Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Flood, fossils, & the geologic evidence
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 16 of 377 (528909)
10-07-2009 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Calypsis4
10-07-2009 12:39 PM


Bonebed
Hi Calypsis,
You ask how the Agate Springs bone bed came to be.
These animals ate leaves and stems of plants near the river. They spent much of their day lying in the shallows of the water hole to drink, escape bugs and stay cool. When the multi-year drought occurred and the food supply disappeared, the Menoceras remained at the water hole where they died of malnutrition, and scavengers devoured their bodies. When water flowed again, the river washed the bones into a crook or oxbow in the river. The piling up of these bones created the Great bonebed of Agate.
That is from the Agate Springs museum website. Since you visited the museum yourself, I imagine that you have already heard that version of events and rejected it.
So, can you falsify that explanation? It sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 12:39 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 2:31 PM Granny Magda has replied
 Message 113 by Peg, posted 10-10-2009 2:39 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5214 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 17 of 377 (528915)
10-07-2009 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Coyote
10-07-2009 12:07 PM


Re: A test for Calypsis4
There is an archaeological site in southern Alaska called On Your Knees Cave. From that cave a human skeleton was removed. It was radiocarbon dated to 10,300 years ago. A tooth was submitted for mtDNA testing, and it was found to have an unusual haplotype, now referred to as D4h3. That haplotype is known from 46 living individuals stretching from southern California to the tip of South America.
Since I was ordered to give you a more specific example I will do so. Your contentions are unacceptable because radio-carbon dating is (1) not always accurate, and (2) there are different dates given to the same specimens by different labs. I have seen this kind of phenomena for many yrs.
Let me show you just one reason why I have little confidence in such dating methods; Quote: "Both haplogroups appear to have arisen about 16,000 years ago.
The researchers found that all the people with the D4h3 haplogroup presently live in South America, while those with the X2a haplogroup live in Canada and the United States, which suggests that the two genetically distinct bands of early humans struck off in different directions around 16,000 years ago."
john hawks weblog
Which date are we to accept? Your date of 10,300 yrs or that of the scientists who arrived at the 16,000 yr figure?
It's a joke. That there is a DNA connection between the ancients and their living offspring I don't deny. It's the dating methods I have a problem with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Coyote, posted 10-07-2009 12:07 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Huntard, posted 10-07-2009 1:51 PM Calypsis4 has replied
 Message 20 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 1:56 PM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 26 by Coyote, posted 10-07-2009 2:27 PM Calypsis4 has replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


(2)
Message 18 of 377 (528916)
10-07-2009 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Calypsis4
10-07-2009 11:13 AM


Hi again Calypsis,
quote:
First, both creationists and evolutionists agree that rapid burial provides the best conditions for the formation of fossils.
Not always. Have you heard of or seen pictures of the peat bog bodies of Europe? They were slowly mummified in the anoxic conditions deep in the water. This is also why you get fossils intersecting in several layers of varves, which creationists erroneously love to cite as evidence that varves don't show that the earth is old. You can look at this site for more info, which IMO would be a good idea since it was written with people like you in mind:
Answers in Creation: Bringing the Bible and Science Together Without Conflict
I also have a question for you. Where in the geologic column is the flood layer? Thanks.
(added in edit) Many lakes in the Green River Formation contained varves. You've just posted photos of fossils from the Green River Formation. I can't tell which ones are in sedimentary rock containing varves but it's a distinct possibility -- remember, we're talking anoxic conditions preserving the fossils, and layers that are slowly and regularly deposited. So how do I know that the fossils are contemporary with each other, as you claim? Please can you start giving links to your sources.
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 11:13 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 2:05 PM Kitsune has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 19 of 377 (528917)
10-07-2009 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Calypsis4
10-07-2009 1:47 PM


Irrelevant blather hidden
Irrelevant blather hidden - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Irrelevant blather hidden.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 1:47 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 2:01 PM Huntard has replied

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5214 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 20 of 377 (528919)
10-07-2009 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Calypsis4
10-07-2009 1:47 PM


Re: A test for Calypsis4
There is more. Much more:
[thumb=400]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/p6190366.jpg[/thumb=400]
Found in the Green River formation of Wyoming. All these marine organisms were apparently destroyed at the same time. Slab after slab of rock has been cut in thin slices at a time by geologists who seemingly cannot find the end to the evidence of destruction. There are millions of them in the Green River area alone. So what catastrophe of the past caused this? Doesn't the fact that we have world-wide evidence of catastrophe coupled with the fact that there are written accounts of such a thing in almost every ancient culture as well as that of scripture speak loudly and clearly that such a cataclym occurred?
But like the observed evidence of volcanic activity on the moon such ancient testimony is trivialized by believers in evolution.
[IMG=400]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/p6180347.jpg[/IMG=400]
Another photo from Green river. <!--AB-->
<span class="szs f-link"><i>Edited by Calypsis4, <script>if (getCookie('UseUserTimeZone')) {printDateTime(1254938359000, 'US', '-', 4, 'AMPM');} else {document.write('10/07/09 1:59 PM');}</script>: addtions.</i></span><!--AE-->

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 1:47 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Kitsune, posted 10-07-2009 2:03 PM Calypsis4 has replied
 Message 25 by ZenMonkey, posted 10-07-2009 2:10 PM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 28 by AdminNosy, posted 10-07-2009 2:32 PM Calypsis4 has replied

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5214 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 21 of 377 (528920)
10-07-2009 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Huntard
10-07-2009 1:51 PM


Irrelevant blather hidden
{Irrelevant blather hidden - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Irrelevant blather hidden.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Huntard, posted 10-07-2009 1:51 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Huntard, posted 10-07-2009 2:09 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


(3)
Message 22 of 377 (528921)
10-07-2009 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Calypsis4
10-07-2009 1:56 PM


Re: A test for Calypsis4
Admin: I hope we can prevent this thread going the exact same way as the "Fossils Disprove Evolution" one. It's already headed in that direction: picture after picture repeating the same claim, while other posts are ignored. As each picture is refuted, we just get more of the same.
Calypsis: Please take some time to address the questions put to you. You also need to show that these fossil beds are all the result of a global flood, instead of localised events. That means we should see jumbled fossils wherever we look in the geologic column, yes? Is that what we see everywhere, do you think?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 1:56 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 3:59 PM Kitsune has replied
 Message 72 by Theodoric, posted 10-07-2009 7:24 PM Kitsune has not replied

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5214 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 23 of 377 (528922)
10-07-2009 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Kitsune
10-07-2009 1:51 PM


Irrelevant blather hidden
{Irrelevant blather hidden - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Irrelevant blather hidden.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Kitsune, posted 10-07-2009 1:51 PM Kitsune has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


(1)
Message 24 of 377 (528923)
10-07-2009 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Calypsis4
10-07-2009 2:01 PM


Re: A test for Calypsis4
Calypsis4 writes:
Sarcasm will get you nowhere with me. The point was made. Dates are often widely different depending on who does it.
So, you didn't get the point, did you?
Ok, let me explain it in more detail then.
The case Coyote was talking about is a skeleton found that is 10,300 years old. The case you are talking about is when the mtDNA first originated 16,000 years ago. So it doesn't matter for Coyote's case, as your own example says it was already present when Coyote's skeleton lived and died. Coyote's age is not the age of the orginating of the mtDNA, it is a case after it originated.
You have, in other words, demonstrated nothing.

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 2:01 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4511 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


(2)
Message 25 of 377 (528924)
10-07-2009 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Calypsis4
10-07-2009 1:56 PM


Re: A test for Calypsis4
From the Fossil Museum website:
The Green River Formation is actually a heterogeneous complex of lakes differential in ecological, geological characteristics, timeframe and hence fauna and flora. The complex comprises three primary lakes formed as a consequnce of drainage from tectonic highlands envolved in the uplift of the Rocky Mountains during Tertiary time. Fossil lake, centered in Southwest Wyoming, is the smallest and appeared briefly during the early Eocene. The Lake Gosiute deposits span the period from Lower to Middle Eocene, and the largest deposit from Lake Uinta that ranges across the Utah-Colorado border, spans most of the Eocene Epoch.
What compelling evidence do you have to support the contention that all of these layers were - despite all appearances - laid down in a single event rather than over a timespan of millenia?
Admin, might I suggest that we make something like this a focal question for the discussion, rather than getting dragged all over the map again?
Edited by ZenMonkey, : Adding a plaintive question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 1:56 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 26 of 377 (528926)
10-07-2009 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Calypsis4
10-07-2009 1:47 PM


Re: A test for Calypsis4
Since I was ordered to give you a more specific example I will do so. Your contentions are unacceptable because radio-carbon dating is (1) not always accurate, and (2) there are different dates given to the same specimens by different labs. I have seen this kind of phenomena for many yrs.
Another "What if..." This is not evidence that this particular date is in error.
Let me show you just one reason why I have little confidence in such dating methods; Quote: "Both haplogroups appear to have arisen about 16,000 years ago.
The researchers found that all the people with the D4h3 haplogroup presently live in South America, while those with the X2a haplogroup live in Canada and the United States, which suggests that the two genetically distinct bands of early humans struck off in different directions around 16,000 years ago."
john hawks weblog
Two problems with this. First, the time of the split (as has been already pointed out by others) is meaningless to the date of the On Your Knees Cave specimen.
Second, your source is wrong. Look up the Kemp et al. article titled "Genetic analysis of early holocene skeletal remains from Alaska and its implications for the settlement of the Americas" (American Journal of Physical Anthropology 132:605-621, 2007). Not all of the D4h3 specimens live in South America--there are some examples among the Chumash of southern California.
And this doesn't matter in any case! What matters is that we have a connection between a 10,300 year old skeleton and living descendants. Or, in the case of my own data, also from the west coast, a 5,300 year old connection (forgive me if I don't post a reference). And these are just two of many such examples, any one of which renders the flood story inaccurate in one or more particulars.
Which date are we to accept? Your date of 10,300 yrs or that of the scientists who arrived at the 16,000 yr figure?
Lets accept the radiocarbon date unless there is evidence to contradict it. (There isn't.) It is confirmed by archaeological and paleontological data as well.
It's a joke. That there is a DNA connection between the ancients and their living offspring I don't deny. It's the dating methods I have a problem with.
You have a problem all right; if the dating is accurate your flood myth is debunked.
So far you have shown no evidence to the contrary. Your doubts and "What ifs..." do not constitute evidence.
And don't bother posting any more pretty pictures--they are all superfluous until this particular issue is dealt with.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 1:47 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 2:42 PM Coyote has replied

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5214 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 27 of 377 (528929)
10-07-2009 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Granny Magda
10-07-2009 1:17 PM


Re: Bonebed
So, can you falsify that explanation? It sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
That's exactly what I am doing.
This is me climbing a hill at Agate Springs to examine an eroding formation. These are found all over the area.
[thumb=400]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/100_2423.jpg[/thumb=400]
Below is a panoramic view of the Agate Springs area. The elevation of the entire land was once at least as high as the tops of the plateaus but the multiplied billions of tons of sediment has been washed away. From here it is about 3 miles to the nearest plateau in the distant background.
[thumb=400]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/100_2443.jpg[/thumb=400]
But was it that tiny little creek with but little water in the valley below that washed it all away or was it the same thing that caused many more billions of tons of sediment throughout the western USA to be washed away from much larger geologic formations?
[thumb=400]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/100_2597.jpg[/thumb=400]
In my view, the erosion seen at the base of these formations has occurred since after the flood but the much larger areas where sedimentary rock existed was washed out by the receding waters of the Noahic flood itself.
[qs]When water flowed again, the river washed the bones into a crook or oxbow in the river. The piling up of these bones created the Great bonebed of Agate.[/qs]
No, these animals did not lay around for a long period of time only to be washed to the side of a plateau and covered slowly and turned into fossils. They were all crushed at the same time by some catastrophic event. The receptionist at Agate Springs told me that there the whole areas has evidence that it was all under water at one time.
<!--AB-->
<span class="szs f-link"><i>Edited by Calypsis4, <script>if (getCookie('UseUserTimeZone')) {printDateTime(1254940442000, 'US', '-', 4, 'AMPM');} else {document.write('10/07/09 2:34 PM');}</script>: addition</i></span><!--AE-->

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Granny Magda, posted 10-07-2009 1:17 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Dr Jack, posted 10-07-2009 2:52 PM Calypsis4 has replied
 Message 44 by Granny Magda, posted 10-07-2009 4:35 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 28 of 377 (528930)
10-07-2009 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Calypsis4
10-07-2009 1:56 PM


Enough of that
Calypsis4 you have given enough examples of rapid preservation after death (or even at the time of death).
You might note that no one doubts that this happens often. In fact, very frequently or we wouldn't have the specimens to examine.
So you may stop bringing that up right now! Done with. Carry on and make your point that you wish to base on that and answer issues that are raised to you.
Suspensions will start to be handed out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 1:56 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 3:27 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 428
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


(1)
Message 29 of 377 (528931)
10-07-2009 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Calypsis4
10-07-2009 11:13 AM


It is my understanding that only a vanishingly small percentage of organisms die in circumstances that permit fossilization. Despite this, millions (?? - any exact estimate seems hard to find) of fossils have been recovered, and these represent only a literal scratching at the surface of the earth's fossil beds. Since many of these fossils represent single examples of entire species, the number of organisms that have lived on the earth since the beginning of life seems staggering.
Does your model done include any calculation of the total number of organisms that would have had to coexist more or less contemporaneously in the pre-flood era?
Capt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 11:13 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5214 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 30 of 377 (528934)
10-07-2009 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Coyote
10-07-2009 2:27 PM


Re: A test for Calypsis4
You have a problem all right; if the dating is accurate your flood myth is debunked.
You're the one with the problem, fella.
Lets accept the radiocarbon date unless there is evidence to contradict it. (There isn't.) It is confirmed by archaeological and paleontological data as well.
I ask you which date I should accept and you give me this nonsense?
I am DEFINITELY going to come back to this before the day is over. I am going to show you a few things about radiocarbon 'accuracy' that will make your head spin.
Say, the next time you don't like the weather on a real hot day then use your kind of 'logic' and change things by taking your thermometer and arbitrarily change the temp from 98 degrees and make a wider calibration by erasing the old marks and painting on some new ones. Then you can change the temp to 68 degrees (or whatever your comfort zone is). Just think, you can change your comfort factor by re-calibrating your thermomenter. Neat, huh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Coyote, posted 10-07-2009 2:27 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Coyote, posted 10-07-2009 2:47 PM Calypsis4 has replied
 Message 69 by AdminNosy, posted 10-07-2009 6:24 PM Calypsis4 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