Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-14-2017 7:43 PM
331 online now:
jar, JonF, Percy (Admin), xongsmith (4 members, 327 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,167 Year: 28,773/21,208 Month: 839/1,847 Week: 214/475 Day: 61/46 Hour: 7/10

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
111213
14
1516Next
Author Topic:   How did the Aborigines get to Australia?
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19301
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 196 of 226 (672357)
09-07-2012 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by dwise1
09-07-2012 3:25 AM


land gap during last glacial maximum, no land bridge there
Hi dwise1

But what then of the Weber Line and Lydekker's Line?

In reality, there's an entire region, Wallacea with Wallace's Line as its western boundary and Weber's Line as the boundary for Australian mammals and Lydekker's Line as its eastern boundary.

Thanks, I wasn't aware of those, just the Wallace line. A good easily readable book about Wallace and biogeography is Song of the Dodo.

Certainly the gap between Wallace's Line and Weber's Line would have been mostly open water, where only organisms that can island hop along the string of islands from Timor to Bali, and then to Indonesia or Australia, could migrate along that path.

It would be interesting to have Dr Adequate do a post on this area and how it formed as a sort of recap of the geography formations covered in his wonderful Introduction To Geology thread: volcanic mountains, subduction zones, etc., and use biogeography as part of the "how do we know" section. You can see the subduction zone as the dark blue ribbon between Timor and Australia:

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : subduction zone


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by dwise1, posted 09-07-2012 3:25 AM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by dwise1, posted 09-07-2012 2:39 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3028
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 197 of 226 (672377)
09-07-2012 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by RAZD
09-07-2012 11:07 AM


Re: land gap during last glacial maximum, no land bridge there
Just to hammer the point home even more, the Wikipedia article on Max Carl Wilhelm Weber says (my emphasis added):
quote:
He drew Weber's Line which encloses the region in which the mammalian fauna is exclusively Australasian. Weber's Line is an alternative to Wallace Line. As is the case with plant species, faunal surveys revealed that for vertebrate groups, except for birds, Wallace’s Line was not the most significant biogeographic boundary. The Tanimbar Island group, and not the boundary between Bali and Lombok, appears to be the major interface between the Oriental and Australasian regions for mammals, and other terrestrial vertebrate groups. Thus, for many invertebrates, and birds and butterflies, this interface is better represented by Weber’s Line than Wallace’s Line.

"mammalian fauna is exclusively Australasian" refers, of course, to precisely the types of critters that Portillo is talking about (eg, "Kangaroos/wallabies" in Message 177). Which were trying to spread out of Australia, not into it, but they hit a barrier at the Weber Line that stopped their spread. If there had been a land bridge over the Weber Line, then they would not have been stopped.

If Portillo still wants to insist that his land bridge connecting mainland Asia with Australia existed, then he needs to look for it along the Weber Line and the Wallace Line.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by RAZD, posted 09-07-2012 11:07 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
Portillo
Member (Idle past 1775 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 198 of 226 (672519)
09-09-2012 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Coyote
08-24-2012 8:53 PM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions, round 2
Coyote writes:

The problem for proponents of a "great flood" is that the "marine fossils, sedimentary deposits and fossil graveyards" don't occur at a single specific time. They are spread out over >3 billion years.

Doesn't that detract from the credibility of your argument?

Many fossils are dated according to the rocks they are found in, the rocks are dated by the fossils that are found in them, and the fossils are sorted out according to their hypothetical evolutionary order. Thats circular reasoning. Why then does the fossil record have a pattern of simple-to-complex, with the small marine invertebrates at the bottom and the land veterbrates higher? The fossil record is 95% marine invertebrates. If the fossil record is the history of life, then it should contain much more than just marine invertebrates.

In a flood, it is the ocean bottom dwelling animals that would be buried first, by underwater mudslides. Like a cement truck dumping cement over the creatures. Thats how you get the mass fossilization of billions of marine invertebrates, you find smashed and squashed together in a frenzy all over the world. This explains why land veterbrates make up less than 1% of the record. Because they were able to escape to higher ground, and eventually drowned and were not fossilized. Many animals have premonitions about coming catastrophes and flee for the hills.

Dr David Raup said about the supposed order of the fossil record, "So the geological time scale and the basic facts of biological change over time are totally independent of evolutionary theory... One of the ironies of the evolution-creation debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression and they have gone to great lengths to accomodate this 'fact' in their flood geology."

Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.


As truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord. - Numbers 14:21

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Coyote, posted 08-24-2012 8:53 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Granny Magda, posted 09-09-2012 6:18 AM Portillo has responded
 Message 200 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-09-2012 7:10 AM Portillo has not yet responded
 Message 201 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2012 7:28 AM Portillo has not yet responded
 Message 202 by Percy, posted 09-09-2012 8:00 AM Portillo has not yet responded
 Message 203 by Panda, posted 09-09-2012 9:16 PM Portillo has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2353
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 199 of 226 (672522)
09-09-2012 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Portillo
09-09-2012 3:02 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions, round 2
Hi Portillo,

Boy, you certainly are getting it wrong today.

Many fossils are dated according to the rocks they are found in, the rocks are dated by the fossils that are found in them, and the fossils are sorted out according to their hypothetical evolutionary order. Thats circular reasoning.

This is false. Fossils are indeed often dated by the stratum they're found in, but the idea that rocks are only dated from fossils is simply nonsense. Strata can be dated by index fossils, but also by observing the simple fact that older strata tend to be below younger strata. That provides us with a relative system of dating. If that were the only kind of dating we have, then you might have a point, but it's not. There is also radiometric dating. This is usually carried out on igneous rocks, but can also provide limited information on sedimentary rocks. This technique provides us with absolute dates. There is no circular reasoning here.

Why then does the fossil record have a pattern of simple-to-complex, with the small marine invertebrates at the bottom and the land veterbrates higher?

That is a gross over-simplification, to the point of being badly wrong. There are plenty of small marine invertebrates near the top of the geological column. I know this, as I recently spent a week collecting exactly that; small marine invertebrates from the Pliocene, about 2-5 million years ago. That's right near the top of the geological column. You can find vertebrates in the same strata. By contrast, you will also find small marine invertebrates further down the column, in the Cambrian and pre-Cambrian, but you won't find any vertebrates. And even this does not represent the base of the column, only the oldest record of large macro-life. Further back, there are records of cyanobacteria that go back at least 2 billion years.

The fossil record is 95% marine invertebrates.

Is it? I think not. Citation needed, I fancy.

But yes, marine fossils predominate, since the Earth is mostly sea and because marine processes are dominated by deposition, which promotes fossilisation, whereas the land tends towards erosion, which does not.

If the fossil record is the history of life, then it should contain much more than just marine invertebrates.

And it does. Much, much more.

In a flood, it is the ocean bottom dwelling animals that would be buried first, by underwater mudslides.

Apart from the fact that this claim is simply not true, this is not what we see in the fossil record. There are plenty of bottom-dwelling marine creatures throughout the fossil record. Their distribution is dependant on the environment that is preserved in a given stratum, not their age. The pattern you are claiming is nothing more than a fantasy. In the real world, both bottom dwelling and free swimming sopecies are distributed throughout much of the fossil record. Take a look;

Silurian Period (443.7–416 million years ago)

Silurian Coral

Silurian Fish

Devonian Period 416–359.2 million years ago

Devonian Coral

Devonian Fish

Carboniferous Period 359.2–299 million years ago

Carboniferous Coral

Carboniferous Fish

Permian Period 299–251 million years ago

Permian Coral

Permian Fish

Triassic Period 251–199.6 million years ago

Triassic Coral

Triassic Fish

Jurassic Period 199.6–145.5 million years ago

Jurassic Coral

Jurassic Fish

Cretaceous Period 145.5–65.5 million years ago

Cretaceous Coral

Cretaceous Fish

Paleogene Period 65.5–23.03 million years ago

Paleogene Coral

Paleogene Fish

Neogene Period 23.03–2.588 million years ago

Neogene Coral

Neogene Fish]

For the record, fish are somewhat more agile than corals.

Thats how you get the mass fossilization of billions of marine invertebrates, you find smashed and squashed together in a frenzy all over the world.

No, they are found that way because they lived together. They are squashed because they were buried. This should be obvious.

This explains why land veterbrates make up less than 1% of the record. Because they were able to escape to higher ground, and eventually drowned and were not fossilized.

That does not follow. They would drown, fall into the sediment and be fossilised. Anyway, I would love to hear how modern plants managed this same trick. Did the angiosperms run for the hills as well? That was clever of them.

Dr David Raup said...

Unless I have missed something, Raup is a proponent of evolution, so your little quote mine is of little value. Clearly Raup does not see this comment as undermining the ToE, so neither should you.

Oh look, you have completely failed to address the topic once again. Do you have any comment on the alleged land bridge via Indonesia? Any comment on how this could happen despite the presence of the worlds deepest oceanic trench in that very area? Or can you only spew random nonsense?

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Portillo, posted 09-09-2012 3:02 AM Portillo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Portillo, posted 09-16-2012 1:20 AM Granny Magda has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15984
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 200 of 226 (672524)
09-09-2012 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Portillo
09-09-2012 3:02 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions, round 2
Many fossils are dated according to the rocks they are found in, the rocks are dated by the fossils that are found in them, and the fossils are sorted out according to their hypothetical evolutionary order. Thats circular reasoning.

This is a classic creationist blunder. And every time I read it, I wonder if you guys ever think about what you're saying. Can you really imagine a geologist standing up at a geological conference and saying: "I know this rock is ten million years old because the fossils in it are ten million years old. And I know that the fossils in it are ten million years old because I know that the rock is ten million years old" --- and no-one makes an objection?

Clearly the creationist fantasy of what geologists do cannot be an actual description of what they do; and it isn't.

Dr David Raup said about the supposed order of the fossil record, "So the geological time scale and the basic facts of biological change over time are totally independent of evolutionary theory... One of the ironies of the evolution-creation debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression and they have gone to great lengths to accomodate this 'fact' in their flood geology."

He makes an excellent point, which I have also made several times on this thread. You are not accounting for what the fossil record looks like. You are accounting for what you think the fossil record looks like. But it doesn't look like that. Creationists aren't even trying to account for the facts, they're trying to account for what they imagine the facts to be.

Like this:

In a flood, it is the ocean bottom dwelling animals that would be buried first, by underwater mudslides. Like a cement truck dumping cement over the creatures. Thats how you get the mass fossilization of billions of marine invertebrates, you find smashed and squashed together in a frenzy all over the world.

That is simply not what the fossil record looks like. You pride yourself on the fact that your flood hypothesis accounts for what you think the fossil record looks like, but you cannot account for what the fossil record actually looks like.

And this is a curious thing about creationists that I have often noticed. You somehow manage to be obsessed with science without actually being interested in it. The fossil record exists, we can go and look at it, it's fascinating. But while you are terribly keen to explain it in terms of your favorite mythology, you've never bothered to find out what it actually looks like. You're not that interested in it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Portillo, posted 09-09-2012 3:02 AM Portillo has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19301
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 201 of 226 (672525)
09-09-2012 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Portillo
09-09-2012 3:02 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions, round 3
Hi Portillo,

Granny Magda hit most of the high points, but I'll add to it.

Many fossils are dated according to the rocks they are found in, the rocks are dated by the fossils that are found in them, and the fossils are sorted out according to their hypothetical evolutionary order. Thats circular reasoning.

Index fossils are dated by several means, and they sort themselves by changing evolutionary traits. Foraminifera for example:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/foram/foramfr.html

quote:
The oldest fossil foraminifera, from the Cambrian, are simple agglutinated tubes. Calcareous microgranular and porcellaneous tests evolved in the Carboniferous, and calcareous hyaline tests in the Permian. Over time, each of these groups has evolved many different forms, including large complex tests associated with reefs. These groups of large species became abundant when reef environments were widespread, then suffered major extinction when world climate changed and reefs were decimated. The fusulinids were one such group. They had rice-grain shaped tests and evolved into numerous widespread species during the Permian but went extinct at the end of that period when a worldwide mass extinction also eliminated most other reef dwelling organisms.

The small size of most foraminifera may make them difficult to see, but it makes them much more useful than larger fossils for applications such as petroleum exploration, because there can be thousands of specimens in the small chips of rock collected when drilling a well. In addition, many species of foraminifera are geologically short-lived, and others are only found in specific environments, so a paleontologist can examine the specimens in a sample and determine the geologic age and environment when the rock formed. As a result, since the 1920's the oil industry has been a major employer of paleontologists who specialize in these microscopic fossils. It is unusual to drill an oil well without a paleontologist onsite to determine when the desired oil-bearing rock layer has been reached.*


* bold added for emphasis

Note that Glen Morton struggled with this issue:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/...on/foram_article3.html

quote:
If animals gradually change their shapes through time, perpetually giving birth to new species, then where are the fossil remains of transitional animals -- those unfortunate creatures that had to have existed during the demise of outmoded species and before the establishment of new ones? Where are all the "missing links" that, if the theory holds, should be abundant in the fossil record?
...
Drs. Tony Arnold (Ph.D., Harvard) and Bill Parker (Ph.D., Chicago) are the developers of what reportedly is the largest, most complete set of data ever compiled on the evolutionary history of an organism. The two scientists have painstakingly pieced together a virtually unbroken fossil record that shows in stunning detail how a single-celled marine organism has evolved during the past 66 million years. Apparently, it's the only fossil record known to science that has no obvious gaps -- no "missing links."

"It's all here -- a complete record," says Arnold. "There are other good examples, but this is by far the best. We're seeing the whole picture of how this organism has changed throughout most of its existence on Earth." *
...
The study focuses on the microscopic, fossilized remains of an organism belonging to a huge order of marine protozoans called foraminifera. Often heard shortened to "forams," the name comes from the Latin word foramen, or "opening." The organisms can be likened to amoebas wearing shells, perforated to allow strands of protoplasm to bleed through. The shell shapes range from the plain to the bizarre.
...
But it's the planktonic variety that chiefly interests Parker and Arnold. Unlike their oversized cousins, free-swimming forams are found wherever the oceans have, or had, currents -- in a word, everywhere. For nearly a century, geologists have used the animals' tiny, fossilized shells, found in abundance in marine and some terrestrial deposits, to help establish the age of sediments and to gain insight into prehistoric climates. *


* bold added for emphasis

The free floating species would, of course rise with the level of water during a flood and be spread globally if a flood occurred, AND they would all have mixed together during such a flood rather than be sorted into relative dated layers, one on top of another on top of another.

This PDF shows this relative dating pattern and the time periods they are associated with.

CHRONOSTRATIGRAPHY is the relative dating of rocks and sediments by their layers
BIOSTRATIGRAPHY is the relative dating of organisms, in this case forams, by their layers
Radiometric dating establishes real dates for parts of the chronostratigraphic layers

Correlating the relative dating methods results in index fossils, which are also correlated with the absolute dates from radiometric data.

These index fossils are also correlated with a similar pattern found for diatoms, a small floating algae that also forms a calciferous shell (you can buy diatomaceous earth for use in your garden to discourage slugs due to the sharp edges and spikes). You do not find forams and diatoms from different biostratigraphic zones in the same chronostratigraphic zones, which would be expected if there had been a flood.

This is not circular, because each stratigraphy is made independently of the other and then the two are correlated. This is like comparing tree rings from one tree to another, knowing the relative age of each ring compared to the rings next to it and correlating the seasonal patterns from one tree to the next.

... Thats how you get the mass fossilization of billions of marine invertebrates, you find smashed and squashed together in a frenzy all over the world. ...

Which does not explain where these fossils -- especially delicate ones like fan corals and brachiopods -- are not smashed and squashed, but buried gradually over several years. The brachiopods in particular (like the ones found on Mt Everest) grow on fragile stalks that anchor them to the bottom. They have growth rings like trees that show their ages ranging up to ~30 or 40 years. They are found growing attached to other brachiopod shells that had died and were resting on the bottom when the larval form of the brachiopod attached itself and started to grow it's stalk. They live as larval brachiopods for a year before attaching to the bottom.

The brachiopods are found in layers many feet deep that show a pattern of peaceful fully mature marine ecological growth of other plants and animals that extend over many many decades -- a pattern of growth that is impossible to form during a short duration flood. This pattern is found on Mt Everest: either the flood lasted centuries, if not millenia, or it is not responsible for these fossils on Mt Everest.

Which gets us back to how mountains rise up. If you cannot explain Mt Everest and brachiopods, then you should admit that the scientific explanation is better at accounting for the evidence.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : english

Edited by RAZD, : added Glen Morton note

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Portillo, posted 09-09-2012 3:02 AM Portillo has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16314
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


(2)
Message 202 of 226 (672531)
09-09-2012 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Portillo
09-09-2012 3:02 AM


Dating is not the Topic
Hi Portillo,

Your reply to Coyote was incorrect. The correct reply would have been, "A discussion of dating would be off-topic in this thread. I would love to discuss my many dating misunderstandings, misapprehensions and mistakes with you in another thread, but this thread is about how kangaroos, wallabies and aborigines got to Australia."

You then would have followed that message with replies to people who had actually posted about the topic.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Portillo, posted 09-09-2012 3:02 AM Portillo has not yet responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1327 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 203 of 226 (672607)
09-09-2012 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Portillo
09-09-2012 3:02 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions, round 2
Portillo writes:

In a flood, it is the ocean bottom dwelling animals that would be buried first, by underwater mudslides. Like a cement truck dumping cement over the creatures. Thats how you get the mass fossilization of billions of marine invertebrates, you find smashed and squashed together in a frenzy all over the world.


Hi Portillo,
3: Could you tell me: how long do fossils take to form?

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Portillo, posted 09-09-2012 3:02 AM Portillo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by dwise1, posted 09-10-2012 5:23 AM Panda has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3028
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 204 of 226 (672621)
09-10-2012 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Panda
09-09-2012 9:16 PM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions, round 2
Just a corollary from another forum. They seemed to think that encasing an object into stone was the same as fossilizing it. From http://creationvsevolution.freeforums.org/...1117.html#p1117 in response to a link to http://amazingdiscoveries.tv/media/7/102-a-universal-flood/:
quote:
And the ludicrous inclusion of "petrified teddy bears"? Neither they nor the other articles immersed in that water had been petrified. Petrification involves the replacement of the original object's material with minerals. Instead, as the text of the article displayed clearly said, those objects were "encased in stone". Which is not petrification. Anyone with any knowledge of geology would know that.

Do these "people" even have any inkling what petrification and fossilization even is?

Edited by dwise1, : cleaning up a URL


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Panda, posted 09-09-2012 9:16 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Panda, posted 09-10-2012 8:41 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1327 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 205 of 226 (672632)
09-10-2012 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by dwise1
09-10-2012 5:23 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions, round 2
dwise1 writes:

Do these "people" even have any inkling what petrification and fossilization even is?


Clearly, the people at Amazing Discoveries don't.

Portillo writes:

"How long do fossils take to form? They are entombed by a catastrophe very rapidly"


It seems that Portillo may also think that fossilization is simply animals being encased.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by dwise1, posted 09-10-2012 5:23 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by RAZD, posted 09-10-2012 9:50 AM Panda has acknowledged this reply
 Message 207 by NoNukes, posted 09-10-2012 11:28 AM Panda has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19301
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 206 of 226 (672642)
09-10-2012 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Panda
09-10-2012 8:41 AM


what's a fossil?
Hi Panda and dwise1,

Portillo writes:

"How long do fossils take to form? They are entombed by a catastrophe very rapidly"


It seems that Portillo may also think that fossilization is simply animals being encased.

Next up: soft tissue in fossils ... ?

Part of the problem is that "fossil" is not well defined here -- encased shells and casts and tests count as fossils even though the do not necessarily involve mineral replacement -- while mummies are ... ?

Sounds like something for another thread.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : subtitle clarity


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Panda, posted 09-10-2012 8:41 AM Panda has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10120
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 207 of 226 (672646)
09-10-2012 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Panda
09-10-2012 8:41 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions, round 2
It seems that Portillo may also think that fossilization is simply animals being encased.

This is a results driven answer. Fossils are supposed to be evidence of the Noahic flood. So they must result from a sudden catastrophe. There is no science and no explanatory model. Catastrophic entombment must be so.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

“Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own.” George Bernard Shaw


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Panda, posted 09-10-2012 8:41 AM Panda has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by RAZD, posted 09-11-2012 2:35 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19301
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 208 of 226 (672815)
09-11-2012 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by NoNukes
09-10-2012 11:28 AM


Catastrophic rapid entombment fossils
Just a thought in passing remembrance of this day in history ...

... if we want an example of catastrophic rapid entombment we only need to look at the towers and note that there should have been hundreds of fossils created by this terrible event, and yet not one (1) was found. Instead we found bodies in diffferent stages of being crushed to being atomized.

This should put an end to this concept, but I doubt it.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by NoNukes, posted 09-10-2012 11:28 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Portillo
Member (Idle past 1775 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 209 of 226 (673191)
09-16-2012 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Granny Magda
09-09-2012 6:18 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions, round 2
Granny Magda writes:

Fossils are indeed often dated by the stratum they're found in, but the idea that rocks are only dated from fossils is simply nonsense. Strata can be dated by index fossils, but also by observing the simple fact that older strata tend to be below younger strata. That provides us with a relative system of dating. If that were the only kind of dating we have, then you might have a point, but it's not. There is also radiometric dating. This is usually carried out on igneous rocks, but can also provide limited information on sedimentary rocks.

Which is based on the theory that layers require millions of years to form or that each layer represents a long period of time. But layers can form very quickly, particularly in catastrophic conditions. In 1980, Mount St. Helens exploded with the force of 20,000 tonnes of TNT. This was one of the greatest catastrophes of the 20th century and provided a glimpse into what a catastrophic event can do. Masses of superheated mud moved at 200 miles an hour. Water rushed into Spirit Lake and created a wave that was 800 feet high. To put that into perspective, the Indian Ocean Tsunami which destroyed the lives of 250,000 people in 17 countries, was 50 feet high. And when the water and mud rushed down, it created layers upon layers, like pages in a book. If you didnt know what had happened you would assume that it took millions of years. The depth of a deposit of sedimentary strata, is not a factor of time, but of the magnitude of the hydrodynamic forces, so that you can have hundreds of feet of sediments, within hours. If you have enough water, moving fast, and filled with mud.

Mount St. Helens and the Indian Ocean Tsunami was an infinitesimal event in magnitude, compared to a global flood. Hundreds of simultaneous underwater fountains, volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, tidal waves, mud flows, breaking lose and exploding, going in every direction, destroying everything in its path, all over the world for a year. Imagine the geological processes and features that such a catastrophe would create. This explains violent fossil graveyards that are squashed, smashed, and preserved, all over the world, over vast areas. And thats why you find marine fossils all over land continents, proving that they were once covered in masses of water, mud and sediment. This isnt natural death from natural causes, this is a global catastrophe.

So alot of the strata, fossils, and geological features could have formed very quickly rather than gradually over millions of years.

Panda writes:

Could you tell me: how long do fossils take to form?

I dont know how long fossils take to form. Millions of years, thousands of years, months, days, hours. To get a fossil you have bury the animal, so scavengers cant get to it and it cant fall apart. The soft parts might rot away, but the bones are hard enough that the minerals in the mud will replace the bones and become rock. That is how you get a fossil, you have to bury it quickly. Is there evidence of rapid burial in fossils? Many fossils have been found eating, giving birth, fighting, and drowning. This can only be explained by rapid burial. Darwin believed that soft-bodied animals could not be preserved, but you find fossilized jellyfish. Unless the jellyfish was buried quickly, it wouldnt have lasted at the beach or ocean because it would have rotted, and because of scavengers and the elements.

Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.


As truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord. - Numbers 14:21

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Granny Magda, posted 09-09-2012 6:18 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Percy, posted 09-16-2012 7:11 AM Portillo has not yet responded
 Message 211 by Granny Magda, posted 09-16-2012 9:05 AM Portillo has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16314
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 210 of 226 (673194)
09-16-2012 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Portillo
09-16-2012 1:20 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions, round 2
Portillo in part writes:

So alot of the strata, fossils, and geological features could have formed very quickly rather than gradually over millions of years.

It would be fascinating to reply to all you say, but it doesn't appear to have anything to do with how aborigines, kangaroos and wallabies got to Australia. Geology doesn't exclude the possibility of suddenly-formed layers, but it does include the ability to examine and study the layers to determine how and when they formed, and it says many geological layers and the fossils contained within are millions and in some cases billions of years old.

So if geologists are wrong about the layers they've studied then our picture of natural history is wrong in momentous ways that dwarf into insignificance the issue of migration times and methods of ancient marsupials. The fundamental issue you want to be discussing, and that you are discussing, is geological processes and dating methods, but this is the wrong thread for that. If you propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics I will review it in my moderator role as quickly as I can.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Portillo, posted 09-16-2012 1:20 AM Portillo has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
111213
14
1516Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017