Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Great Creationist Fossil Failure
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 16 of 1163 (785987)
06-14-2016 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Faith
06-14-2016 2:25 AM


It is because there is no clear way to explain the supposed order of the fossil record that I now avoid it. But there are plenty of other proofs ...
Are you trying to hijack the thread?
At least we agree that YEC has no explanation for the fossil record. Thank you for going that far.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 06-14-2016 2:25 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 17 of 1163 (785988)
06-14-2016 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Adequate
06-13-2016 2:08 PM


Creationists are dimly aware that the fossil record exhibits order, ...
An excellent treatment of the topic. Thank you for taking the time to put this together.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-13-2016 2:08 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 18 of 1163 (785991)
06-14-2016 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Dr Adequate
06-14-2016 5:42 AM


Of course photographs can lie. Yours are particularly adept at it. Just pick a photo of phenotypic diversity in the whole collection of dogs and you lie through your teeth about the reduced genetic diversity in the separate breeds. Just pick a photo of a collapsed section of strata and pretend it is about the laying down of the strata. You bet photos lie.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-14-2016 5:42 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-14-2016 10:54 AM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 19 of 1163 (785994)
06-14-2016 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Faith
06-14-2016 10:05 AM


If you're going to drool out halfwitted lies and stupid nonsense, could you at least contrive to make it on-topic? Thank you.
There are, after all, other threads where you can lie about these subjects: I suggest you avail yourself of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Faith, posted 06-14-2016 10:05 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 20 of 1163 (786061)
06-15-2016 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Adequate
06-13-2016 2:08 PM


We should not anticipate that any creationist will ever explain the actual features of the fossil record in terms of the Flood. It is unlikely at this late date that any of them is going to find out what the fossil record looks like, an activity which would both contradict their prejudices and involve doing some actual work. But I invite any creationist who wants to to give it a try.
And of course anyone else is free to point out problems with the creationist model as it stands. I can think of several more, but this post has gone on long enough ... and the horse is dead.
I think that part of the issue for YECs is that they do not understand the time element involved in the depositional order of fossils. To them, all fossils were deposited in one year, therefor they are all of the same age.
This is kind of the pre-scientific view of fossils where they were thought to be just randomly scattered through the rocks, and possibly, not even the remains of living organisms.
This all came to a crashing halt over 200 years ago when William Smith started mapping the distribution of fossils and recognized their confinement to certain ages of rocks. Before that, no one realized that you could sort a collection of fossils into the exact order that they occur in rock layers ion the field.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-13-2016 2:08 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 06-15-2016 11:12 AM edge has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 21 of 1163 (786064)
06-15-2016 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by edge
06-15-2016 10:53 AM


I think that part of the issue for YECs is that they do not understand the time element involved in the depositional order of fossils. To them, all fossils were deposited in one year, therefor they are all of the same age.
We understand your ridiculous time scheme just fine, but we KNOW the fossils were deposited in one year while your explanation of millions of years is a bizarre delusion. The strata don't show any differences of age between them, their very existence as layers defies the whole idea of deposition over millions of years which you ought to be able to see yourself if you just opened your eyes. There is tons of evidence that the fossils were rapidly buried, and all of them from bottom to top of the geologic column in the same kind of conditions conducive to fossilization, which conditions are normallyt very rare but exactly what a worldwide Flood would bring about. Also, evolution occurs rapidly within a Species or Kind. All living creatures would be dead in far less than a million years.
This is kind of the pre-scientific view of fossils where they were thought to be just randomly scattered through the rocks, and possibly, not even the remains of living organisms.
There were a lot of weird explanations for fossils at the beginning of geology as a science, but not by "creationists" who weren't a particular category back then, as most geologists would have considered themselves creationists. Also those ideas were UNBIBLICAL. Today's Creationism is based on the Bible. Those weird ideas had to be given up, but the ideas that supplanted them are just as irrational and fantastical.
\ This all came to a crashing halt over 200 years ago when William Smith started mapping the distribution of fossils and recognized their confinement to certain ages of rocks.
His maps are wonderful but the idea of different ages of rocks is ludicrous. In fact all you have to do is look at his cross section of England to see that they were all laid down at the same time and afterward tectonically forced into their current semi-upright position. The idea that they were each laid down in time periods millions of years apart is defied by that cross section. Especially when you recognize the part of Geology that has the breaking up of a former supercontinent called Pangaea at the end of the Paleozoic period, but there isn't any sign of disturbance to the strata already in place at that time according to OE theory, although there should have been a lot of tectonic disturbance with that event. Nope, just layer after layer as usual, even after the continents split apart -- a miracle of sorts -- and ONLY after ALL were in place THEN we see the tectonic disturbance that pushed them into their current semi-upright position. Ending the Geologic Column itself too. Cause it was all formed by the Flood of Noah.
Before that, no one realized that you could sort a collection of fossils into the exact order that they occur in rock layers ion the field.
The apparent order of the fossils is an interesting phenomenon but there is so much evidence of a young earth if you just open your eyes, the OE explanation of that order doesn't hold water.
If you want your thread not to be hijacked by creationists, baiting creationists with your absurd theories is not the way to go about it. And I'm REBUTTING the OP anyway.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by edge, posted 06-15-2016 10:53 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by edge, posted 06-15-2016 11:52 AM Faith has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 22 of 1163 (786068)
06-15-2016 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Faith
06-15-2016 11:12 AM


We understand your ridiculous time scheme just fine, but we KNOW the fossils were deposited in one year while your explanation of millions of years is a bizarre delusion. The strata don't show any differences of age between them, their very existence as layers defies the whole idea of deposition over millions of years which you ought to be able to see yourself if you just opened your eyes. There is tons of evidence that the fossils were rapidly buried, and all of them from bottom to top of the geologic column in the same kind of conditions conducive to fossilization, which conditions are normallyt very rare but exactly what a worldwide Flood would bring about.
Thank you for making my point.
There were a lot of weird explanations for fossils at the beginning of geology as a science, but not by "creationists" who weren't a particular category back then, as most geologists would have considered themselves creationists. Also those ideas were UNBIBLICAL. Today's Creationism is based on the Bible. Those weird ideas had to be given up, but the ideas that supplanted them are just as irrational and fantastical.
Again, you make my point. However, I might quibble over whether the original fossil collectors were 'creationists' or not. They were certainly neptunists and they had their own interpretation of the Bible.
His maps are wonderful but the idea of different ages of rocks is ludicrous. In fact all you have to do is look at his cross section of England to see that they were all laid down at the same time and afterward tectonically forced into their current semi-upright position. The idea that they were each laid down in time periods millions of years apart is defied by that cross section. Especially when you recognize the part of Geology that has the breaking up of a former supercontinent called Pangaea at the end of the Paleozoic period, but there isn't any sign of disturbance to the strata already in place at that time according to OE theory, although there should have been a lot of tectonic disturbance with that event. Nope, just layer after layer as usual, even after the continents split apart -- a miracle of sorts -- and ONLY after ALL were in place THEN we see the tectonic disturbance that pushed them into their current semi-upright position. Ending the Geologic Column itself too. Cause it was all formed by the Flood of Noah.(bold added)
Thank you for admitting that your version of the fossil record is miraculous in nature. That's exactly what I was saying.
As to the rest of this statement, it is totally, demonstrably wrong to any reasonable person.
The apparent order of the fossils is an interesting phenomenon but there is so much evidence of a young earth if you just open your eyes, the OE explanation of that order doesn't hold water.
The 'apparent order of the fossils' works pretty well, though. It is explanatory and predictive (successfully so, I might add).
But I'm glad you admit there isn't enough water for a fludde.
If you want your thread not to be hijacked by creationists, baiting creationists with your absurd theories is not the way to go about it. And I'm REBUTTING the OP anyway.
But YECs are so easy to bait.
Hard to resist...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 06-15-2016 11:12 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 06-15-2016 12:25 PM edge has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 23 of 1163 (786071)
06-15-2016 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by edge
06-15-2016 11:52 AM


The fossil order is some kind of illusion, proved by all the evidence of the Flood
Right the original fossil collectors were neptunists, which is not creationism, but the point was that most geologists would have claimed to be Christians, even though their ideas about the fossils were not biblical.
His maps are wonderful but the idea of different ages of rocks is ludicrous. In fact all you have to do is look at his cross section of England to see that they were all laid down at the same time and afterward tectonically forced into their current semi-upright position. The idea that they were each laid down in time periods millions of years apart is defied by that cross section. Especially when you recognize the part of Geology that has the breaking up of a former supercontinent called Pangaea at the end of the Paleozoic period, but there isn't any sign of disturbance to the strata already in place at that time according to OE theory, although there should have been a lot of tectonic disturbance with that event. Nope, just layer after layer as usual, even after the continents split apart -- a miracle of sorts -- and ONLY after ALL were in place THEN we see the tectonic disturbance that pushed them into their current semi-upright position. Ending the Geologic Column itself too. Cause it was all formed by the Flood of Noah.(bold added)
Thank you for admitting that your version of the fossil record is miraculous in nature. That's exactly what I was saying.
I see by what you bolded that you misread what I was calling miraculous -- it was the OE idea that the layers could have continued to be laid down without exhibiting any signs of disturbance even after the continents split apart. THAT idea indeed implies a miracle of sorts.
The Flood was not miraculous, it was real, and evidence for that is that the fossils are real, great evidence for a catastrophic killing and burial of enormous numbers of living things by water; and the strata are real, great evidence for deposition by water, layer after layer to an enormous depth.
As to the rest of this statement, it is totally, demonstrably wrong to any reasonable person.
Well, I'll post the cross section, which certainly fits exactly what I described. Layers all laid down before they were tectonically upended. No other way to interpret it. No sign of such a disturbance between the Paleozoic and the Mesozoic. You'd think the splitting up of a continent would have some effect on the layers supposedly already laid down, but Nope, even after the split according to that ridiculous scenario they just keep stacking up as usual, but in reality there was no tectonic disturbance until all were in place, which pushed the entire stack as a unit into its semi-upright position.
No point in repeating the rest of my irrefutable post.
If you so enjoy baiting us then don't complain if we take the bait.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by edge, posted 06-15-2016 11:52 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by edge, posted 06-15-2016 1:16 PM Faith has replied
 Message 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-16-2016 12:42 PM Faith has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 24 of 1163 (786079)
06-15-2016 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
06-15-2016 12:25 PM


Re: The fossil order is some kind of illusion, proved by all the evidence of the Flood
Right the original fossil collectors were neptunists, which is not creationism, ...
And I didn't say that it was.
.. but the point was that most geologists would have claimed to be Christians, even though their ideas about the fossils were not biblical.
Well, they thought that their ideas were biblical ... just as you do.
I see by what you bolded that you misread what I was calling miraculous -- it was the OE idea that the layers could have continued to be laid down without exhibiting any signs of disturbance even after the continents split apart. THAT idea indeed implies a miracle of sorts.
Is there some reason that a rock layer MUST be deformed? Everywhere?
The Flood was not miraculous, it was real, and evidence for that is that the fossils are real, great evidence for a catastrophic killing and burial of enormous numbers of living things by water; ...
Well, if you were getting buried, yes, you'd see that as catastrophic.
The point is that fossils are being buried all the time, even now (well, they're not fossils yet, but they are on the way).
And, just why are the sorted in the way that they are? Why no Cambrian rabbits or Mesozoic kangaroos?
I mean if it was catastrophic, why are they not jumbled all together?
... and the strata are real, great evidence for deposition by water, layer after layer to an enormous depth.
Yes, the strata are real.
The point being?
Well, I'll post the cross section, which certainly fits exactly what I described.
Problem is that the mainstream science explanation explains it even better, particularly when you get away from this section and look at other parts of the world.
You are committing exactly what we described earlier as an ad hoc explanation. It may work in the south of Great Britain (though certainly not in detail), but not everywhehre such as a Siccar Point.
Well, it's not inherently necessary at any given point on earth. However, it is true elsewhere.
You'd think the splitting up of a continent would have some effect on the layers supposedly already laid down, but Nope, even after the split according to that ridiculous scenario they just keep stacking up as usual, but in reality there was no tectonic disturbance until all were in place, which pushed the entire stack as a unit into its semi-upright position.
Please explain to us why every point on the earth should show the same degree of deformation. Perhaps you have some references, not of your own making, that show this to be the case.
By the way, here is a little more detailed section of the south of Great Britain that shows unconformities and differential deformation according to age.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 06-15-2016 12:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 06-15-2016 4:19 PM edge has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 25 of 1163 (786082)
06-15-2016 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by edge
06-15-2016 1:16 PM


Re: The fossil order is some kind of illusion, proved by all the evidence of the Flood
I see by what you bolded that you misread what I was calling miraculous -- it was the OE idea that the layers could have continued to be laid down without exhibiting any signs of disturbance even after the continents split apart. THAT idea indeed implies a miracle of sorts.
Is there some reason that a rock layer MUST be deformed?
Well, there is for this particular location. If all that deformation seen in the cross section occurred after all the strata were laid down, wouldn't you expect deformation to have occurred at the point where there was a separation of formerly joined continents? Must have been a bit of wrenching and banging and crashing going on as it got underway, attended with the volcanism of the Atlantic trench which of course is that line where the continents split, and England is right smack ON that line where Europe split from the Americas. Just seems a little odd to me, and something geologists seem to have overlooked.
Please explain to us why every point on the earth should show the same degree of deformation. Perhaps you have some references, not of your own making, that show this to be the case.
I didn't say that though, I referred only to England, which should have been particularly affected because it's right on the line where the major split from the Americas occurred. And since the split occurred somewhere around the Permian, as I recall, you'd think there would be SOME record of the split in all the layers from that layer down to basement rock. But instead they all appear to have been affected by the same disturbance at the same time AFTER they were all in place, including all from the Permian upward as well as below, with no sign of a difference in the Permian or lower layers as one would reasonably expect. How can that be? In fact how could it be that strata could just go on as usual depositing one upon another while the continents are moving apart? I'm sure you can deny it because you're very good at that, but in reality it makes no sense at all, and shows that the whole idea of millions of years is false.
You want me to move away from this cross section, but the cross section is smack on the split between the continents. That's what makes it the perfect example for the point I'm making.
Oh and the cross section you posted shows the same thing: all the strata affected as a unit after all were laid down.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by edge, posted 06-15-2016 1:16 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by edge, posted 06-15-2016 7:34 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 26 of 1163 (786083)
06-15-2016 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Faith
06-15-2016 4:19 PM


Re: The fossil order is some kind of illusion, proved by all the evidence of the Flood
Well, there is for this particular location. If all that deformation seen in the cross section occurred after all the strata were laid down, wouldn't you expect deformation to have occurred at the point where there was a separation of formerly joined continents?
No, but you stray off-topic.
Must have been a bit of wrenching and banging and crashing going on as it got underway, attended with the volcanism of the Atlantic trench which of course is that line where the continents split, and England is right smack ON that line where Europe split from the Americas.
No, and no.
In fact, there is no Atlantic Trench.
Just seems a little odd to me, and something geologists seem to have overlooked.
I'm sure you are more clever than all of them.
Shall we get back on topic?
I didn't say that though, I referred only to England, which should have been particularly affected because it's right on the line where the major split from the Americas occurred. And since the split occurred somewhere around the Permian, as I recall, you'd think there would be SOME record of the split in all the layers from that layer down to basement rock. But instead they all appear to have been affected by the same disturbance at the same time AFTER they were all in place, including all from the Permian upward as well as below, with no sign of a difference in the Permian or lower layers as one would reasonably expect. How can that be? In fact how could it be that strata could just go on as usual depositing one upon another while the continents are moving apart? I'm sure you can deny it because you're very good at that, but in reality it makes no sense at all, and shows that the whole idea of millions of years is false.
You want me to move away from this cross section, but the cross section is smack on the split between the continents. That's what makes it the perfect example for the point I'm making.
Oh and the cross section you posted shows the same thing: all the strata affected as a unit after all were laid down.
Actually not. The more detailed section shows more erosion and deformation in the lower layers.
And no, the section is not located on the continental 'split'. You've only left out all of Ireland in your analysis.
Do you want to talk about Ireland? I know the geology there a little bit better...
Now, to the extent that stratigraphy and paleontology are kind of hard to separate, I suppose we might be considered on topic, but I'd like an opinion from a moderator before we continue this discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 06-15-2016 4:19 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by AdminAsgara, posted 06-15-2016 8:29 PM edge has not replied

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 27 of 1163 (786084)
06-15-2016 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by edge
06-15-2016 7:34 PM


Re: The fossil order is some kind of illusion, proved by all the evidence of the Flood
Tie it in with paleontology and I'll allow it

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by edge, posted 06-15-2016 7:34 PM edge has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 28 of 1163 (786096)
06-16-2016 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
06-15-2016 12:25 PM


OFFS
Well, I'll post the cross section, which certainly fits exactly what I described. Layers all laid down before they were tectonically upended. No other way to interpret it. No sign of such a disturbance between the Paleozoic and the Mesozoic. You'd think the splitting up of a continent would have some effect on the layers supposedly already laid down, but Nope, even after the split according to that ridiculous scenario they just keep stacking up as usual, but in reality there was no tectonic disturbance until all were in place, which pushed the entire stack as a unit into its semi-upright position.
Faith. What are we going to do with you?
Smith's cross-sections, like all geological cross-sections with a large baseline, employs massive exaggeration of the vertical scale --- and when I say massive, I mean exaggeration by factors of 50 or 70. Because this is the only way you can actually see what would otherwise be an imperceptible dip of layers which, given the horizontal size of the picture, would be imperceptibly thin if vertical and horizontal distances were to the same scale. To illustrate the necessity, here is the map you posted rescaled so as to employ the same vertical and horizontal scale.
I can't help thinking that you'd know this if you'd ever taken the slightest interest in geology in general, the geology of the British Isles in particular, or the work of William Smith --- or if you possessed the merest vestige of common sense, which would have told you that the height of Mount Snowdon is not going to be over one quarter of the distance from London to northwest Wales. There are no mountains over fifty miles high, Faith.
---
Now, how about you try being wrong about fossils instead? At least that would be on topic.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 06-15-2016 12:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 06-16-2016 1:26 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 29 of 1163 (786100)
06-16-2016 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Dr Adequate
06-16-2016 12:42 PM


Re: OFFS
The scale has nothing to do with the point I was making. I made it, it's made.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-16-2016 12:42 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-16-2016 1:43 PM Faith has replied
 Message 32 by edge, posted 06-16-2016 2:10 PM Faith has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 30 of 1163 (786101)
06-16-2016 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Faith
06-16-2016 1:26 PM


Re: OFFS
And in answer to your point, such as it is, common sense, a rudimentary knowledge of geology, or direct observation would tell you that the disturbance caused by rifting consists of the formation of a graben.
Here is a picture of the Great Rift Valley.
Here's a look at another bit:
The tectonic disturbance is the rift, Faith. Again, this is something you would know if you'd taken the slightest interest in the subject.
---
Now, would you like to try being wrong about fossils? Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 06-16-2016 1:26 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 06-16-2016 2:08 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024