Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Great Creationist Fossil Failure
Pollux
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 11-13-2011


Message 301 of 1163 (787434)
07-13-2016 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by edge
07-13-2016 9:12 AM


Re: geologic "Column"
The Norian was introduced as a stage in 1869, and most of the 100 stages were characterised 1840 - 1880. So they have been known for a LONG time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by edge, posted 07-13-2016 9:12 AM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Faith, posted 07-13-2016 9:28 PM Pollux has not replied

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


Message 302 of 1163 (787435)
07-13-2016 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by Pollux
07-13-2016 7:49 PM


Re: geologic "Column"
I'm not getting whatever you want us to get from your information about stages within periods. I looked through the Wikipedia article on the Norian stage and fail to see what makes it a stage. That is, I don't see any particular order to the fossil creatures characteristic of the time period allotted to them. They appear to be variations of course, but not in any sort of progressive order. Norian - Wikipedia
abe: ALSO, I assume each of the fossils representative of a time portion within the stage has been found within a sedimentary rock layer, is this correct? I get that the time scale and the rocks are separate things, nevertheless you don't find fossils except within a layer of sedimentary rock, correct?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Pollux, posted 07-13-2016 7:49 PM Pollux has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by edge, posted 07-14-2016 12:01 AM Faith has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 303 of 1163 (787437)
07-14-2016 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 302 by Faith
07-13-2016 9:28 PM


Re: geologic "Column"
I'm not getting whatever you want us to get from your information about stages within periods.
Pollux's purpose was to show the fine degree of fossil sorting in the record. It is hard to imagine any YEC flood scenario to result in such detail.
I mentioned the Norian because it is based on the first occurrence of various ammonite species, alike enough that it isn't possible to visualize a sorting mechanism so precise.
Secondarily, I wanted to show that people have thought about these things for a very long time and it is not just some ad hoc situation designed to show evolution occurring. And, as Pollux noted, this division has proven useful for almost 150 years now.
I looked through the Wikipedia article on the Norian stage and fail to see what makes it a stage. That is, I don't see any particular order to the fossil creatures characteristic of the time period allotted to them.
But that is exactly what the article explains. I'm not sure how to make it any clearer.
They appear to be variations of course, but not in any sort of progressive order.
Why should it be progressive? There is a steady evolution of ammonites through the upper Triassic section based on first appearances.
abe: ALSO, I assume each of the fossils representative of a time portion within the stage has been found within a sedimentary rock layer, is this correct? I get that the time scale and the rocks are separate things, nevertheless you don't find fossils except within a layer of sedimentary rock, correct?
In this case, it is based on first appearances, in a sequence of layers, of a number of ammonite fossil species.
And the order holds throughout the world where these species are present. In other words, the fossil ammonite that identifies the Norian is always found below the one that identifies the Raetian and above the first occurrence fossil ammonite of the Camian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by Faith, posted 07-13-2016 9:28 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-14-2016 12:19 AM edge has replied
 Message 305 by Faith, posted 07-14-2016 1:32 AM edge has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 304 of 1163 (787438)
07-14-2016 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by edge
07-14-2016 12:01 AM


Re: geologic "Column"
I looked through the Wikipedia article on the Norian stage and fail to see what makes it a stage. That is, I don't see any particular order to the fossil creatures characteristic of the time period allotted to them.
But that is exactly what the article explains. I'm not sure how to make it any clearer.
The Wiki article gives examples of creatures of the Norian stage, both marine and land. Maybe Faith is thinking that all these creatures should be found in any given Norian aged deposit.
Not a paleontologist, but I think that such relatively fine divisions in the geologic time scale ("geologic column") is based on marine life studies (as per your message 298). How they extended such to land deposits, I don't know.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by edge, posted 07-14-2016 12:01 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by edge, posted 07-14-2016 8:44 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 305 of 1163 (787439)
07-14-2016 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by edge
07-14-2016 12:01 AM


Re: geologic "Column"
Pollux's purpose was to show the fine degree of fossil sorting in the record. It is hard to imagine any YEC flood scenario to result in such detail.
I mentioned the Norian because it is based on the first occurrence of various ammonite species, alike enough that it isn't possible to visualize a sorting mechanism so precise.
That's the problem: I see no "precise sorting" here at all, meaning no sorting that suggests evolutionary principles. I do see that that the same fossils always occur at the same level, but what I don't see is the claimed evolutionary sequence from one to another. Same as with the trilobites: the separate varieties or species are kept separate but there is no reason to think those higher in the strata are evolutionarily later than those lower. This lack of fossil sorting seems to be more apparent in the "stages" than in the periods, and in the smaller creatures such as ammonites and trilobites.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by edge, posted 07-14-2016 12:01 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by PaulK, posted 07-14-2016 2:31 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 307 by jar, posted 07-14-2016 8:26 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 308 by edge, posted 07-14-2016 8:34 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 306 of 1163 (787443)
07-14-2016 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by Faith
07-14-2016 1:32 AM


Re: geologic "Column"
quote:
That's the problem: I see no "precise sorting" here at all, meaning no sorting that suggests evolutionary principles
Then the problem is yours. There is no assertion that the order follows your idea of "evolutionary principles" only that the ammonite species occur in a definite order.
So how about addressing that fact ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Faith, posted 07-14-2016 1:32 AM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 307 of 1163 (787444)
07-14-2016 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by Faith
07-14-2016 1:32 AM


Re: geologic "Column"
Faith writes:
That's the problem: I see no "precise sorting" here at all, meaning no sorting that suggests evolutionary principles.
But that, even if true, is totally irrelevant to this topic. No one cares at all whether or not you see any so called evolutionary principles yet. That may come alter after you begin learning.
This thread is about your claim that there was some world wide flood and that what is seen is evidence that such a flood happened.
Your job, your only job, related to this topic is to explain how the the world wide flood you claim happened could sort the critters in the order they are found in reality.
At this point what is known and factual is that the critters are found in the order given. Type "A" critter is always found below the first occurrence of the first type "B" of that same critter.
The fossils are facts.
Where the fossils are found are facts.
The world wide flood is not yet a fact but rather simply an assertion.
If the world wide flood (assertion) happened and the order of the fossils (facts) are supposed to be the evidence of that asserted flood then the model, mechanism, process, procedure or thingamabob of that asserted flood must be presented that would produce the sorting seen in the facts.
The current theory does explain what is seen and so you need not worry about that. If you wish to overturn the current theory then you must present the Flood Theory that does explain what is seen.
Unfortunately, no human has ever been able to present a Flood Theory that explains what is seen.
For this (and many other threads) the only relevant posts would be ones that present a Flood Theory that actually explains the facts.
Edited by jar, : appalin spallin and grammur

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Faith, posted 07-14-2016 1:32 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 308 of 1163 (787445)
07-14-2016 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by Faith
07-14-2016 1:32 AM


Re: geologic "Column"
That's the problem: I see no "precise sorting" here at all, meaning no sorting that suggests evolutionary principles.
So you don't see different species of ammonite coming into the record at different times? At successively higher levels in the stratigraphy?
That's odd, because most people do.
If all of the ammonite species (or trilobite species, etc.) existed at the same time, why would they not just all be mixed together? I mean, it's not like we are talking about sharks and rabbits being in different layers.
I do see that that the same fossils always occur at the same level, but what I don't see is the claimed evolutionary sequence from one to another.
So, you don't see a sequence?
You don't believe that one layer on top of another is of a younger age?
Have you overturned Steno's laws while we weren't looking?
Same as with the trilobites: the separate varieties or species are kept separate but there is no reason to think those higher in the strata are evolutionarily later than those lower.
They are certainly temporally later, or do you not agree?
The question is why are they sorted according to time. We are not just talking about trilobites and humans here. We are talking about various species of essentially the same animal living in the same environment at the same location.
So, why are they not all mixed together?
The only real explanation is an evolution of species within a relatively short period of time: trilobite to trilobite in this case and amphibian to reptile on a more grand scale.
This lack of fossil sorting seems to be more apparent in the "stages" than in the periods, and in the smaller creatures such as ammonites and trilobites
I'm not sure how you can come up with a conclusion diametrically opposite to people who have actually studied the fossils for entire careers.
We have shown you that there is fossil sorting on all scales of observation and you simply deny it.
Okay, so you can say that human and fish fossils lived in different environments so the fossils are not found together. (This isn't exactly true because we can find them in the same aged rocks in different places.) However, in this case as shown by Pollux, why are trilobite or ammonites not mixed in with certain other trilobites or ammonites?
That would be because they are 'sorted'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Faith, posted 07-14-2016 1:32 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by Faith, posted 07-14-2016 10:51 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 309 of 1163 (787446)
07-14-2016 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by Minnemooseus
07-14-2016 12:19 AM


Re: geologic "Column"
The Wiki article gives examples of creatures of the Norian stage, both marine and land. Maybe Faith is thinking that all these creatures should be found in any given Norian aged deposit.
Faith is confused (I think) because fossils are sorted according to several different factors, time being just one. Others would be the ecological environment such as pelagic versus shelf. I would imagine that climate might affect the distribution of fossils such as corals or reptiles, etc.
Not a paleontologist, but I think that such relatively fine divisions in the geologic time scale ("geologic column") is based on marine life studies (as per your message 298). How they extended such to land deposits, I don't know.
Moose
Well, it's been a long time since some stages were designated. Now we have added a lot of information such as absolute ages and correlations between different biological environments. There is a lot of careful work involved and it is ongoing (evolution of the knowledge base, if you will).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-14-2016 12:19 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 310 of 1163 (787447)
07-14-2016 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 308 by edge
07-14-2016 8:34 AM


Re: geologic "Column"
That's the problem: I see no "precise sorting" here at all, meaning no sorting that suggests evolutionary principles.
So you don't see different species of ammonite coming into the record at different times? At successively higher levels in the stratigraphy?
I tried to be clear that of course I see that there are different species of creatures that are separately represented in different layers; what I don't see is that these represent evolution from one to another, those higher in the strata being more recently evolved. To me this of course has nothing to do with "different times," all the different varieties or species simply being variations that were buried together at the same time as all the rest (same as if different dog breeds that all coexist at the same time happened to be sorted and buried in different strata by the same catastrophic event. There is certainly nothing in the facts presented to contradict that idea. You can of course object that a worldwide Flood wouldn't do any kind of sorting at all, but you also can't prove that it couldn't or didn't. In any case there is no reason to regard those species that occur higher in the strata as having evolved later than those in lower strata.
And in fact you do go on to register that objection that a Flood couldn't sort them.
If all of the ammonite species (or trilobite species, etc.) existed at the same time, why would they not just all be mixed together?
I don't know, but it appears that the Flood did in fact sort them as seen. And couldn't one also wonder why there is as much sorting and grouping of species as is seen, according to Old Earth explanations too? Why should there be any tendency at all for one species to be found together instead of scattered among all the other kinds of fossils that are found at that same level (or "time period?") Why are all the nautiloids bunched together in that layer of the Redwall limestone instead of scattered throughout that "time period" wherever it is represented, which certainly isn't only in the Grand Canyon area.
I mean, it's not like we are talking about sharks and rabbits being in different layers.
No, clearly there is some kind of sorting. I just don't see that the sorting so clearly represents evolution as is claimed, it merely shows grouping of creatures of the same kind, at the level of the "stages" particularly, although between larger groups such as reptiles versus mammals the claim appears to hold up.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by edge, posted 07-14-2016 8:34 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by PaulK, posted 07-14-2016 11:13 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 312 by edge, posted 07-14-2016 11:14 AM Faith has replied
 Message 324 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-15-2016 2:04 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 311 of 1163 (787448)
07-14-2016 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 310 by Faith
07-14-2016 10:51 AM


Re: geologic "Column"
quote:
I tried to be clear that of course I see that there are different species of creatures that are separately represented in different layers; what I don't see is that these represent evolution from one to another, those higher in the strata being more recently evolved
Yes, we understand that you are trying to argue against something that nobody has claimed.
When are you going to deal with the fact that the order itself is strong evidence against the Flood, the actual argument here ? How could the Flood produce this sorting ? No fact-free speculations here, please. Deal with the actual fossils.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by Faith, posted 07-14-2016 10:51 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 312 of 1163 (787449)
07-14-2016 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 310 by Faith
07-14-2016 10:51 AM


Re: geologic "Column"
I tried to be clear that of course I see that there are different species of creatures that are separately represented in different layers; what I don't see is that these represent evolution from one to another, those higher in the strata being more recently evolved.
The question was not whether the organisms evolved, but how did they become sorted in the stratigraphy as they are.
To me this of course has nothing to do with "different times," all the different varieties or species simply being variations that were buried together at the same time as all the rest (same as if different dog breeds that all coexist at the same time happened to be sorted and buried in different strata by the same catastrophic event.
But as you said, you have no mechanism for this.
The creatures are surely buried at different times, otherwise they would be mixed together. Do you have another explanation?
There is certainly nothing in the facts presented to contradict that idea.
Other than the fact that we have an explanation, whereas you do not.
You can of course object that a worldwide Flood wouldn't do any kind of sorting at all, but you also can't prove that it couldn't or didn't.
Neither can you 'prove' that there is no invisible dragon hiding in my garage. On the other hand, we can prove that floods do deposit certain types of sediments in distinctive patterns and that fossils would logically by included in any layer they happened to be be situated at the time.
In any case there is no reason to regard those species that occur higher in the strata (and supposedly a couple or more million years apart) as having evolved later than those in lower strata.
When you (all) come up with a mechanism for this sorting then you will have some basis for your conclusions. At this time, you have no basis, whereas we see the principle of superposition as providing a framework for the passage of time.
And in fact you do go on to register that objection that a Flood couldn't sort them.
Well, then make your argument for sorting of fossils by a global flood.
I don't know, but it appears that the Flood did in fact sort them as seen.
So, you must presuppose a global flood as described in the Bible.
And couldn't one also wonder why there is as much sorting and grouping of species as is seen, according to Old Earth explanations too?
That's been done and we have an explanation.
Why should there be any tendency at all for one species to be found together instead of scattered among all the other kinds of fossils that are found at that same level (or "time period?")
Please document this occurrence. What you are saying now is that the fossils should be mixed up. So, why aren't they?
Why are all the nautiloids bunched together in that layer of the Redwall limestone instead of scattered throughout that "time period" wherever it is represented, which certainly isn't only in the Grand Canyon area.
Simply stated, changing environmental conditions. The point is that you don't see them earlier or later in similar rock types.
No, clearly there is some kind of sorting. I just don't see that the sorting so clearly represents evolution as is claimed, ...
Evolution is not the conclusion here. It is the explanation. And, evidently there is no other explanation than 'must have been' or 'could have been'.
... it merely shows grouping of creatures of the same kind, ...
That is the whole point. They are the same type but different species. So why are they sorted? Time is the variable.
... at the level of the "stages" particularly, although between larger groups such as reptiles versus mammals the claim appears to hold up.
They are still sorted, even though they are the same type of fossil, but they have changed with time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by Faith, posted 07-14-2016 10:51 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Faith, posted 07-14-2016 11:47 AM edge has not replied

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


Message 313 of 1163 (787451)
07-14-2016 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 312 by edge
07-14-2016 11:14 AM


Re: geologic "Column"
To me this of course has nothing to do with "different times," all the different varieties or species simply being variations that were buried together at the same time as all the rest (same as if different dog breeds that all coexist at the same time happened to be sorted and buried in different strata by the same catastrophic event.
But as you said, you have no mechanism for this.
Not exactly. I can't prove anything but there are certainly possibilities that might explain it, simply because water is known to lay down strata, and there are currents and even layers in the oceans that could explain how sediments get sorted, and if sediments then also other objects such as the corpses of creatures. But it's just a rough idea at this time. Not exactly "no mechanism" however, just a sketchy idea as to a mechanism that might eventually be better understood.
I'll have to get back to the rest of your post later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by edge, posted 07-14-2016 11:14 AM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by jar, posted 07-14-2016 2:57 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 317 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-14-2016 6:35 PM Faith has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 314 of 1163 (787455)
07-14-2016 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Pressie
07-11-2016 6:29 AM


Re: Hubris
Bing it or Google is your friend. It really isn't that hard.
George McCready Price - Wikipedia
Harold W. Clark - Wikipedia

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Pressie, posted 07-11-2016 6:29 AM Pressie has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 315 of 1163 (787456)
07-14-2016 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by Faith
07-14-2016 11:47 AM


Re: geologic "Column"
Faith writes:
Not exactly. I can't prove anything but there are certainly possibilities that might explain it, simply because water is known to lay down strata, and there are currents and even layers in the oceans that could explain how sediments get sorted, and if sediments then also other objects such as the corpses of creatures.
Let us know when you do figure that out since in over 200 years NO ONE has ever been able to figure out any method a flood or currents or ocean layers could explain the facts, the known sequence of fossils that have been found.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Faith, posted 07-14-2016 11:47 AM Faith 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