|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Do creationists try to find and study fossils? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No, I'm not saying I'm not going to participate, more that I got pulled into it in spite of myself. I'm trying to watch the Garner video despite a lot of distractions and should soon be able to present SOMETHING about Austin's work on the nautiloids.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
OK, in the video of the lecture given by Paul Garner, which I'll put at the bottom of this post, the whole section dealing with Steve Austin's study of the nautiloid layer in the Grand Canyon runs from 22:47 to 39:40 on the counter.
22:47 starts with a presentation of the characteristics of the Redwall Limestone. 24:20 history of the nautiloid discoveries in Nautiloid Canyon starting in 1966, with pictures of the fossils. 27:30 says nautiloids had been understood to be quite rare in the Canyon despite the find in 1966 but goes on to say Austin disproved this.(Picture of Austin in the Canyon at 28:19) First with Kurt Wise in 1995 they documented 71 fossils in Nautiloid Canyon. In March 1999 Austin took a trip along the river stopping where redwall nautiloids were exposed, finding hundreds. Concluded that the nautiloid layer runs the entire extent of the Canyon, some 277 miles, a lot more of them than had been previously supposed. 30:30 Austin's map showing Jeff Canyon 21 nautiloids which he says is typical at 1 nautiloid per square meter, and from this estimates the whole layer could contain a billion or even 10 billion. 31:30 Histogram showing diameters of 403 nautiloid fossils from three locations in the Canyon, demonstrating that they represent an entire population killed at once rather than random deaths 32:43 shows Austin's Rose Diagrams of the orientations of the nautiloids, 185 from one side canyon and another 100 plus from another canyon, which is to demonstrate that they were caught in a rapid flow and not randomly individually buried 35:15 shows distribution within the bed is in the center of the bed which he argues shows rapid flow which is demonstrated with a diagram of the Hyperconcentrated Flow Model at 36:10, showing that high speed flows develop a layered structure. At 37:45 Garner summarizes the points above. P.S. I've collected the various articles linked on this thread to read later. I'm SOOOOO tired I'm going back to bed now. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Also, nobody has ever explained exactly how Naulitoids somewhere in North America would indicate a global flood. Maybe Faith could enlighten us about it. Everything in the Grand Canyon I think demonstrates the Flood and the video of Garner's lecture covers most of it. The sedimentary layers themselves ought to be regarded as evidence of the Flood, and their fossil contents are further evidence. The extent of the layers across many states and most of the continent in some cases shows deposition by water, a huge amount of water covering the whole continent, and of course the fossil contents show the bazillion dead things the Flood was expected to bring about. As for nautiloids in particular, Austin simply found a lot of them in one layer in the Grand Canyon, extending the length of the canyon and beyond, and did studies to show that they don't represent random individual deaths but the death of the entire population at once in a mass kill by a catastrophic event. If you want me to go back and account for something where I said you were lying please give me the link. Thanks. Content hidden (use "peek" if you wish to see it). Faith has withdrawn this (more or less off-topic) material from this topic, per message 163. - Adminnemooseus Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Text in red.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm sorry I wrote message 156. The thread should now be focused on the material in Message 155.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
When I'm talking about the lack of erosion surfaces on the layers I'm referring to the stack above the Great Unconformity.
But my explanation of the Great Unconformity is that it was originally horizontal layers like all the rest but after the entire stack was in place there was a volcanic eruption beneath the canyon which tilted the lower strata and caused very rough erosion by the friction of the movement between those and the upper strata which remained intact. There may also have been tectonic lateral movement as the cause of or at least in conjunction with the eruption. Garner in the posted video discusses this erosion layer toward the end of his talk, explaining it as caused by an abrasive slurry rather than the way I explain it, but still it's another explanation than the Old Earth explanation of the gradual erosion of the unconformity, an erosion that occurred rapidly instead of slowly. Evidence of the volcano's eruption after the stack was in place is in the igneous intrusions and the granite and the schist at the basement of the canyon, and in the mounded nature of the uplift of that area into which the canyon was cut. There is also further interesting evidence in what Garner identifies as earthquake effects near the end of his talk but I haven't fully processed that information. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Of course the Shunimo was metamorphosed first, which I would suppose took a lot less time than is normally supposed. My question is why the other layers with the Shinumo were NOT metamorphosed in the same time period. So I don't have an answer to that yet. Such unanswered questions don't threaten the overall interpretation of the other phenomena as Flood-caused, they merely need further understanding.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
We are hoping for something like a scientific paper with an introduction, methodologies, results, and discussion section. This is the type of paper that scientists write when they communicate their findings. If that's the requirement of this thread, and Austin's work doesn't qualify, end of discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
They only "look different" in the sense that the alphabet blocks in the collection have different letters and there's a stain on one and the dog's tooth marks on another, but otherwise they are identical.
Yeah, if you ignore the differences, they're identical. As I said they are identical AS TO THE PROCESSES OF THEIR DEPOSITION. What you are discussing is the secondary features, the letters on the blocks and the stain and the tooth marks. Those have nothing to do with the mechanism of deposition.
Consider the Coconino Sandstone and the Muav Limestone. One is sandstone, the other is limestone. They are different colors. One has footprints in it, the other has no footprints in it. One exhibits cross-bedding, the other does not. One contains no marine fossils, the other contains many. They're as different as two sedimentary rocks can be, but apart from that, they're identical. YES, IDENTICAL IN THAT THEIR MANNER OF DEPOSITION WAS THE SAME, and their general appearance shows that, their horizontality, their relatively flat uneroded surfaces, etc, which show that they were both deposited by a huge quantity of water. This general appearance of ALL the otherwise different strata is obvious to the naked eye. Garner discusses the evidence for this on the video as well.
The sedimentary layers are all originally horizontal, remarkably flat-topped, remarkably without the sort of erosion one finds on surface land, and so on and so forth, showing their having been produced by the same processes having roughly the same history.
As you know, this is not true. We showed you photographs. Your photographs were undecipherable as I recall, and what I said IS true, which I am repeating above. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
They aren't dunes. If they WERE dunes then their sand grains were nevertheless transported by the Flood waters and deposited in the Coconino layer. But they may never have been dunes, the shape of the grains might have been formed in the water itself, which I believe is what Garner argues. I personally like the idea that dunes were transported and the crossbedding reflects the shape of the grains as formed at that time.
It's idiotic to think they were ever dunes in their current location, however, absolutely idiotic to think that slow deposition would have flattened them into a horizontal layer beneath the layer above. That tiook water deposition. It also took an enormous weight of strata above. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm repeating this post.
OK, in the video of the lecture given by Paul Garner, which I'll put at thebottom of this post, the whole section dealing with Steve Austin's study of the nautiloid layer in the Grand Canyon runs from 22:47 to 39:40 on the counter. 22:47 starts with a presentation of the characteristics of the Redwall Limestone. 24:20 history of the nautiloid discoveries in Nautiloid Canyon starting in 1966, with pictures of the fossils. 27:30 says nautiloids had been understood to be quite rare in the Canyon despite the find in 1966 but goes on to say Austin disproved this.(Picture of Austin in the Canyon at 28:19) First with Kurt Wise in 1995 they documented 71 fossils in Nautiloid Canyon. In March 1999 Austin took a trip along the river stopping where redwall nautiloids were exposed, finding hundreds. Concluded that the nautiloid layer runs the entire extent of the Canyon, some 277 miles, a lot more of them than had been previously supposed. 30:30 Austin's map showing Jeff Canyon 21 nautiloids which he says is typical at 1 nautiloid per square meter, and from this estimates the whole layer could contain a billion or even 10 billion. 31:30 Histogram showing diameters of 403 nautiloid fossils from three locations in the Canyon, demonstrating that they represent an entire population killed at once rather than random deaths 32:43 shows Austin's Rose Diagrams of the orientations of the nautiloids, 185 from one side canyon and another 100 plus from another canyon, which is to demonstrate that they were caught in a rapid flow and not randomly individually buried 35:15 shows distribution within the bed is in the center of the bed which he argues shows rapid flow which is demonstrated with a diagram of the Hyperconcentrated Flow Model at 36:10, showing that high speed flows develop a layered structure. At 37:45 Garner summarizes the points above. P.S. I've collected the various articles linked on this thread to read later. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II. 2Cr 10:4-5 (For the weapons of our warfare [are] not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God... |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Cross bedding is the result of the shape of the sand grains.
LET's GET BACK TO THE FOSSIL NAUTILOIDS. Message 170. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Nobody said the footprints occurred "while under water." The idea is that the layers or some of them were laid down by ocean waves which came in, dumped their sediments and dead creatures and went out again, the waves being huge and the time between long enough for anything still living to leave footprints.
LET's GET BACK TO THE FOSSIL NAUTILOIDS. Message 170. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024