Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fossil Sorting in the Great Flood Part 2
Mike_King
Inactive Member


Message 327 of 411 (127808)
07-26-2004 1:43 PM


Here is an interesting link that refutes the creationist view of fossil sorting
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/sorting.htm

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by NosyNed, posted 07-26-2004 2:39 PM Mike_King has not replied
 Message 333 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-26-2004 4:06 PM Mike_King has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 328 of 411 (127833)
07-26-2004 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 327 by Mike_King
07-26-2004 1:43 PM


Thank you
That pretty well summarizes it.
Note it is only a summary. The facts given are a tiny part of the whole.
Now then, who was it who thought the flood happened? Anyone left?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by Mike_King, posted 07-26-2004 1:43 PM Mike_King has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 329 of 411 (127834)
07-26-2004 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by Robert Byers
07-24-2004 4:04 PM


Re: science notes
quote:
BUT you can not disqualify us from the race before it starts.
You disqualified yourselves, by ignoring objective observations and assuming things not evidenced. No matter the reason behind this behavior, it is still against the rules of science. For the same reason, race cars are not allowed in the Olympic 100 meter dash. Is this bias, or just ignoring the rules? I would argue for the latter.
quote:
This is what your doing when you say we must show evidence for the claims in Genesis BEFORE we can contend with opponents. We don't.
One of the RULES of science is positive evidence for a positive claim. This is why creationists are not allowed in science, because of your very attitude. Fantasies are not part of science.
quote:
And indeed the origins debate is not about the Bible.but rather creationists attacking evolution which is the dominate position in the establishment though not the hearts of the American people especially the founder peoples.
I am not really sure what our Founding Fathers have to do with science, so we will leave that alone. However, if creationists want to attack evolution then they have to show why evolutionary predictions are so spot on. That is, they have to explain why evolution is able to predict new fossil finds before they happen. One example is the prediction of a land mammal/aquatic mammal transitional fossil. Scientists hypothesized that the fossil should have such and such characteristics and found within a certain age range. They were right. If evolutionary theories are so wrong, how is this possible?
What are the creationist predictions with regard to the fossil record? Where should the next transitional fossil for the mammal/reptile transition be found, according to creationist predictions? If creationism is so right, why is it unable to make such predictions, and in fact be so wrong all of the time? If creationism is right, then why doesn't it match up with God's creation? If evolution is so wrong, why does it match up so well with God's creation?
So, let's assume that Noah's flood did happen. What would we expect? Let's see, we have:
1. Earth completely covered.
2. Heavy rain.
3. Destruction of everything not on the ark.
4. Mountains and valleys being created catastrophically.
Let's start with those. Now, what would you expect the fossil record to look like?
1. A large layer of sediment world wide that is consistent and not layered.
2. If there is layering, the largest particles should be on the bottom and smaller/finer sediments on top.
3. Species living at the time of the flood should be randomly distributed in these layers.
4. The largest amounts of sediment should be at the lowest elevations; the sea bottoms.
5. Rocks should be randomly sorted, not sorted by their isotopic content.
What do we find:
1. Varying layers of thickness, nothing indicating a world wide flood.
2. Particles are not sorted by particle size. Particle organization is best explained by changing environments, not hydraulic forces.
3. Fossils are exquisitely sorted, not one fossil is out of place world wide. Fossils found in one layer in Europe are also found in the same layer world wide.
4. There is more sediment on the dry land then there is in the sea bottoms. This runs counter to flooding as it is observed today. Flooding of the magnitude found in Genesis would have stripped the land of sediment and deposited most of it on the sea bottom.
5. Rocks are not randomly sorted with respect to their isotopic content. Instead, they are organized in a way that reflects billions of years of sedimentation and igneous rock formation.
This is why creationism fails. What we expect from a world wide flood is not their. Fossil sorting is a very good example of how science actually takes the flood story of Noah at face value, and through objective evidence, shows a literal interpretation to be wrong. What we expect from the event is not present, and so the event did not happen. However, there is another theory that explains the data in a coherent and consistent manner: evolution.
Why should we accept a theory that is derived from faith and is not consistent with the evidence when we have a theory that is derived from objective evidence and is consistent with observations? Just answer that simple question and you will get to the very basis of this debate. Evolution is accepted because it works and it's predictions are borne out. Creationism was dropped because it was inconsistent with the data and it's predictions were not borne out. It really is that simple.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by Robert Byers, posted 07-24-2004 4:04 PM Robert Byers has not replied

Mike_King
Inactive Member


Message 330 of 411 (127845)
07-26-2004 3:15 PM


Well, I actually believe the flood happened, but not with the YEC viewpoint. I am a christian and the evidence for a flood is overwhelming. Its has nothing to do with sedimetary rocks or anything like that, its like I stated before; massive sea level rise after the last ice age.

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by jar, posted 07-26-2004 3:28 PM Mike_King has not replied
 Message 332 by Loudmouth, posted 07-26-2004 3:35 PM Mike_King has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 331 of 411 (127855)
07-26-2004 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by Mike_King
07-26-2004 3:15 PM


But that was only coastal and so is no evidence for a world-wide flood of the magnitude described in Genesis.
But I don't think anyone would disagree that events such as that lead to many of the flood myths.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by Mike_King, posted 07-26-2004 3:15 PM Mike_King has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 332 of 411 (127858)
07-26-2004 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by Mike_King
07-26-2004 3:15 PM


quote:
Its has nothing to do with sedimetary rocks or anything like that, its like I stated before; massive sea level rise after the last ice age.
How about catastrophic local floods, such as the catastrophic Black Sea fill in. It has been hypothesized that entire civilizations were wiped out by a sea that grew by meters a day. Not only that, but we also have numerous catastrphic floods in the Tigris/Euphrates valley and the Nile Valley as well. This, compared to the "glacial" slowness (sorry for the pun) of rising sea levels after the last ice age. It would seem to me that local catastrophes were extrapolated to being world wide in effect through the mechanism of hyperbole.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by Mike_King, posted 07-26-2004 3:15 PM Mike_King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by Mike_King, posted 07-26-2004 4:34 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 333 of 411 (127867)
07-26-2004 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 327 by Mike_King
07-26-2004 1:43 PM


Bare link warning - Guideline violation
This is the type of reply that the creation side gets dumped on for doing.
Extract some content from the site and post it - Otherwise it is a forum guideline violation.
Adminnemooseus

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests

This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by Mike_King, posted 07-26-2004 1:43 PM Mike_King has not replied

Mike_King
Inactive Member


Message 334 of 411 (127874)
07-26-2004 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 332 by Loudmouth
07-26-2004 3:35 PM


quote:
How about catastrophic local floods, such as the catastrophic Black Sea fill in. It has been hypothesized that entire civilizations were wiped out by a sea that grew by meters a day. Not only that, but we also have numerous catastrphic floods in the Tigris/Euphrates valley and the Nile Valley as well. This, compared to the "glacial" slowness (sorry for the pun) of rising sea levels after the last ice age. It would seem to me that local catastrophes were extrapolated to being world wide in effect through the mechanism of hyperbole.
Hardly slowness at all. You are right about the black sea fill in, but that was a consequence of rising sea levels. There is a lot of evidence to suggest the rise in sea levels was catastrophi; the land and ice locked lake where the North Sea of the UK east coast broke through between Dover and Calais where once there was a land bridge. This resulted in boulders being pushed 60 mile and more down the English channel. Such events occured all over the Nothern Hemisphere. But the largest happened over the Indian sub continent and also the what is now Iraq.
Locally to me, the north Shropshire plain and Cheshire in England was a ice locked lake and broke through at Ironbridge to form a gorge.
All this was no slow melting of glaciers like we see today..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by Loudmouth, posted 07-26-2004 3:35 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 335 of 411 (127882)
07-26-2004 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 316 by Mike_King
07-24-2004 4:55 PM


Re: science notes
Off subject but I read what you asked. Again Mike Cosmology is science if it obeys the scientific method in its approach.
However when Cosmology deals with the past it is forced out of the science field and into the history field. Two different species.They just to us laymen look similair until we look closer.
Yes she is probably more intelligent then the average North American (certainly me) but man for man we win.
Also thetre is no such thing as intelligence.
The old yankee faith teaches anyone can master anything. Intelligent people are just people who get involved.
Regards Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Mike_King, posted 07-24-2004 4:55 PM Mike_King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by Loudmouth, posted 07-26-2004 5:58 PM Robert Byers has replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 336 of 411 (127887)
07-26-2004 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by Bill Birkeland
07-25-2004 12:17 AM


Re: Way, Way Off-Topic was "Re: science notes"
Off base Dude. I stray but we all do. (As you did in your chastisment)
We are discussing fossil sorting but it comes down to interpretation and then we debate about interpretation. We are mostly on topic.
There are fossils in the field and then human ideas about thier story.
You guys present one story and say thats that. We say HOLD ON THAR.
Itis about evidence and then the nature of evidence.
Nobody,even creationists, argue against evidence. We argue about interpretation. (And I think very well).
Bill. Beyond, really, beyond repeating again fossil sorting is as you say. Prove it with a powerful point. Something a creationists can get his teeth into or be sent reeling.
It seems clear these fossils in the field are just sitting there. And just a product of a fossilization EVENT.
Not the result of millions of years of accumulation.But suddenly.
And also as an event it is a photograph of the envirorment at the time. This kind of clam on this hill this kind of clam on that hill. Indeed on the same hill this high and then higher up. (Of coarse a hill in the water).
Simple and to us obvious.
You say no. These are divisions of times and a record of kinds in thier body at different times.
Well what can anyone say . No one witnessed it.
Yet you insist your view only can be legitamate.
Well prove it . Or rather show why you have such conviction.
I hope I'm not off topic.
Regards

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Bill Birkeland, posted 07-25-2004 12:17 AM Bill Birkeland has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by CK, posted 07-26-2004 5:39 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 339 by Loudmouth, posted 07-26-2004 6:25 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 341 by Bill Birkeland, posted 07-27-2004 12:41 PM Robert Byers has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 337 of 411 (127890)
07-26-2004 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 336 by Robert Byers
07-26-2004 5:35 PM


Re: Way, Way Off-Topic was "Re: science notes"
Robert, I don't think they you are posting in good faith. You just don't seem to be dealing with any posts on any topics as far as I can see.
If you can refute any specific point made in this thread or any other do so. You mix of "ma faith say's it's wrong" and "gee don't sound true to me here's some assumption with no backing at all" just does not cut it.
Put up or shut up.
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 07-26-2004 04:41 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by Robert Byers, posted 07-26-2004 5:35 PM Robert Byers has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 338 of 411 (127895)
07-26-2004 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by Robert Byers
07-26-2004 5:09 PM


Re: science notes
quote:
Again Mike Cosmology is science if it obeys the scientific method in its approach.
However when Cosmology deals with the past it is forced out of the science field and into the history field. Two different species.They just to us laymen look similair until we look closer.
Why can't you apply the scientific method to past events? If something happened in the past it leaves evidence. Using that evidence to construct a theory falls well within the purview of science. The field of History deals with HUMAN events that happened in the past. History deals in literature, art, and other human artifacts to reconstruct a civilization. History, just like science, must be consistent with the evidence. History is a science, it is just limited to human civilizations. It uses the same techniques, uses the scientific method, and relies on scientific findings in the realms of biology, geology, and archaeology to support it's theories. Again, nothing in science says that theories must only apply to observations of mechanisms in action. Instead, science allows the extrapolation of those mechanisms into the past as long as the evidence matches those extrapolations.
Therefore, we have modern day measurements of sedimentation, speciation, natural selection, and random mutation. We apply what we observe today and test the evidence to find those markers in the past. And what do we find? They are there. Science is both in the past and in the now. Can you show me where in the evolutionary sciences that the scientific method is not used? Can you show me a creationist theory that sticks to the scientific theory, expecially those theories that explain fossil sorting mechanisms?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by Robert Byers, posted 07-26-2004 5:09 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 345 by Robert Byers, posted 07-27-2004 5:29 PM Loudmouth has replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 339 of 411 (127900)
07-26-2004 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 336 by Robert Byers
07-26-2004 5:35 PM


Re: Way, Way Off-Topic was "Re: science notes"
quote:
Itis about evidence and then the nature of evidence.
Nobody,even creationists, argue against evidence. We argue about interpretation. (And I think very well).
Yes, and we are arguing about how to interpret evidence, and how to construct a theory. Science claims that theories should be constructed as follows:
1. The theory should be consistent with all known evidence and be consistent with modern day observations.
2. There can not be falsifying evidence.
3. The theory must be based on objective, repeatable observations.
4. The theory must make predictions about future evidence.
Evolution meets all four of those requirements. Let's see where creationism fails:
1. Creationism is not consistent with all of the evidence. There is no known mechanism that can sort fossils, world wide, in a fashion that resembles the fossil record. Second, there is no observable layer of sediment that is consistent with a world wide flood.
2. Radiometric dating, and corroboration between independent non-radiometric dating techniques, places the age of the earth at 4.5 billion years. This falsifies a young earth.
3. Creationist theories are not based on evidence, but rather on ad hoc hypotheses. Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory, for example, is not supported by evidence but rather it is a collection of ad hoc hypotheses that are meant to explain contradictory evidence. The only evidence put forward for creationism is the inerrancy of a literal translation of the Bible. This assumption is not tested, but required for creationism. This assumption is not objective, and it has been wrong on many occasions (see geocentrism).
4. Creationism does not make predictions about the age of theorized transitional fossils, DNA similarities, or other unknown yet discoverable objective data. Some creationists have gone as far as claiming a whale transitional fossil would not be found. However, within 5 years that very transitional fossil was found. The few times that creationists have stuck their neck out the blade has fallen.
I would say that creationism is a poor interpretation, and that the scientific theory of evolution is much more accurate. Yes, there are different ways to interpret evidence, but there is only one CORRECT way to do so. Creationism, time after time, has either been incorrect or has had to use untestable and unsupported theories to support itself. This type of activity shows weakness in a theory, in that it refuses to be testable or relies on zero to very few observations that are contrary to other numerous observations.
quote:
It seems clear these fossils in the field are just sitting there. And just a product of a fossilization EVENT.
Not the result of millions of years of accumulation.But suddenly.
And what evidence do you have of this "sudden" event? What would falsify the theory that this was a sudden event?
quote:
And also as an event it is a photograph of the envirorment at the time.
Can you name one environment that doesn't have grass? Can you name one environment that doesn't have angiosperms? In the fossil record we find extended 'environments' devoid of both. And not just here and there, but predictably world wide. We see aquatic environments devoid of any bony fish, devoid of sharks, devoid of clams, but they are filled with life, life that is not present in the layers above it or present today. We see terrestrial environments that possess species that are completely different than those alive today. We see environments devoid of mammals, of reptiles, and yet we have difficulty finding environment devoid of just one of those organisms, much less both. This explanation is lacking both explanatory power and detailed observations of the fossil record, and it is not consistent with any observations about todays world.
quote:
Well what can anyone say . No one witnessed it.
Yet you insist your view only can be legitamate.
Well prove it .
If evolution is true, then the fossil record should reflect the DNA relationships between living species. Supported.
If evolution is true, emergence of morphological characteristics should match the order of the fossils. That is, the cladograms created from fossils species should be reflected in the order the fossils are found, with daughter species being found in sediments above the parent species. Supported.
If evolution is true, then the observed rate of mutation and selection should be reflected in life evolving over billions of years. Supported.
If creationism is true, then we should find fossils randomly assorted according to topography, not morphology. Unsupported.
If creationism is true, then human artifacts and mammals should be found in the earliest sediments. Unsupported.
If creationism is true, then DNA similarities should not reflect the fossil record. Unsupported.
If creationism is true, then there rocks should not be sorted by their radionuclide concentrations. Unsupported.
Evolution is supported, creationism is not. Is that good enough? In science nothin is every proven, but theories are falsified. Creationism has been falsified and evolution continues to predict and consistently explain what we see in nature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by Robert Byers, posted 07-26-2004 5:35 PM Robert Byers has not replied

Mike_King
Inactive Member


Message 340 of 411 (127902)
07-26-2004 6:32 PM


Here is a photo Robert that shows without any doubt 3 episodes;
Sedimetation, tilting to 90 degrees, followed by erosion then a new layers laid on top. Please explain this directly

Replies to this message:
 Message 353 by arachnophilia, posted 07-30-2004 4:33 PM Mike_King has not replied
 Message 355 by Robert Byers, posted 08-03-2004 2:44 PM Mike_King has replied

Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 341 of 411 (128076)
07-27-2004 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 336 by Robert Byers
07-26-2004 5:35 PM


Re: Way, Way Off-Topic
In message 336, Robert Byers
"It seems clear these fossils in the field are just
sitting there. And just a product of a fossilization
EVENT. Not the result of millions of years of
accumulation. But suddenly."
The proposal that there was just one fossilization event, is completely refuted by by an abundance of evidence. First, there is an abundance of evidence that shows that many fossils weren't immediately buried after the death of the animal. If Young earth creationists would bother to closely examine fossils bones and shells in an objective manner, they would find that the vast majority of hard parts had been either bored, gnawed, or otherwise chomped on before being buried. There is not going enough time during a global flood for animals to leisurely chomping on each other, while being buried under sediments at the rate of meters per hour.
In addition, fossil shells are commonly encrusted by other organisms, including serpulid worm tubes, barnacles, encrusting echinoids, bryozoans, corals, algae, and foraminifera. For them to have been encrusted, the shells had to lay on the ocean bottom for an extended period of time as animals and algae can't live in muddy, sediment-filled water as it smothers animals and derives plants of the light they need for photosynthesis. This refutes the proposal that a single rapid event created all fossils.
A specific example of this is the work of Stephen T. (Steve) Hasiotis as discussed in the February 1998 Discover Magazine in an article entitled "A Secret History of Life on Land" by Carl Zimmerman and in "Trace fossils of dermestid beetles" at:
http://geowords.com/histbooknetscape/h28.htm
USGS.gov | Science for a changing world
This research, Hasiotis examined the fossil bones of dinosaurs found at Dinosaur National Monument (DNM). A carefully examination of these bones found numerous borings made by dermestid beetles. These are beetles that lay eggs on dead and decaying corpses. The beetles that emerge from these eggs strip the remaining flesh on a corpse and chew into the underlying bones leaving very distinctive marks. The presence of these marks clearly show that the dinosaurs had died and lay exposed on solid ground long for eggs to be laid, the eggs to hatch, and for the beetles to eat the flesh down to and into the bone. It is quite obvious that these, and many other dinosaur bones found elsewhere with the same dermestid beetles marks, weren't drown and buried during a single Global Flood. Rather they died on solid ground where they decayed and were scavenged by a variety of animals including the beetles before their bones were eventually buried.
Second, Mr. Byers and other Young earth creationists overlook the demonstrated fact that numerous accumulations of fossil bones, for example the vertebrate fossils of the Karoo system of South Africa and the Badlands of South Dakota, are preserved within calcareous nodules that formed within buried soils, called paleosols. These bones occur not within a **single** paleosol as a Noachian Flood would produced, but within hundreds of paleosols which occur throughout the vertical thickness of these strata. For example in one single 143 m (470 ft) interval of fossil-bearing strata, Rettallack (1993) observed and described 87 distinct paleosols (fossil soils), of which many contained fossils in calcareous nodules created by soil-forming processes.
Each of these fossil soils (paleosols) represents an extended period of non-deposition separating a distinct period of sediment accumulation. The degree of development of the features in each soil clearly shows that sedimentation stopped and a stable, subaerial ground surface existed for hundreds, sometimes thousands of years. From these soils, it is clear that sedimentation completely stopped, at least 87 times within this 470-foot thick fossil-bearing sequence of sediments for hundreds to thousands of years, and that fossils found in the pedogenic calcareous nodules in different paleosols were buried at different times. It is impossible for the fossil bones found in different paleosols within the Badlands of South Dakota, and fossil bones found in innumerable other fossil soils (paleosols), as in the strata of the Karoo system, a favorite topic of John Woodmorappe, to have been the result of a single fossilization event. In addition, the highly weathered nature and gnawed aspects of many of the fossil bone showed that they accumulated over a period of time within the paleosols over a long period of time. They clearly weren't abruptly buried. The highly bioturbated and slightly weathered nature of the fine-grained sediments lying between the fossils soils demonstrated that these sediments accumulated gradually over a period of time, but fast to prevent the formation of any distinct soils.
The Badland paleosols are discussed in:
Retallack, G.J., 1983, Late Eocene and Oligocene fossil
paleosols from Badlands National Park, South Dakota. Special
Paper 193. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado.
Information on the Karoo paleosols can be found in:
Richardson, Darlene S., 1993, Paleosols of the Molteno and
Elliot formations of the Triassic Stormberg Group of the
Karoo System, Lesotho, Southern Africa. Geological Society
of America, Abstracts with Programs. Vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 399
(October 1993)
Retallack, Gregory John, Smith, Roger M. H., and Ward, Peter
D., 2003, Vertebrate extinction across Permian-Triassic boundary
in Karoo Basin, South Africa. Geological Society of America
Bulletin. Vol. 115, no. 9, pp. 1133-1152 (September 2003)
Smith, R. M. H., 1990a, Alluvial Paleosols and pedofacies
sequences in the Permian Lower Beaufort of the southwestern
Karoo Basin, South Africa. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology.
Vol. 60, no.2, pp. 258-276 (March 1990)
Smith, R. M. H., 1990b, Paleoenvironmental interpretation of
alluvial Paleosols in the Lower Permian Karoo sequence,
South Africa. 13th International Sedimentological Congress
Abstracts. Vol. 13, pp. 504-505.
A person could continue forever with evidence refuting the proposal that all fossils were buried in a single mythical fossilization event. However, one of the strongest evidence is the complexity of the stratigraphic record itself. There are numerous places were fossil bearing strata is separated by multiple angular unconformities, were required a complex history of deposition, lithification, deformation, uplift, and erosion repeated multiple times. In such deposits, it is quite clear that the fossils were buried and fossilized at very different times.
Finally, another strong argument against a single period is the main point of this thread, the "sorting" of fossils found in geologic column. This can only be explained by different organisms having occupied the Earth at different periods of its history and being buried within sedimentary strata as it accumulated over an extended period of time. A single fossilization event is incapable of even explaining the biostratigraphy of vertebrate fossils within the Karoo system.
Of course, Mr. Byer when confronted by evidence that he is incapable of explaining in any detail in terms of a single Noachian Flood dismisses it all out of hand as "it is just an explanation". However, it is an explanation based on fundamental principles of chemistry, physics, and biology and observed and documented processes. In contrast, the Young Earth creationist explanation is based being deaf, dumb, and blind to what can be seen in outcrops of geologic strata and willful ignorance and disregard of basic principles of chemistry, physics, and biology. (I can only hope that Young Earth creationists show more care and logic in their study of theology than they do in their study of geology.)
Bill
"Geology shows that fossils are of different ages.
Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of
species representing changes through time. Taxonomy
shows biological relationships among species.
Evolution is the explanation that threads it all
together. Creationism is the practice of squeezing
one's eyes shut and wailing "DOES NOT!"
-- Dr. Pepper (a former contributer to another creation -
evolution messageboard.
Note: More about the vertebrate fossils within the Karoo system can be found in " A Critical Look at Flood Geology" at:
http://www.geocities.com/pgspears/f.htm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by Robert Byers, posted 07-26-2004 5:35 PM Robert Byers has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by Coragyps, posted 07-27-2004 1:51 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied
 Message 343 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-27-2004 1:55 PM Bill Birkeland has not replied
 Message 344 by Loudmouth, posted 07-27-2004 2:14 PM Bill Birkeland 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