Fossil sorting for simple

That's typical creationist. A blitzkrieg of nonsensical posts (mostly copied material from a bad source), a whine about censorship, a declaration of victory and disappearance. How many times have you seen that!CheersJoe Meert

One and the same Tasmanian devil.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

The number of fossils is calculated from an abnormal situationthe Karroo formation in South Africa. In this formation the fossils comprise a ‘fossil graveyard’the accumulation of animal remains in a local ‘sedimentary basin’. It is certainly improper to apply this abnormally high population density to the whole earth. The calculation also uses incorrect information on today’s animal population densities and takes no account of the different conditions that likely applied before the Flood.

​

by Tas Walker

---

JM: Sometimes I really wonder if he thinks things through. Ok, I am happy to not apply this to the whole earth and restrict it to just the Karoo basin. Does he really thinks this helps? The point was that if we took this restricted area ALONE it was enough to create a population density on the whole earth that is crowded. If Tas wants to argue that all the animals were just located in a single basin, it only makes matters worse.CheersJoe Meert

Yes, in fact why does evolutionary cladistics do so well with independent observations of continental drift. You need to read this in detail to answer, but I'll provide you with the link:http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/ppfinal.pdfCheersJoe Meert

Actually, the point is to emphasize that in order to learn, you can't skim. This is not high school anymore. In-depth knowledge requires in-depth reading. The premise is that the evolutionary patterns of trilobite are independently confirmed by plate reconstructions. When Bruce and I met, we had a Reese's peanut butter moment. He had biogeography on my tectonics and I had tectonics on his biogeography. The two of us came at the same problem from different directions in an independent fashion and reached the same conclusions. I understand if you'd rather not take the time to study science in depth, but that will severely limit your ability to argue cogently and (as you mentioned) carefully. Walt absolutely depends on the fact that his cult will not check the facts or read deeply.CheersJoe Meert[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 02-05-2004]

quote:

---

ah, there's your problem!

---

JM: Details man, details! In your own words, what specific problems are there?CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

the problem I diagnosed (in my own words man) was that he said something depended on evolutionary assumptions!

---

JM:That's an ipse dixit. Why is this evolution a problem? Be specific and give details for once in your life. By the way, would you mind explaining the term 'uniformism'. I've never encountered it (I thought you were going to be careful).CheersJoe Meert[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 02-05-2004]

quote:

---

My neighbor grew some super tall sedge grass, brings back remembrence of how no other grasses was able to recieve enough sunlight to grow therein, if the dinosaurs habitat, tree canopies shielded the sun from the earth, only ferns with big leaves could survive under the canopy, etc...

---

JM:The relevance to this thread is....CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Who's setting the odds at this track? A neutral bookie?

---

JM: It depends on the bet. If they are betting on details and logic from a ye-creationist, the odds are worse than those typically quoted by ye-creationists against abiogenesis. If they are betting that no details will be given by ye-creationists, you have to give up to much to ever hope of winning.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Whos's going to push a t rex off higher ground?

---

JM: Apparently, this guy! This is diatryma a flightless Eocene bird. What was T-Rex afraid of? It also seems that there were some plants that were able to push T-rex off the higher ground since they are found higher up in the sedimentary sequence than T-rex. By the way, no one has mentioned this problem yet. Your assertions seem mixed up. On the one hand you claim it's by hydrodynamic sorting and on the other hand it's by who can push who off higher ground. The flood is going to move fossils around such that you would never expect to recover environmental clues from the fossils since they may have been transported thousands of kilometers from their place of death. So give us a detailed explanation of why certain mammalian fossils are always found in strata ABOVE T-Rex? How is it that they are found in this order in the exact same location as the T-rex fossils or raptor fossils?CheersJoe Meert

In the Grand Canyon sequence, we see the following fossil record (from oldest to youngest). How does the flood model explain this in terms of hydrodynamic sorting etc?Kwagunt Formation- Precambrian Stromatolite fossils (blue-green algal communities typically occupy tidal flats and calm seas).UNCONFORMITYTapeats, Bright Angel and Muav Formations- trilobotes, bracchipods and trilobite trails (shallow seas).EROSIONAL UNCONFORMITYTemple Butte- Fish fossils (marine environment)
Redwall-clams, snails, corals, fish and trilobites (shallow seas, corals must grow in the photic zone and turbid waters are lethal).
Supai- amphibians and reptiles. Very shallow seas to terrestrial environment (Strange for a flood).
Hermit Shale- reptiles, amphibians, conifers and ferns (obviously terrestrial deposits) coupled with some shallow marine.
Coconino sandstone- invertebrate tracks, burrows (petrified sand dunes) not marine
Toroweap-shallow marine sea lilies, brachipods, corals and mollusks (same problem as corals above.END PALEOZOIC Section.This should be an interesting explanation to hear.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

No, no ones even questions me on many of the main points I brought up

---

JM: Exactly what do you think the topic of this thread is? It's one of the points that must be addressed by your model. So far all we get is a bunch of handwave dismissals from you. Nothing coherent or consistent yet.

quote:

---

Any real 'get your teeth into' concerns you don't seem to dare challenge me on

---

JM: How about fossil deposition? How about a detailed account on what marks pre, syn and post flood deposits? How about the mechanism for plate motion according to Walt? How about the depths of the oceans based on Walt's model? We've challenged you to provide details on everything you've brought up on this board. That seems to be a difficult task for you. The statement made above is nonsensical since we've challenged you on everything.

quote:

---

Seriously though, I've given an array of real forces to chose from to account for just about anything you can dream up

---

JM: You've given dreamt up scenarios, no details. One could say that the flood happened due to the influx of swiss cheese from the moon. There. My model is as well defended as yours.

quote:

---

Now add to this what Walt has said is an axis tilt of the earth at the same time, that would cause magnetic reversals extrordinaire-in short order! Massive elecrical storms worldwide

---

JM: Can we assume from this blitzkrieg that you have no detailed answer as to how fossils are sorted? I'll start a new thread on the above topic. Let's see YOU sink your teeth into it and explain physically why this scenario of Walt explains reversals. You're going to have some real problems.CheersJoe meert