Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How did the Aborigines get to Australia?
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
Message 169 of 226 (669865)
08-04-2012 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Portillo
08-04-2012 12:48 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
Hi Portillo,
I see you have declined to answer most of the questions that have been put to you. This is a shame. We're not asking you these questions as some sort of ridiculous "gotcha" moment; we are asking you because it does not seem that you have any explanation. As it happens though, palaeontology does have an explanation. For as long as you present nothing, mainstream science will win by default.
Please, at least take a shot;
Why do we only see trilobites from the Cambrian to the end of the Permian? Why no later? Why do we never see them fossilised together with crabs or lobsters, when they would have shared the same habitat?
Why do we only see flowering plants appear from the Cretaceous onwards? Why do we never find them in older rocks, even when we do find plants such as ferns and club mosses?
And if some mechanism somehow sorted these organisms into discrete layers, why did it not affect corals or brachiopods, or other groups that persist in the fossil record back to the early Cambrian or beyond?
I understand that you may not have answers to these questions - not least because the answers don't exist on account of the fact that Flood Geology is nonsense - but if you want your creationist model to be taken seriously, you need to make the effort to address these issues.
Oh, by the way;
There are some fossils being formed today, but large scale fossilization is not occuring anywhere in the world. Dr. Dana Desone, said "While dinosaurs were the most famous organisms to become extinct at the end of the cretaceous. The tragedy was far more widespread. 65 to 75% of all earths organisms vanished. Hardest hit were the land animals. In all although 88% of the land dwelling species vanished, as many 90% of those inhabiting fresh water survived. Marine organisms were not spared, almost 50% of the marine species died off. Without question, the KT extinctions were a global disaster of unimaginable proportions." Where on earth do we find extinction-catastrophe events happening like this today?
You ought to realise that the extinction event at the end of the Cretaceous is not the only such event recorded in the fossil record. The Permian-Triassic event is another, quite distinct from the KT event. There are others, take a look;
The KT event is labelled "End K" (end of the Cretaceous). You can see how it is not the only such event, nor even the biggest, merely the most famous, since it wiped out those ever-popular dinosaurs. What we are seeing here is a succession of disappearances from the fossil record. Yet each is followed by a radiation of new species, that took advantage of the opportunity. Care to explain how a single flood could create so many completely separate extinctions?
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Portillo, posted 08-04-2012 12:48 AM Portillo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-04-2012 6:29 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 171 of 226 (669880)
08-04-2012 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Dr Adequate
08-04-2012 6:29 PM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
There were malacostracans in the Cambrian.
Sure, but not crabs or lobsters, unambiguous examples of which only appear from the Jurassic onwards.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-04-2012 6:29 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-04-2012 9:09 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(3)
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 replied

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

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 211 of 226 (673199)
09-16-2012 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Portillo
09-16-2012 1:20 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions, round 2
Which is based on the theory that layers require millions of years to form or that each layer represents a long period of time.
What theory's that? The one that you made up?
Geologists know perfectly well that some layers form rapidly. They are extremely adept at telling these layers from those that formed over much longer periods. Not all strata form at the same rate - obviously.
I also notice that not only is your response not relevant to the thread's topic, it actually has nothing to do with what you were replying to. So far, this thread has consisted of you being wrong about something, being told that you're wrong, only for you to respond by being wrong about some other, unrelated, topic.
Just for a change of pace, do you think you could try being wrong about marsupials and Australia? Y'know, the topic that you wanted to talk about...
If you didnt know what had happened you would assume that it took millions of years.
Only if you were an ignoramus with no knowledge of geology and a desperate want for common sense.
Mount St. Helens and the Indian Ocean Tsunami was an infinitesimal event in magnitude, compared to a global flood.
Indeed. So one would imagine that the flood would leave a very clear deposit that no-one could miss. But when we look at the rocks, it's not there. I wonder why.
I dont know how long fossils take to form.
Okay, I'll add that to the list. The long, long list of things you don't know.
For the record, almost every word of that last paragraph is wrong. You might try and learn the most basic rudiments of geology before commenting on it.
Or - hey! - here's an idea; do you know how marsupials got to Australia? That would be a fun topic! I'm still dying to hear how a land bridge could form across the deepest ocean trench in the world.
Mutate and Survive

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by CoolBeans, posted 03-02-2013 11:13 PM Granny Magda 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