Basic and Remedial Fossil Identification

I can't go by the chart divisions? That's a very odd thing to say. If it says the first ferns occurred in the Ordovician I'm not to accept that?To YOU the Devonian covers all those years. To me it's just some layers of rock that got put down in their time as a result of the flood.All your woulda couldas are just your own prejudice talking. As are mine. I don't see a problem accounting for underwater turbulence AND orderly deposition of sediments myself. You just exaggerate the turbulence because it fits what you want to believe.I'm quite sure that the "perfect" taxons are fudged here and there but we'll get to that, including the definition of "primitive" and "advanced" of course.Give me time to absorb the geo timetable -- and get all my responsibilities taken care of besides -- and I'll get back to you. Patience.

Slow down, Deerbreh! 55 million, maybe. But yes, lots of layers of rock.

Because it wasn't a "period" but simply a bunch of conifers that got swept up in the flood and deposited together.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I do find this really puzzling. Why on earth should it be a big deal where spores and pollen ended up? I suppose they were carried in the flood waters separately from the plants and deposited separately. But I haven't gotten to all that yet.

And, why is there not mixing of the various types of "kinds' in the different fossil laysers?And why does the radiodating show things from different layers consistantly around the world to be of the same date with the same kind, yet a different date with different kinds?Your explaination does not hold water.

I'll tell you what.Why don't you get a whole bunch of different sized objects, and a huge vat of mud and water.. and aggitate it around. Then, let the water dry out, and the objects settle where they may.Let's see if the pattern of object deposits matches what we see in the rocks. Is it one solid layer with the heavier objects tending to be on the bottom of the layer, or is it many layers,where weight of the object is irrelavent?

Ah Faith, but that simply does not hold water. Instead, what we find world wide that there was ONLY conifers as trees, NO other types of trees are found in those layers. Not ever. Not anywhere.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

It makes a LOT more sense than the evolution explanation for all those separate layers. Explaining HOW is of course a huge undertaking and I don't know why everybody has this attitude that one should just be able to look at it and say how an event of such magnitude did what it did. All we YECs know is that it did. How is what we're working on.

Well, what makes more sense to you, jar, the possibility that conifers, being of a certain physical composition and of course in nature growing together, were carried on a particular current of the flood to form a final layer found everywhere, or the idea that the world was once inhabited by conifers and only conifers?

never mindEdited by docpotato, : probably off-topic

No you can't go by the chart divisions only because they cover a period of time (or if you prefer, multiple layers). It isn't that you can't accept that ferns appeared during that time period. It is that you can't say that ferns and something else appeared at the same time just because they occur in the same division on the chart. The Ordovician covers some 80 million years. Organisms could appear 10 million years apart and still both have appeared during the Ordovician. George Washington and I both lived in the second millenium A.D. but we didn't live at the same time. Come on, you are slipping here, Faith.It is not a case of "I say, you say." I am basing what I say on the geological evidence. You are basing what you say on a propositional truth (The Flood story being literally true). But yet you told Jar this in Post 83: So there is enough turbulence that "most sea life would certainly have been killed" (by the way, funny but not enough turbulence to prevent an orderly deposition of sediments with all of the taxa carefully maintained in their original groupings based on when and where they were picked up? Do I have that right? So you are an armchair paleotaxonomist as well as a geologist and a geneticist?
I am quite sure I am going to take the word of scientists who have spent their lifetimes studying fossil taxonomy over some armchair paleotaxonomist.
By "primitive" and "advanced" I mean simple and complex, respectively. Single celled organisms being the most simple, warm blooded animals and flowering plants being the most complex. The only sorting in fossils is from simple to complex as we go from lower layers to higher layers. There is no sorting according to size or mobility as the floodists have suggested, except where size happens to correspond with level of complexity. For example, only single celled organisms are found in the lowest layers containg life forms.

Well, I think you must have misread what I said to get the second of your two points, I never said that the world was once inhabited only by conifers, but all of the evidence says that there was a time when the only trees were conifers. If we follow the column further up gradually other trees begin to be seen, and there we find both conifers and deciduous trees.Until you can provide a model that shows a flood can select out the conifers (which by the way grow right in and among deciduous trees) and leave all the others, you really have nothing.What is the YEC/Floodist model for selecting conifers over deciduous trees, ferns over grasses, only certain marine critters over all marine critters, non-flowering plants over flowering plants?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well I am sure Jar will answer for himself but this is such a softball I had to take a whack at it also. Faith, he did not say only conifers. He said the conifers were the only TREES. And he was comparing conifer trees to angiosperm trees. So it is a good question. Conifers and angiosperm trees often coexist in the same habitat so why in the first layer where conifer fossils are found do we not find ONE angiosperm fossil but yet as soon as we get to a higher layer where angiosperm fossils are found we find conifer fossils as well?

What kind of thinking is that? I can make any claim and say I know that it happened and I don't know how, just give me time and I will explain it eventually. Usually one looks at the data and then develops an explanation of what happened. I hope you never serve on a jury.

First of all, obviously the fact that they "often coexist in the same habitat" explains why they are associated in this general collection of layers. I would assume there are accidental reasons for the togetherness or lack of it in a particular layer, or perhaps something to do with the physical properties of the two types in relation to, say, weight, buoyancy, or whatnot.But thanks for the info about their often sharing a habitat. Sure does give support to the flood explanation.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.