or scientists might develop fresh insights. So most certainly you are correct.But the other issue is that we all pose our own puzzles. You believe the theories of modern geology are wrong. Finding supporting evidence is your puzzle, not someone else's. You can make it someone else's puzzle by attracting their interest by finding evidence that doesn't fit or even contradicts current theory. But just asking, "Couldn't something we haven't imagined happened?" is never going to attract any attention, because that is a legitimate question in virtually every field of science.So, to answer your question more directly: Yes, of course current theory could be wrong. Certainly the flood might actually have been a real event. But, and it's a huge but, at the present time there is no evidence for a 6,000 year old worldwide flood, and all the evidence we have indicates very slow deposition of geologic layers with fossils over time. But the replies you've received, some of them containing considerable detail, have explained how Walt's boyancy proposal *isn't* another explanation. It not only doesn't fit the evidence, it is actually contradicted by the evidence. In the language of science, Walt's proposal is falsified, and so must be discarded. No one is making fun of you or your ideas. As you must be aware, a number of longstanding members here are convinced you are a troll (in case you're not familiar with the term, it refers to someone who's only goal is to cause anger and frustration). I exerted considerable energy here at EvC Forum ensuring you are treated with respect and patience, and that the answers you receive are careful, considerate and well thought out. A more appropriate response might be an expression of appreciation. As NosyNed has noted elsewhere, the other possibilities you mentioned were "lensing", which you never describe and so we're unable to address it, and creatures scrambling for higher ground, which several people have addressed, including myself in Message 47. Until you describe "lensing" we cannot respond. And you haven't responded to the rebuttals to your scrambling for higher ground proposal. We responded to everything that could possibly be responded to. This is an excellent way of saying that you have to accept the world as you find it. You cannot wish onto it qualities it does not have. We've been explaining the "how" to you for a few days now. If you have more questions, please, just ask. We'd be glad to answer them. The evidence of antiquity via dating methods is ubiquitous. Remember the tables of dating for Greenland and the moon that I posted for you a few days ago? That's just a tiny part of all the dating that's been done for the oldest rocks on the earth and moon. And all that dating is just a tiny part of all the dating that's been done for all layers of all ages. The more violent and widespread the event, the more obvious the evidence. While there is evidence of all kinds of events in the geological record, from quiet seas to massive volcanoes, we have been unable to find any evidence whatsoever for the largest event of them all, Noah's flood. As you so astutely pointed out before, "What you see is what you got!", and you ain't got no evidence for Noah's flood. Your characterization is inaccurate. We don't accept an ancient earth because we have always accepted an ancient earth, and are now just holding on to a dying paradigm as contrary evidence mounts. Just the opposite is the case. I think it has been recounted for you several times now that geologists who discovered how ancient the earth really was were in reality seeking evidence for a flood they sincerely believed had happened. They began their research believing the earth fairly young, but as you said, "What you see is what you got," and what they got was evidence of great antiquity, and so they had the idea of an ancient earth thrust upon them unexpectedly. Good questions, but it doesn't matter. Whether a tooth is knocked out or falls out, it still falls to the seafloor. And according to Walt's bouyancy theory, a shark killed in the flood has a certain boyancy level that corresponds to the geological level in which it is found. That means that the shark skeleton should be found at one level, it's bouyancy level, while the teeth it shed or were knocked out during it's lifetime, should be found on the seafloor level. But they're found in the exact same level, contrary to Walt's theory. In the language of science, Walt's theory is falsified, and is therefore discarded. Which I think repeats something I said earlier. Are you asking if I care whether Creationist ideas of geology are explored by actual geologists? Creationists have their own geologists, you know. Stephen Austin of ICR is one. If you go to the ICR Website you can search for technical articles by Austin, though he doesn't have any on geology that have appeared in peer-reviewed technical journals. There's a list of articles here, just do a ^F search for "austin" once you're there.--Percy

As NosyNed neatly notes nearby, you are the advocate and disseminator for Walt's views here. He has published nothing in the scientific literature. If you make an incomplete presentation of his views then that is your fault, not others. Let's keep in mind that "moronic opinion" is your phrase, not mine. What I said was that in the language of science, Walt's views have been falsified. Throughout the history of science many great scientist's views have been falsified, including Archimedes and Newton. That does not make them morons. On the other hand, of course, having your views falsified doesn't make you a great scientist. There is insufficient information here. How does Walt account for the ordering of fossils found in the geological layers?If I could point to just one teensy-weensy little inconsistency you've been exhibiting, it really makes no sense to tell us you're just testing the waters with Walt's theories and that you haven't yet accepted them yourself, while at the same time defending both Walt and his theories so tenaciously.--Percy [Added minor clarification. --Percy][This message has been edited by Percy, 02-08-2004]

Hi Simple!I'm replying to your last several messages from this thread. Scientists assign causes they find evidence for. They have found no evidence of a flood in these deposits. A flood would randomize fossil ordering. A flood would have flood sedimentary characteristics, instead of those of slow deposition or sedimentation. A flood would deposit layers that were nearly identical radiometrically. Had we found these things we would have concluded "flood", but we not didn't even find some of it. We found none of it. Not any. We have not as yet identified any evidence that can be even remotely associated with Noah's flood.It is fine to speculate about what might have happened, like hurricanes and volcanoes and floods and magma and so forth, but your hypotheses need evidence to support them, because the opposing theories of geologists have lots of evidence. You can say something like, "Well, a hurricane could have caused it." So we can go off looking for a hurricane, and if we find evidence of a hurricane it lends support to your viewpoints. But up to this point in time, you haven't supported any of your points with actual evidence. So far you've only engaged in hypothesis development.Some of what we've told you should be helpful to you in researching for evidence. You need to find evidence of flood sediments, which means very large sediment grains, and you need evidence that fossils are randomly ordered. Search for genetic evidence that all animal and plant populations were reduced to tiny populations of a just a couple individuals 6,000 years ago. Look for a massive extinction 6,000 years ago. Look for animals native to habitants distant from the Middle East that died en route between home and Noah's Ark, and so are found outside their native areas, like kangaroos in India.In other words, you need to build upon your hypotheses by seeking supporting evidence. Otherwise all you've got is an unsupported hypothesis, and if you consider the geologic evidence, a falsified one at that. This is an excellent point. Occam's razor, an excellent though not infallible guide, tells us that we must not complicate theory beyond necessity. That means we must not add details to theories for which we have no evidence. But you must not interpret this to mean that it is okay to ignore evidence, and this is what Edge is cautioning you against. You cannot ignore the evidence. Scientists have a theory that explains the radiometric evidence, the magnetic reversal evidence, the fossil ordering evidence, and the sedimentary evidence. In order to compete, you must propose a theory that addresses all this evidence, even if only to falsify it. Even if our greatest wisdom seems mere foolishness to God, that doesn't mean it is wrong. Our wisdom has figured out many great things, such as medical expertise that helps us fight problems as simple as scurvy (once you know the cause) to as complicated as cancer. Our wisdom has helped us send men to the moon and rovers to Mars. It has helped us build a world-wide information network, and build earthquake resistant buildings. It helped us discover the origins of the universe and of mankind. So you can't discount man's wisdom just because God's is so much grander. Despite our meager abilities, we *do* have some accomplishments we can point to. I've been extremely careful not only to address every point you raise, but also to continue to reintroduce points that you ignore so that they don't become forgotten. What you're actually hearing is frustration. Remember that many here think your behavior troll-like, and you came off suspension only through my actions. Your behavior has improved somewhat, but you still lack an understanding of the importance of evidence. For the most part people have been presenting you the evidence you seem unaware of. This fails to address the point. Just as with the radiometric data, you cannot ignore evidence. You need to provide Mark a reply to his points. A discussion cannot take place if one side is mounting serious arguments while the other side just derides, "Are you kidding, that's hogwash!" Please refresh your memory about the Forum Guidelines and the importance of responding substantively to the points addressed to you.The ordering in the fossil record is real. It is what we find in the ground. Anyone may find this evidence, whether Creationist or evolutionist. You need to account for this evidence in your model.Mark has introduced an important point that no one else is making, and that is that not only is the fossil record ordered, but the ordering is consistent with cladistics, something that is entirely unexpected for created, as opposed to evolved, animals. Your replies to Mark indicate that you haven't grasped this point yet. But this is subjective opinion. We could on our side argue as effectively about the internal mental states of Creationists and their preconceptions about a young earth, and about their tendency to ignore rather than embrace data, and about their ability to fabricate stories despite lack of any scientific evidence. But this would accomplish nothing because it is all subjective.That is why scientists attempt to focus on objective evidence, not on subjective opinion, and especially not on their subjective opinion of people they disagree with. Stay focused on the evidence, Simple. This statement is completely without factual support. You've been challenged on practically everything you've said. If anything significant has slipped through please let us know what it is. Massive events leave massive evidence. That there is no evidence at all of what would leave unmistakable evidence in the geologic record pretty much falsifies these ideas out of hand. By the way, dolomite is a sedimentary, not evaporative, rock.--Percy