Fossil sorting for simple

And as noted it explains nothing at all. The boyancy solution fails since what it predicts are not what is seen.Now what were the others?1)then he mentions a process he calls "lensing"2)Add to all this some creatures (larger) hogging some of the high spots (delaying their death, and missing their spot in some presumed layering3) dash of the unknownThat's all I could find in all your posts. Did I miss any?I don't think you've explained lensing yet so that one needs some detail.Then the hogging high ground which I think has been debunked. You can tell us how T. Rex got pushed off the high ground when you are ready.And that leaves you will all "unknown".It seems in spite of your claim that experts had this worked out that you have no workable explanation at all.

quote:

---

Could it be your idea of a flood, is more like a river overflowing, than a world ending group of fantastic events that we, of course, could hardly imagine?

---

You mean something so huge, fantastic, unimaginable and destructive that it leaves no trace of its passing? Suuuuuuuuure.

quote:

---

I took Walt's solution, of which a small part was brought up, (one experiment) as a further indication that there are other explanations. Now if we wanted to make fun, why, sure, if you take only that factor, and try to use it to answer all problems, you get ridiculous! I mentioned several other possibilities.

---

You have been shown clearly that one of them, liquifaction, is not even possible. If more than one agent is responsible for fossil sorting in the geological record, please indicate how each functioned with respect to the other.

quote:

---

By and large waht you see is what we got!

---

Oh, good. THat explains everything. Can you perhaps tell us what we have?

quote:

---

You figure out if you can how.

---

Why would we do your work for you? You have been asked questions and do little but dodge them.

quote:

---

Creation folks don't seem too worried.

---

They should be. Not one of them has ever proposed an argument that doesn't have gaping holes in it.

quote:

---

If we harp on some pecular formation, we could easily get hung up, bacuse the whole scenario you try to spike with old age stuff. Drop that, and where's the problem?

---

Oh, sure. Let's just ignore inconvenient data.

quote:

---

You expect some particuar worldwide layer of some kind you can get your teeth into? Seems to me the violence was so great, not too much that way will satify your desire. Dead fish and animals fossilized all over the world? We got it!

---

Right. In case you didn't notice it, there are fish and animals dying and being fossilized today. So, where is the flood?

quote:

---

In a way you want the old age stuff to fit in with? Sorry, seldom the 2 will meet. What general thing is wrong with a flood in your veiw?

---

THere is a complete lack of evidence.

quote:

---

What would you like to see that keeps you from believing it?
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.

---

You make no sense at all. Please clarify this statement.

quote:

---

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.

​

Can they get there some way other than falling?

---

None known. If you are holding out on us this would be a good time to give us an alternative.

quote:

---

Could there be in places & times when some areas had quiet water?

---

If so, well, so much for hydrologic sorting, eh?

quote:

---

Has no creation scientist thought of this? Have you checked? Do you care?

---

Not sure why we should. It would seem that you would let us know, however. THis would be a good time to tell us. So, what have you got?

And how do wind, magma galore,currents etc. sort the bodies? What your idea describes is a very good way to randomize the whole mess.However, that is not what we find. Therefore your idea is wrong.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-06-2004]

No trace? Theres a world full of fossils. ? no such creature? I don't remember that one. What Walt invented the word? No. we don't have to. I was asking that aside from some local things, what worldwide big thing did the poster want. Where are your fossilized buffalo? Where's your mountain ranges full of fish jumping up and fossilizing? Mud is one of the best things for that. You can't produce it! All you could do is throw out millions of years to try to account for it. lack of evidence for flood? I don't agree.
Well I said what I thought about sorting. Basically that it was more an order in which things were buried rather than long time periods. You could pick any of the violent sorting factors and mock it if you want, but together they acted to form what we now see. Formations thousands of miles in some cases full of fossils destructed like crazy. Dinosaurs looking like they are scrambling for higher ground, even deserting their young apparently! (No you'll have to look it up I'm through spending too much time ) I've brought out that there are endless possibilities for how it could have happened

Long time periods haven't yet come into it (but they probably will).What we are discussing is the relative order of things set in many, many feet of rock. You may decide that the rock formed very rapidly or not.The question is why are they in that particular order. As noted the buoyancy idea doesn't work because they are not sorted by buoyancy.The running for higher ground and pushing little guys out of the way doesn't work cause they are not sorted that way either.The lensing thing we don't know about yet because you haven't described how it works.As far as I know that is all you have offered from the experts you claimed had solved this problem. You have yet to refer to the experts or the details of what they published by the way. But they aren't laid down as if by one big flood.
They aren't all mixed up by the supposed maelstrom you suggest.
They aren't of the right type (way too few land based ones which is what you'd expect if the land ones died on land rather than being drowned)
Not all laid down in any one layering.So they are not evidence for your flood.They are laid down in an order which matches the evolutionary order determined from genetic analysis.
They are in descret layers.
The dating (that you don't like) matches the ordering of the layers as determined before the dates were known.They are evidence for an evolutionary unfolding of life on the planet. Pardon. This answer looks like you don't know what liguifaction is. Unless I am very mistaken you have mentioned it a bunch of times. I must misunderstand what you mean by that line. Could you explain in more detail please. Yes, where are they simple? Why is it that more recent animal remains are not fossilized or less fossilized than older, lower ones? If they were all laid down in the flood why is that?Is it because only some were laid down in the flood? Which ones?

quote:

---

You mean something so huge, fantastic, unimaginable and destructive that it leaves no trace of its passing? Suuuuuuuuure

​

No trace? Theres a world full of fossils.

---

And there is a world full of fossil forming today. So, where's the flood?

quote:

---

Oh, sure. Let's just ignore inconvenient data

​

No. we don't have to. I was asking that aside from some local things, what worldwide big thing did the poster want.

---

I think that question is for you. What is the evidence of a worldwide flood? What can you point to in the geological record that says 'this is the flood?'

quote:

---

In case you didn't notice it, there are fish and animals dying and being fossilized today. So, where is the flood

​

Where are your fossilized buffalo? Where's your mountain ranges full of fish jumping up and fossilizing? Mud is one of the best things for that. You can't produce it! All you could do is throw out millions of years to try to account for it.

---

Then all that mud full of shells that I dug into in the Chesapeake Bay a couple of years ago was left over from the flood, eh?

quote:

---

THere is a complete lack of evidence

​

lack of evidence for flood? I don't agree.

---

No! Really? But do you have anything to support your statements?

quote:

---

Well I said what I thought about sorting. Basically that it was more an order in which things were buried rather than long time periods. You could pick any of the violent sorting factors and mock it if you want, but together they acted to form what we now see.

---

Then why not a single rhino mixed in with the dinosaurs of similar size and shape? In fact, why not a single large mammal in the Jurassic?

quote:

---

Formations thousands of miles in some cases full of fossils destructed like crazy.

---

What do you mean 'destructed?' Please give an example.

quote:

---

Dinosaurs looking like they are scrambling for higher ground, even deserting their young apparently!

---

Tell me you're not making a presupposition here. And then tell us why flowering plants were so effective escaping the flood that they scurried to high ground faster than early dinosaurs. Or are you going to say that they were just smarter than dinosaurs?

quote:

---

(No you'll have to look it up I'm through spending too much time ) I've brought out that there are endless possibilities for how it could have happened

---

What are they? Making an assertion and then validating it with evidence are separate things.

I don't understand the point you are making here. Could you explain a bit more?

Simple, http://EvC Forum: Fossil sorting for simple -->EvC Forum: Fossil sorting for simpleI want to know why cladistics & stratigraphy match to the tune of 5.68*10^323:1 of such a thing occurring by chance when cladograms were tested against stratigraphy?This is as close as you get to proof (of evolution) in science, Simple.Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-07-2004]

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

Agreed. And, as you said later on, if we ignore the radioisotope dating methods the evidence of antiquity is still ubiquitous. IMHO this point should be stressed more. I discussed this and posted some links in http://EvC Forum: What is the basis for a Creationist argument against Evolution? -->EvC Forum: What is the basis for a Creationist argument against Evolution?. The theory of a young Earth and/or a global deluge was dead in geologic circles before Darwin and before the discovery of radioactivity, and those theories were discarded by sincere and honest Bible-believing Christians who desperately wanted to believe. Their honesty and the evidence was too much for them to continue their belief. {nitpick}I believe it hasn't been discussed in the therads that WSimple has participated in.{/nitpick}[This message has been edited by JonF, 02-07-2004]

My point is that I have seen evidence that animals are dying today and their shells are being deposited in sediments. Simple seems to say that such deposits are evidence of a flood, but as far as I can see, there is no global flood at this time. Perhaps I misunderstood.

went back and found this missed one The deposit order as I have said had more to do with drowning order. Whos's going to push a t rex off higher ground? (I mentioned the teeth elsewhere)

(Thanks for the non evo geologist link) good Really? You think he thinks that? You might be better off trying to give him a little respect, and know what he says, before going on about some moronic opinion you think he has? Do you think because he cites an experiment there's nothing more to his theory? In another place somewhere in his book he talks something about billions of creatures killed and fossilized almost instantly, as mountains were overthrust, squeezed, folded, and such! How could he expect sharks, teeth or not to be in a certain order everywhere? (Hopefully this addresses your 'message 47 question.

Certainly not, I imagine, a cow.Yet we find cows universally in higher strata than T. Rexes. How can this be explained under your model?

It was you who brought that up and gave the impression you thought it was an explanation. Perhaps you should be a bit more precise in explaning exactly what he is suggesting?You were the one who said experts had this solved and I quote you yet again: We have since then been asking you for the explanations. You gave buoyancy as the first one (or at least the is the impression I had). So if this is now a "moronic opinion" now perhaps you could restate what it is that you think (from your reading of the experts) did actually do the ordering.