|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Fossil sorting for simple | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
Ok, simple here is your place to give us the explanation for how the fossils got sorted by the great flood.
Common sense isn't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
Just to help I'm moving simple response to here.
simple writes:
how a flood could order the fossils? ..Walt's book deals with that, citing lab experiments, etc. He also mentions a process, like in earthquakes, called liquefaction. In a worldwide scenario, the denser mammals would fall in a certain order. So it would be, in many cases, not so much which creature evolved from the next, so much as which was last to drown! I suppose there were a world of variables as well, such as, who got stuck in a mudslide, or current that smacked into one, etc! Then, if Walt is correct, the compression event, where the mountains uplifted in the continental slide. I would think lots of creatures would have been squeezed up with the mountains of sediment (ie Northern Rockies). And, on it goes, with the general idea being a recent cataclysm resulting in what we now see.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
the denser mammals would fall in a certain order. This seems to be the only bit that talks about actually ordering in your post. So we would, from this suggestion, expect to find fossils sorted by density? Now can you show how the fossils are actually ordered by density? Are dinosaurs more or less dense than elephants? Are flying reptiles and archeopteryx more dense than marsupials, horses and lions? This is an example of how creationists have not explained the ordering. Care to try again? All the rest of your post does is suggest an enormously violent randomizing of all the living things on the planet. Is that a fair description? Common sense isn't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
In a worldwide scenario, the denser mammals would fall in a certain order. So it would be, in many cases, not so much which creature evolved from the next, so much as which was last to drown! Funny, then, that no Elasmosaurus (a large marine reptile, often mistakenly referred to as a dinosaur) skeleton is ever found with or above, say, cattle. Does it really make sense that every single member of a species of large marine reptile couldn't survive in the water longer than a stupid cow? And how does hydrologic sorting explain the fossil record of plants? After all, no grasses appear in strata with dinosaurs. What, did the advanced grasses uproot and run to higher ground while the ferns and ginkoes were all too clumsy to follow suit? Hydrologic sorting is a joke. I'm surprised that you didn't even stop to think of these questions before you uttered such nonsense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
Bump for simple
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
Bump - you're posting elsewhere arguing with things you know nothing about. Why not explain the ideas that you are supposed to know something about.
Common sense isn't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
Nosyned
hi I could not post on the other forum. Some rude key puncher talking about "manure" shut it down. Glad to see the coward had the good sense to not post his own opinion, as I would probably not left him much grace. Goodbye. Remember, Evilution is a lie!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Some rude key puncher talking about "manure" shut it down. That would be an admin. Insult them at your own peril.
Goodbye. Remember, Evilution is a lie! What's the rush? There's plenty of threads here for you to spread your arrogant, bull-headed ignorance. And a lot of us have been waiting a few weeks for somebody at once so tenacious and demonstratably wrong to arrive. You're leaving just when the feeding frenzy was getting good... how disappointing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
Some how "good bye" as a response isn't a surprise to me.
It is very clear that you don't like getting asked clear questions for which you and your sources don't have a coherent answer. I love it! I would suggest that we keep this thread around for any more "flooders" who may appear. It will be interesting to see how creative the answers they attempt will be. In fact, the idea of trying to control time wasting new posters might be supported by simply directing some of them here. It sure drove simple off. Common sense isn't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5706 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
That's typical creationist. A blitzkrieg of nonsensical posts (mostly copied material from a bad source), a whine about censorship, a declaration of victory and disappearance. How many times have you seen that!
Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13035 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.0 |
Hi, Simple!
simple writes: hi I could not post on the other forum. Some rude key puncher talking about "manure" shut it down. Glad to see the coward had the good sense to not post his own opinion, as I would probably not left him much grace. Goodbye. Remember, Evilution is a lie! I was trying to engage you in the Walt Brown's super-tectonics thread in order to point out a few qualities of EvC Forum. First, the science topic threads are intended for more serious discussion than was developing in that thread. Second, there are a set of Forum Guidelines that act sort of as rules of the road - mostly follow them most of the time and you'll do fine. We try not to overemphasize the guidelines, preferring to let discussion take a natural course, but they will often get applied when a discussion bogs down. The Walt Brown discussion had already passed that point, which is why I was trying to make sure I had your attention. Third, discussions of the sort you were trying to have, which was not a discussion or debate but more, for many of your posts, a jousting or mocking contest, are perfectly legitimate here, but they belong in the Free For All forum. Or perhaps the Coffee House forum. Hope to see you again sometime. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1015 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
simple was a complete waste of time and I for one am glad he/she is gone. I've had my fill of ignorant, egotistical, obnoxious jerks like that and don't intend to waste anymore time with them.
I'm with holmes. Newbie posters should be restricted to the Welcome and Free For All forums until they *prove* themselves. Right now there are a ton of posts left hanging because newbie drive-by posters think they know it all, post like mad for a few days, then disappear when they start getting burned or don't like what they're hearing. Frustration on everyone else's part leads to degradation of the posts - although to be fair, I didn't think the posts in reply to simple were all that bad - subsequently, the threads disintegrate quickly. Again, good riddance!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bill Birkeland Member (Idle past 2558 days) Posts: 165 From: Louisiana Joined: |
simple wrote:
"how a flood could order the fossils? .. Walt's book deals with that, citing lab experiments, etc. He also mentions a process, like in earthquakes, called liquefaction. In a worldwide scenario, he denser mammals would fall in a certain order." The liquefaction theory is readily refuted by layering and specific sedimentary structures of the strata, which Walt Brown claims were produced by liquefaction. It is simply impossible for liquefaction to produce climbing ripple lamination, trough cross-bedding, planar sets of foreset bedding, fossil animal burrows, and many other sedimentary structures and the complex interbedding of different layers of sediments observed within sedimentary rocks. It is nothing short of a miracle that liquefaction could produce all of these sedimentary structures and interbedding of the different layers containing these sedimentary structures such that they perfectly mimic, without any differences, the bedding and sedimentary structures that rivers, waves, turbidity currents, glaciers, contour currents, and many other depositional processes have been documented to produce in modern environments by innumerable studies. The fact of the matter is that these laboratory experiments have never succeeded in producing anything that replicated the complex types of sedimentary bedding and structures seen in the real world. Skeptical Young earth creationists need, in the laboratory, to try to create climbing ripples, epsilon cross-bedding, and a layer of sediments having all of the physical properties of a fossil soil using his liquefaction process. If they did, they would find that it is impossible to do and discover that Walt Brown's claims about what liquefaction can do is nothing more than religious fiction lacking any basis in reality. In terms of actual "sorting", I would like an explanation how hydraulic sorting can explain the relative zonation of microfossils, i.e. foraminfera, palynomorphs, radiolarians, diatoms, conodonts, cocoliths, and so forth, that are too small to have been affected by hydraulic sorting during the flood. This is nicely discussed in "September: Fish Fossils: In a thread debating the historicity of the Genesis flood, Keith Littleton dismisses claims that the fossil record of fishes shows evidence of widespread catastrophic deposition, and points out facts about mammalian and foraminiferan fossil records that a global flood cannot explain." at: The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: September 2002 In that letter, Mr. Littleton, a member of a small "cabal" of Gulf Coast geologists having fun with debunking Young Earth creationists, wrote: "What I would like Young Earth creationists to explainis why microfossils which lived in the same ocean are so nicely stratified according to age. First go read "Microfossil Stratigraphy Presents Problems for the Flood" by Glenn R. Morton at: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/micro.htm " I would make one change in the above paragraph by changing the phrase "nicely stratified according to age" to "nicely stratified according to relative depth". Mr. Littleton continued: "He gives a few of innumerable examples whereforaminifera and other microfossils are found in the same stratigraphic sequence over large areas, even world-wide. A person cannot explain this in terms of either location or habitat zonation. Since they are essentially the same size and weight, hydraulic sorting cannot be used as an explanation. The only explanation is that the foraminifera are found neatly zoned by depth is because they lived at different times as the strata accumulated. The Young Earth creationist global flood model cannotaccount for vertical distribution of microsfossils as illustrated in the "MMS GOMR Resource Evaluation Paleontological Laboratory, Biostratigraphic Chart." with a link at "Scientific and Technical Papers of the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region" at: http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/whatsnew/papers/papers.html " NOTE: On that page the chart is listed as: Witrock, Robert B., Anton R. Friedmann, James J.Galluzzo, Leslie D. Nixon, Paul J. Post, and Katherine M. Ross, MMS Biostratigraphic Chart of the Gulf of Mexico Offshore Region, Jurassic to Quaternary, revised May 2003. Mr.Littleton continued: "This chart can be downloaded from: http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/whatsnew/papers/biochart.pdfOCS BBS, OCS Offshore Gulf of Mexico Oil & Gas BOEM GOM Data This chart shows the vertical sequence in which allover the entire northern Gulf of Mexico how over a 100 different microfossils occur within a pile sediments over 15,000 to 20,000 feet thick. In oil well after oil well and in surface exposure after surface exposure, the sequence of microfossils shown in this chart can be found. For example, Hyalina "B" is always found in the sediments above the sediments containing Angulogerina "A." It, in turn, overlies sediments containing Cristellaria "S", Globorotalia miocenica and Globorotalia menardii , and Bolivina imporcata. These microfossils are found above sediments containing Lenticulina 1, Cassidulina "L", and Saracenaria "H". In addition, the geologic periods also occur in the same order in oil well after oil well as well as in surface exposures. Hydraulic sorting cannot explain this vertical distribution of microfossils as Glenn argues on his web page." Again, Glen Morton's web page is: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/micro.htm Yours, Bill Birkeland [This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 02-04-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
Thank you very much, Bill.
For those who actually think that the flood can explain away the fossil record this is their big chance to show how that can be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
simple, you haven't finished with the fossil sorting by the flood yet.
I don't think that you need to start up other threads until you have finished with the others. Nor do I think anyone should spend time on your discussions until you have demonstrated you are acting in good faith. (note because of the " marks in the title of your shallow seas thread it can't be posted to. Can an Admin fix that please. -- or perhaps leave it until simple has cleared up old issues. ) [This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-04-2004] Common sense isn't
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024