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


Message 406 of 1163 (787641)
07-19-2016 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 387 by herebedragons
07-19-2016 1:10 PM


Re: Why the Fossil Order Doesn't Matter
Remember how these "slabs of rock" don't cover the ENTIRE surface of the earth? You have left those parts out of your illustration.
That's because I'm making a point about the time periods which are marked by the strata. But you'd also have to make a case that the fossils found in those rocks actually lived in the OTHER parts of the earth that supposedly weren't covered by the slabs of rock. Because they certainly couldn't live on the surface of the slabs of rock. But if they lived elsewhere, where presumably there would have been food and other accommodations, why did they end up buried and fossilized in the rocks far away from those locations? Also, you'd have to show that there even were such other parts of the earth in a given "time period." Some place not subjected to the advancing and retreating shallow seas for instance, that seem to have been the source of most of the strata. Not many land creatures could have survived long in those seas, or they'd have flourished for a while only to be wiped out by the next advance or something like that.
Remember the monadocks that jutted up through the Tapeats? You have left those out of your illustration.
Yes, those could be included in a more exact cartoon, along with the dinosaur prints and the raindrops and the ripple marks etc. But all they really represent is some harder rock that penetrated up through subsequent layers, nothing representative of an actual landscape.
Remember the buried canyons that were detected by seismic imagery? You left those out of your illustration.
Ah yes, and I just happened to have mentioned them in a post to Dr. A. But surely a buried "landscape" doesn't invalidate the fact that the strata so visible in so many places are flat slabs of rock with no "canyons" cut into them. And besides they are just great holes in very deep layers of rock that show the action of water which most likely occurred underground. All such features we see on the surface occurred after the strata were all laid down, so it figures that would be true even for such underground features.
Remember the channels that flowed at the surface of the Mauv limestone and were later filled in with Temple Butte formations (end of Cambrian)? You left those out of your illustration.
Have you noticed the very straight upper surface of those channels that are continuous with the upper surface of the Muav limestone and the other strata where such channels formed? Although those are generally interpreted as stream channels supposedly occurring when the surface was exposed, it's an odd situation of a "stream" cutting through a very flat surface like that, which on the surface of the earth would hardly remain so flat for very long; and it doesn't fit with that flat upper surface that is continuous with the upper surface of the surrounding limestone, which would be more consistent with something that "ate through" the limestone, which is of course a rock type known to be subject to things eating through it, in this case another limestone, more liquid at the time, that created and then filled up the channel and became part of the limestone it cut through, which is shown by the flat contact line it shares with that limestone between it and the rock above.
Remember that the layers in the GC are not uniform in thickness and some go from very thick to non-existent - even within the canyon? You left that out of your illustration.
But there is nothing odd about that lack of uniformity. It would be consistent for instance with Flood depositions that they would thin out as the sediment load ran out. The overall impression of those rocks in the GC walls, however, is amazingly flat and uniform; the lack of uniformity doesn't show up in most views of the walls. And where exposed at the surface each would present a flat tabletop surface.
Remember the flat lands of the central plains states? You left those out of your "surface of the earth today" drawing.
The point the cartoon makes is that the dramatic features of the surface didn't form until after the strata were all laid down. That there are also flat areas doesn't change that fact and I don't know what point you think you are making by mentioning it.
In short, you are comparing a mountainous section of the surface of the earth today with a flat section of the earth in the past.
But as a matter of fact the strata cover a lot more than just a "section" of the earth. You yourself posted drawings showing that at least four of the strata cover most of North America. During which time there certainly were no mountains but only the flat sediment illustrated.
If you were actually trying to make a drawing that represented the way the surfaces ACTUALLY looked at those times, they would be very different and would include the ACTUAL features present at those times. You are just cherry picking.
Read any description of the physical conditions of any time period and you will see various modes of sedimentation described, you will see the vast sea of sand of the Jurassic described in the Britannica reference, followed by the advancing and retreating seas that make further sedimentary deposits on top of the sand. These ARE the ACTUAL features that you will find described. You will also find descriptions of IMAGINED landscapes based on the rocks and their contents, but the ACTUAL surface of the earth is presented in terms of sedimentary deposition. Perhaps you can find an exception somewhere?
BTW: nice illustration, even if it is not very realistic.
Thank you.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by herebedragons, posted 07-19-2016 1:10 PM herebedragons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 407 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-19-2016 9:03 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 409 by PaulK, posted 07-20-2016 12:04 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 411 by Pressie, posted 07-20-2016 6:19 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 407 of 1163 (787642)
07-19-2016 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 406 by Faith
07-19-2016 8:37 PM


Re: Why the Fossil Order Doesn't Matter
That's because I'm making a point about the time periods which are marked by the strata. But you'd also have to make a case that the fossils found in those rocks actually lived in the OTHER parts of the earth that supposedly weren't covered by the slabs of rock. Because they certainly couldn't live on the surface of the slabs of rock.
Faith. It is not only possible, but normal, to live on top of sediment.
The point the cartoon makes is that the dramatic features of the surface didn't form until after the strata were all laid down.
And that's what makes the cartoon such a steaming heap of crap.
Perhaps in future you should look at evidence, like geologists do, instead of at cartoons, like creationists do.
Read any description of the physical conditions of any time period and you will see various modes of sedimentation described ...
For example, read the description of the Morrison Formation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 406 by Faith, posted 07-19-2016 8:37 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 412 by Pressie, posted 07-20-2016 6:34 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 408 of 1163 (787645)
07-19-2016 10:12 PM


Is Faith just talking about terrestrial animals? What about all the marine animals that simply settle to the bottom of the ocean? They still occur in a strict and logical, non-repeating pattern.

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 409 of 1163 (787647)
07-20-2016 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 406 by Faith
07-19-2016 8:37 PM


Re: Why the Fossil Order Doesn't Matter
quote:
That's because I'm making a point about the time periods which are marked by the strata.
is this another of your weird semantic games where you make up your own definition as an excuse to discount all the evidence against you ? Because it's the strata that Tell us that your point is a falsehood.
quote:
But you'd also have to make a case that the fossils found in those rocks actually lived in the OTHER parts of the earth that supposedly weren't covered by the slabs of rock. Because they certainly couldn't live on the surface of the slabs of rock
Nobody says that they lived directly on "slabs of rock". For instance the animals living in the desert lived on the desert sands, just like modern animals living in deserts. The desert wasn't a "slab of rock" then.
You even admit that the desert was an "actual feature" at the end of the post, without seeing how that refutes your whole silly argument.
Now how about dealing with the topic instead of spouting nonsense ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 406 by Faith, posted 07-19-2016 8:37 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 410 by Pressie, posted 07-20-2016 6:04 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 410 of 1163 (787657)
07-20-2016 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 409 by PaulK
07-20-2016 12:04 AM


Re: Why the Fossil Order Doesn't Matter
I noticed that Faith changed the subject every time asked to explain the order in the fossil record.
In the end it means that Faith is not able to do it. Typical creationist.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 409 by PaulK, posted 07-20-2016 12:04 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 411 of 1163 (787659)
07-20-2016 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 406 by Faith
07-19-2016 8:37 PM


Re: Why the Fossil Order Doesn't Matter
Fath writes:
That's because I'm making a point about the time periods which are marked by the strata.
You're wrong from the beginning, then. Time periods are not marked by the strata. Time periods are not strata.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 406 by Faith, posted 07-19-2016 8:37 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 413 by Faith, posted 07-20-2016 6:35 AM Pressie has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 412 of 1163 (787660)
07-20-2016 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 407 by Dr Adequate
07-19-2016 9:03 PM


Re: Why the Fossil Order Doesn't Matter
Hey, to try to have a rational conversation with Faith is like trying to have a rational conversation with a suicide bomber. Somehow Faith thinks that it's normal for elephants to dig and live underground.
Dr Adequate writes:
Faith. It is not only possible, but normal, to live on top of sediment
Kruger National Park. Those elephants are not good at digging thousands of metres down in sediments...they tend to live on the surface. And that surface is mostly flat. Occasionally broken by shallow river valleys in the sediment. Very flat.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-19-2016 9:03 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 413 of 1163 (787661)
07-20-2016 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 411 by Pressie
07-20-2016 6:19 AM


Re: Why the Fossil Order Doesn't Matter
Time periods are not marked by the strata. Time periods are not strata.
Anything to pretend I'm wrong about anything I guess.
Interestingly, this picture is one of many called "Jurassic strata" or "Jurassic rocks."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by Pressie, posted 07-20-2016 6:19 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 414 by Pressie, posted 07-20-2016 6:39 AM Faith has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 414 of 1163 (787662)
07-20-2016 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 413 by Faith
07-20-2016 6:35 AM


Re: Why the Fossil Order Doesn't Matter
I can see many 'layers' there. So, according to your own photo the Jurassic is not a "layer", then?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 413 by Faith, posted 07-20-2016 6:35 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 416 by Faith, posted 07-20-2016 8:23 AM Pressie has not replied

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


Message 415 of 1163 (787666)
07-20-2016 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 405 by Dr Adequate
07-19-2016 8:08 PM


Re: "Something [Unspecified] Very Wrong"
That the OE theory conjures landscapes out of the flat rocks of the strata, but the actual "landscape" of any "time period" represented by those rocks is the rocks themselves or the processes that laid them down as sediments.
Right. So aeolian processes imply a desert; riparian processes imply a river; lacustrine processes imply a lake ...
Strata cover great distances. They form the majority of the former earth surfaces in North American and probably many other places. Strata are strata, they are hardened sediments found in a stack, one on top of the other, they are not deserts the evidence for rivers is extremely sparse and not at all convincing, and there are no lakes on the surface of any of them as found in the stack.
But there is NO evidence of those supposed rivers in the actual evidence available of the time period itself.
There are the sedimentary rocks which look exactly like what you'd get if you lithified the sediments deposited by a river. Being sane, I take this as being evidence of a river rather than of a magical impossible flood that didn't happen.
There are no rivers in the geo column. There are clues that suggest a river origin for some of the rocks. That is not the same as a river in the rocks. It's the rocks themselves that form the surface of the earth, following OE thinking, in all the former "time periods," bare flattish rocks. Any "landscapes" are mentally conjured from stuff in the rocks, imaginary landscapes that did not exist in the time period represented by the rock, though no doubt they existed somewhere sometime and the rock represents THAT, just not the supposed "time period" that the rock is identified with, because all there is there and ever was there is the sediment that became rock, between other sediments that became rock. No landscapes, just rocks.
A dried up river bed should show up as a gully in the rock strata if it existed during the time period supposedly encapsulated in that rock.
Rivers have sediment on their beds, usually. It is this sediment that I expect to survive the removal of the river.
But no strata are made out of such sediment because there isn't enough of it to make such a rock. No rivers flow in the strata, no dried up rivers are in the strata either.
An ordinary river isn't going to deposit enough sediment to cover the vast regions covered by the strata.
A river will deposit sediment in its bed, at its delta, and on its floodplain.
Which has nothing to do with the stack of strata which cover so much of the surface of the earth.
What you see is gouges in strata that were filled in by subsequently deposited sediments, and you see them deep in the earth by those seismic methods. They were never canyons on the surface of the earth.
So you say: geologists say differently. Their ideas make more sense, because of fitting the evidence, which the thing you have made up does not.
Oddly I'm the only one here following the actual evidence. Imaginary landscapes based on rock contents or seismic imaging don't reflect the actuality, which is that there never were any landscapes during the time periods represented by the strata, there were only the strata themselves.
Buried in flat slabs of rock with no trees growing on its surface because it's covered by another flat slab of rock. At the very top of a stack of strata you will find trees growing, because that's the surface of the earth and no such surface existed ever on any of the slabs of rock beneath.
So you say: geologists say differently. Their ideas make more sense, because of fitting the evidence, which the thing you have made up does not.
I'm describing the actual physical strata that cover so much land at such great depths. Landscapes occurred nowhere IN the strata EVER, only at the top of the whole stack or whatever part of the stack remains after they were all laid down.
When we find what looks like trees, with what look like roots embedded in what looks like paleosol, then a normal person would say that this is evidence that trees once grew in what once was soil.
But not in that layer of sediment. A dead tree with some paleosol stock to its roots within a sedimentary rock isn't going to feed any dinosaurs.
If you have ideas as to how the same phenomenon could be produced by Flooddoingit, this thread is actually meant to be devoted to creationist excuses for the fossil record.
Well, but of course the Flood was the source of the strata and everything in them, including uprooted trees.
No, that describes the sedimentary rocks that BECAME the Appalachians, not the Appalachians themselves, which formed FROM those rocks AFTER the entire Geo Column was laid down.
That's an interesting thing you've made up, but it appears to be supported only by your vehement assertion, and experience tells me that such things are invariably false.
It is actually an important observation that you should think about. The Appalachians do not date to the strata found in them, which I believe is a common geological mistake. The Appalachians are the result of the buckling of whatever strata were there when the tectonic pressure formed them. My usual argument is that the tectonic movement began at the end of the Flood after all the strata were in place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 405 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-19-2016 8:08 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 418 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-20-2016 9:26 AM Faith has replied
 Message 424 by edge, posted 07-20-2016 11:04 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 416 of 1163 (787667)
07-20-2016 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 414 by Pressie
07-20-2016 6:39 AM


Re: Why the Fossil Order Doesn't Matter
I can see many 'layers' there. So, according to your own photo the Jurassic is not a "layer", then?
The word "strata" is plural; it means "layers."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 414 by Pressie, posted 07-20-2016 6:39 AM Pressie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 417 by jar, posted 07-20-2016 9:07 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 417 of 1163 (787668)
07-20-2016 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 416 by Faith
07-20-2016 8:23 AM


Topic Faith
We're over 400 messages in so far Faith and do you ever plan on addressing the topic?
What is the model, method, mechanism, process, procedure or thingamabob in the flood you assert happened that sorted the fossils in the order that ALL of the evidence and reality shows?

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 416 by Faith, posted 07-20-2016 8:23 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 418 of 1163 (787669)
07-20-2016 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 415 by Faith
07-20-2016 8:17 AM


Re: "Something [Unspecified] Very Wrong"
... they are not deserts the evidence for rivers is extremely sparse and not at all convincing, and there are no lakes on the surface of any of them as found in the stack.
But this is something you have made up, Faith.
There are no rivers in the geo column. There are clues that suggest a river origin for some of the rocks. That is not the same as a river in the rocks.
Apart from the you should have said "prove" rather than "suggest" (and "geological record" rather than "geological column, but I've pretty much given up on that as a lost cause) this is perfectly true. Yes, the rivers themselves do not remain after they vanish: only conclusive proof of their existence remains.
Any "landscapes" are mentally conjured from stuff in the rocks, imaginary landscapes that did not exist in the time period represented by the rock, though no doubt they existed somewhere sometime and the rock represents THAT ...
If they no doubt existed, then they're not so much "imaginary" as real, and it's not so much "mental conjuring" as correct inference.
But no strata are made out of such sediment because there isn't enough of it to make such a rock. No rivers flow in the strata, no dried up rivers are in the strata either.
But this is something you have made up, Faith.
Oddly I'm the only one here following the actual evidence.
Oddly, you're the only one here descending into gibbering, barking madness.
This would explain why you have arrived at a different conclusion from all the people who've actually studied the rocks and know what they look like.
Imaginary landscapes based on rock contents or seismic imaging don't reflect the actuality, which is that there never were any landscapes during the time periods represented by the strata, there were only the strata themselves.
Faith, at any given point in the history of the Earth, it has had a surface.
I am having considerable difficulty imagining what sort of mental confusion you are suffering from that makes you write nonsense like this.
I'm describing the actual physical strata that cover so much land at such great depths. Landscapes occurred nowhere IN the strata EVER, only at the top of the whole stack or whatever part of the stack remains after they were all laid down.
When only some of the strata were laid down, that was also a landscape.
Again, I do not know what is going on in your head, but it seems bizarre and other-worldly.
But not in that layer of sediment. A dead tree with some paleosol stock to its roots within a sedimentary rock isn't going to feed any dinosaurs.
But ... it ... would ... have ... when ... it ... was ... alive.
Have you hit your head on something?
Well, but of course the Flood was the source of the strata and everything in them, including uprooted trees.
Uprooted is actually the opposite of rooted.
It is actually an important observation that you should think about. The Appalachians do not date to the strata found in them, which I believe is a common geological mistake.
And as with all your beliefs, this one is so droolingly halfwitted it's a wonder you're smart enough to get out of bed in the morning. But perhaps I overestimate you, perhaps a nurse wheels you to the keyboard, gives you your morning injection of LSD, and you begin to type whatever crazy shit starts going through your head.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 415 by Faith, posted 07-20-2016 8:17 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 419 by Faith, posted 07-20-2016 10:04 AM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 419 of 1163 (787670)
07-20-2016 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 418 by Dr Adequate
07-20-2016 9:26 AM


Re: "Something [Unspecified] Very Wrong"
When only some of the strata were laid down, that was also a landscape.
Not unless you are calling a flat featureless slab of rock a landscape. If you are then I need to differentiate my more common use of the word from your strange use.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 418 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-20-2016 9:26 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 420 by PaulK, posted 07-20-2016 10:14 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 421 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-20-2016 10:25 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 422 by edge, posted 07-20-2016 10:45 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 420 of 1163 (787671)
07-20-2016 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 419 by Faith
07-20-2016 10:04 AM


Re: "Something [Unspecified] Very Wrong"
You do realise that "when the strata were laid down" refers to the deposition of the sediment ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by Faith, posted 07-20-2016 10:04 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