|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Was there a worldwide flood? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4210 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
What do you mean by type? Species, sub-species? Type is not a biological classification.
Edited by bluescat48, : typo There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 188 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
In fact, the dating of the KBS tuff was rejected because the pig fossils were not the same type. I think it's more accurate to say the the original dating of the KBS Tuff was questioned because of pig fossils, and ultimately rejected because scientists figured out what went wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pandion Member (Idle past 3021 days) Posts: 166 From: Houston Joined: |
I think it's more accurate to say the the original dating of the KBS Tuff was questioned because of pig fossils, and ultimately rejected because scientists figured out what went wrong.
OK. I can accept that. In fact, in a previous post I stated it more that way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
That would be really nice if that were how you presented the argument. In fact, you challenged Peg's assertion that pig fossils are, in fact, quite useful as index fossils over vast areas in east Africa. That is not, in fact, what Peg asserted. Indeed, part of the YEC dogma is to deny that index fossils are useful in any way whatsoever. If you can get Peg to assert that any fossils are useful as index fossils, I shall award you the Dr Adequate Prize For Talking Sense Into Creationists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2718 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Pandion.
pandion writes: That would be really nice if that were how you presented the argument. Admittedly, there were alternatives that would have been clearer. I'm sorry that it offends you so much that I chose not to use them. ----- I did not challenge Peg's argument about the usefulness of index fossils: I challenged his presentation of the argument. What is the difference between the statement, "They found two types of pigs in one region" and the statement, "I found fifty types of spiders in one field"? I did not know what Peg was talking about. I tried a few Google searches on "Omo Valley pig fossils" and what-not, but I couldn't find anything informative within the reasonable timeframe of my lunch break. Does it not upset you when somebody posts something and forces you to do all the work to figure out what they're talking about? I'm sorry that I let my annoyance dictate the tenor of my response to Peg. Edited by Bluejay, : I hid the entire message! (I swear I fixed this right after I wrote it... odd) Edited by Bluejay, : I finally put it in the right place! Edited by Bluejay, : Hidden content no longer needed: no one needs to remember the silly fight between Pandion and I. Edited by Bluejay, : Deleted other mean stuff, too: it was embarrassing to read, anyway. Sorry, Pandion -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pandion Member (Idle past 3021 days) Posts: 166 From: Houston Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes:
You're right. I stand corrected. I was working from the quote cited by Bluejay. I assumed (probably incorrectly) that Peg understood the importance of the pig fossils. So I was probably a bit harsh. Nevertheless, the spider analogy is still bad. It was a comparison of the vertebrate fossils, especially the pigs, at Koobi Fora and Omo that caused researchers to doubt the original date of the KBS Tuff. That is because similar fossils are found in strata of like age over a wide area in east Africa. That is not, in fact, what Peg asserted. Indeed, part of the YEC dogma is to deny that index fossils are useful in any way whatsoever. If you can get Peg to assert that any fossils are useful as index fossils, I shall award you the Dr Adequate Prize For Talking Sense Into Creationists. Edited by pandion, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Nevertheless, the spider analogy is still bad. No, not really. Peg's sole point, if it can be dignified with that name, was that the existence of different pigs in different places at the same time somehow invalidates geology. So the observation that different species in the same taxon do, right now, live in different places at the same time, is indeed sufficient to refute her argument. If she had a more subtle point in mind (which she didn't) then she has relinquished her chance to make it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pandion Member (Idle past 3021 days) Posts: 166 From: Houston Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes:
Well then, I must owe Bluejay an apology, which I now offer. I sincerely hope that I caused no offense. No, not really. Peg's sole point, if it can be dignified with that name, was that the existence of different pigs in different places at the same time somehow invalidates geology. So the observation that different species in the same taxon do, right now, live in different places at the same time, is indeed sufficient to refute her argument. If she had a more subtle point in mind (which she didn't) then she has relinquished her chance to make it. I mistakenly believed that Peg was discussing the problems with the dating of the KBS Tuff and how the fossil suites found at the various sites first indicated that the KBS Tuff had been misdated. I realize that I was wrong, i.e., that was not what Peg was saying. I have reviewed the entire discussion rather than the single quote upon which I based my remarks. From that discussion it is clear that Peg does not actually understand the whole point about pig fossils and the KBS Tuff. That's what I get for commenting without reading the history. Again, sorry, Bluejay.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4950 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes: No, not really. Peg's sole point, if it can be dignified with that name, was that the existence of different pigs in different places at the same time somehow invalidates geology. Actually, that was not my point. Coyote said that "Sediment layers are not interrupted at that time over continental areas by a discontinuity." I questioned using the sediment layers as a marker because as is seen in the layers of sediment from the Omo and Lake Rudolf areas, they are not always consistent with each other. In the example i gave, the pigs are in the same sediment layer, are dated to the same time but are a different types of pig. I was not calling into question geology as a whole....even though the geologic column IS a hypothetical structure. But to Pandion, as usual my clumsy remarks have caused a ruckus and i apologize for that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 188 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
. In the example i gave, the pigs are in the same sediment layer, are dated to the same time but are a different types of pig. You haven't given any example. You've made a vague reference to something without sufficient detail. We've presumed that you are talking about the KBS Tuff story. If our presumption is correct, your claim of inconsistency is wrong. The apparent inconsistency in KBS Tuff dating was resolved by finding errors in the original dating. If our presumption is wrong, you need to provide the details of your story and the references from which we can avaluate the data. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
I questioned using the sediment layers as a marker because as is seen in the layers of sediment from the Omo and Lake Rudolf areas, they are not always consistent with each other. In the example i gave, the pigs are in the same sediment layer, are dated to the same time but are a different types of pig. Do you understand that there can be multiple types of an animal alive at the same time? For example, there are probably more than 100 breeds of dog. 50,000 years from now, analysis will be able to date dog remains to this time period. Are we going to assume some sort of bizarre magical global catastrophe simply because there is a chihuahua buried in one person's backyard and a poodle buried in another person's backyard? There are (and were in the past) multiple types of pigs. It's no more unusual to find different kinds of pig fossils in the same layer in different locations than it would be to find multiple types of dog fossils in the same layer in different (or even the same!) locations. Edited by Nuggin, : typos
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pandion Member (Idle past 3021 days) Posts: 166 From: Houston Joined: |
Peg writes:
But they are. Perhaps your source is just horribly outdated. Another possibility is that your source lied to you. Once the strata were correctly identified they were found to be perfectly consistent.
I questioned using the sediment layers as a marker because as is seen in the layers of sediment from the Omo and Lake Rudolf areas, they are not always consistent with each other. In the example i gave, the pigs are in the same sediment layer, are dated to the same time but are a different types of pig.
Incorrect. Once the layers were correctly identified it was found that the fossil suites found in various locations were almost identical. In other words, the pig fossils (and others) in any stratum are the same. That means different types of pig = different strata. It's actually a pretty simple idea. Why don't you get the correct information. Bones of Contention by Roger Lewin has already been mentioned (The University of Chicago Press, 1987. ISBN 0226476510) Perhaps your confusion would be cleared up by a reading of the actual facts. Edited by pandion, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I questioned using the sediment layers as a marker because as is seen in the layers of sediment from the Omo and Lake Rudolf areas, they are not always consistent with each other. In the example i gave, the pigs are in the same sediment layer, are dated to the same time but are a different types of pig. Different pigs live in different places. How does this make geology "inconsistent"?
I was not calling into question geology as a whole....even though the geologic column IS a hypothetical structure. What do you mean by the phrase "hypothetical structure"? Would this phrase also apply to the Periodic Table? Might I suggest that if you wish to understand geology, reading creationist crap is not the best place to start?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1009 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
So what im questioning is how sediment layers can be used so affirmatively when they are not always consistent. Would you use a calculator which occasionally produced an incorrect answer?
You are questioning sedimentology and stratigraphy only because you do not understand the subject matter. These processes are predictable, and as was already mentioned, they follow the laws of physics and geology. The fact that you lack the knowledge in how to interpret these deposits is not the fault of Nature, but your own. As you must be aware, calculators are not the problem -- users are. Same in geology: garbage in, garbage out. You need to pick up a real geological textbook and start reading. If the sedimentology and/or stratigraphy do not make sense, it is OUR fault. We need to study the deposits in greater detail to figure out what exactly it is we are missing. Geology is not black and white. It is black and white and a million shades of gray. Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Peg, still having that denial problem eh?
I was not calling into question geology as a whole....even though the geologic column IS a hypothetical structure. Actually it is a validated theoretical structure. In science you move from evidence to hypothesis that explains the evidence to tests of the hypothesis with new evidence or experiments to validation of the tests or to invalidation of the hypothesis from the results of those tests. One of those tests consists of a simple comparison of existing undisturbed sedimentary layers: if layer A is above layer B in one location, then whenever you can find both layer A and layer B in other locations, A will be above B. Another test is that where layer A is above layer B and layer B is above layer C, then whenever you can find layers A and C - with or without B (it may not extend as far as the other layers) - layer A will be above layer C. This sequential layering is what forms the "geological column" even though there may be no one place where all the layers exist. An example of this kind of layering is shown here: http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/correlation.html
quote: This has been massively tested and massively validated, as geologists have been doing this comparison for centuries, it is so massively tested that it is known as the Law of Superposition: Law of superposition - Wikipedia
quote: And the top of each layer determines the shape of the bottom of the next layer above. This provides another way to test the concept: if layer A deforms layer B then it would be the first formed first to harden layer. A third way that this concept has been tested is with radiometric dating: if the law of superposition is correct then the radiometric dating should show a progression of ages from oldest at the bottom to youngest at the top. Are Radioactive Dates Consistent? (4)
quote: Layer by layer the stratigraphic measures older by radiometric dating, entirely consistent with the long term deposition of sedimentary layers (and not some jumbled debris of some fantasy flood scenario). None of the K-Ar Dates overlap into the wrong sedimentary layers. This same kind of layering, with oldest layer first, also occurs in limestone and calcite deposits, in stalactites and similar formations. These formation also trap radioactive isotopes that then decay, with the most decayed layers being the oldest first layers of the deposits. Thus the law of superposition is validated in many ways, in many locations, for many many years. Enjoy. 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) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024