The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

I don't like being off topic like this. I wish you'd either change the title of the thread or it would become clear it's time to start a new one.Anyway, I looked at the book I mentioned, Historical Geology by Wicander and Monroe, sixth edition, and realized I was thinking of the section on the sea transgressions which occurred in the central part of the continent, over the craton or around it, and this area is treated separately from the mountain-building coasts, the Cordilleran on the West and the Appalachian/Oachita on the East, where in the first transgression the sea only covered the margins of those areas and not the center of the continent.I did, however, find more grist for my mill. It's frustrating because I know you have plenty of knowledge and I also know you have no interest in using it to further any point I might make, so you'll spend most of your time making irrelevant comments and posting irrelevant information on the subject. Of course you may think it's relevant, which is an even scarier thought. Your map above isn't very informative either. But anyway.Since the topic is the Jurassic I skipped ahead in the book to the pages where the sea transgression-regression of that time period (The Zuni Sequence) is illustrated and discussed, and I've gotta ask if Geologists ever consider the implications of their notions? I mean here we have this sea transgression that covers the interior of the continent from the Rockies to the Great Lakes, with the Rockies on the West and "deep ocean" to the West of the Rockies. What I have to know is where is the landscape on which any land creature could survive during this period?The dinosaurs most heavily populated this very area that is either under water or steeply mountainous, mountains not being the sort of terrain one usually associates with dinosaurs, and the most familiar dinosaur territory with the most familiar dinosaur beds, west of the Rockies, is covered by "deep ocean." And this is the Jurassic Period. There should be a fair amount of terrestrial life trying to survive in the west, shouldn't there? What am I missing?But OK maybe we should look at the Cretaceous instead, illustrated on the next page. Where we find pretty much the same situation except the "Epeiric sea" now extends somewhat farther east, though there is a narrow margin on the east side of the Rockies that is now dry land. But most of Dinosaur Land is still either under the shallow water of the epeiric sea or the deep ocean water west of the Rockies, or the Rockies themselves.What am I to make of this? There's no place for the dinosaurs to live.Of course maybe they were all living east of the epeiric sea at that time and migrated westward as the sea retreated? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Why do you think dinosaurs couldn't have lived in the highlands?

Is that your theory then, they lived in the mountains? But aren't the dinosaur beds mostly found in the plains or west of the Rockies? There's a time factor here as well as a location factor.ABE: Also, aren't dinosauria supposed to need lots of vegetation to eat. Would that have been found in the mountains?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This one was funny. It's easy Faith. Some dinosaurs lived in mountains. Others didn't.Just like the big cats, today, Faith. Some live in mountainous areas, some live on the great plains. Some live in America. Some live in Africa. Some live in the Andes. Some live in the Himalayas, some live in the deserts of and also the jungles of plains of India on the same sub continent. All at the same time.! Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This one was funny, too. Can one person be so uneducated? Have you ever looked at the teeth some dino's had?Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

But this is a fundamental error made by anti-Floodists. They were not "generated" during the Flood, they would have been uprooted and redeposited where found. And this is the source of that fundamental error, the idea that what is found in the strata actually lived on that spot during that "time period," the interpretation being contested in this discussion. According to Flood thinking it would be dead corals that are found from the Ordovician to the Permian, most likely transported there from their place of origin. That would indeed be strange since nothing could possibly have been generated during the Flood, only killed, and in most cases moved from their usual location. Just the usual clash of paradigms and interpretations. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Okay Faith, thanks for blowing the Young Earth Nonsense straight to hell.You have two problems there as usual. If they grew somewhere before the flood then the Earth must have been at least old enough to allow all the coral material to grow and the silly 2000 to 2500 years that the silly Young Earth allows is just plain not long enough to grow all the coral found in the fossil record.The second problem is that once again you (like all other Creationists and Floodists) have not and cannot provide a model, method, mechanism, process, procedure or thingamabob to explain how the flood you assert happened sorted the debris in the order and locations found.A Biblical Flood is simply a stupid idea. No Faith, that is not true. It is the usual clash of reality and evidence with the utter nonsense of a Biblical Flood.

A semantic distinction without a difference. Edge just replied to my claim that there are no rivers in the strata with an example of pebbles that were formed in rivers, and channels through which water must have flowed after the strata were laid down, not real rivers which run in landscapes on the surface of the earth. Your usual silly meaningless retort.I'm comparing livable landscapes on the surface of the earth to the rocks of the strata which in fact covered huge swaths of the surface of the earth layer after layer offering nothing but flat featureless sedimentary deposits, no livable landscapes. THOUSANDS OF SQUARE MILES of these strata in the Midwest according to the hundreds of cores reported to have been taken in that area. Many of those layers were supposedly laid down when there were living things in that area, which is inferred from the fossils in the rocks. But since the fossils in the rocks is all there was there wouldn't have been any place any of those creatures could have lived if they were living. Your inference is based on a faulty theory: that the rocks reflect what was living at that location at that supposed "time."When those layers were surface they were not landscapes as I've been using the term, nothing could live on them if they did last anywhere near as long as OE theory says they did. Which of course they didn't, but it's the implications of the OE theory I'm exploring here. That's what the cartoon reflects, the actual reality of featureless sedimentary deposits/rocks that WAS the surface of the earth over thousands of miles, that WAS the "landscape" just as depicted in the second and third panels of the cartoon. Again are you just obfuscating or do you really think you are saying something relevant? You keep talking about Panel 1 of the cartoon when I'm talking about Panels 2 and 3. Either you know this and are just trying to derail my argument or you don't know it, which is very surprising in one who considers himself a genius. Unfortunately you are wrong. It is fact. The actual surface of the earth was nothing but strata in those time periods and all your inferences of something more like a real living environment just go poof because such an environment had no place to exist except in your mind because all there was in those "time periods" was the rock itself.abe: Where are the landscapes Dr A? Shouldn't they have existed on the surface of the rock beneath the one interpreted as the landscape in question? Maybe you'll find some rubble between the rocks, or maybe nothing, just a knife-edge flat contact between them. Where's the landscape, where are the flora and fauna you infer from the fossilized flora and fauna in the rock to have lived in that nonexistent landscape? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No. Nothing obvious about it. Please explain how you erode a channel underground, after all sediments have been deposited, and don't affect the strata overlying the channel. Certainly. Those channels were filled with sand and gravel first. Please explain. How do you cut down through sediments and leave them fully intact? And I suppose you can give us a modern example of such a river flowing through a coal-bearing sequence. Okay, then, where did it come from? And how did such trees coincidentally become deposited only in sediments of certain ages? I will repeat an earlier question: why are you using marine deposits, such as the Grand Canyon sequence, as your model for terrestrial sedimentation?

Okay, so then root systems and paleosoils are just imaginary.More insignificant flotsam...But please tell us why these trees are only deposited in certain strata. That is the topic here, after all, and you haven't touched on it. And the place of origin is where?And then maybe you could tell us how entire coral reefs were transported intact to their locations.Sorry, but none of this is passing the giggle test.

Once again, you are talking about marine sediments, that are completely different from terrestrial sediments within which landscapes would be formed by erosion. That is because you are talking about marine sediments where organisms lived in the water. However, there were still creatures living on the bottom of the ocean at the time as we can infer from these Cambrian trilobite tracks: So, were the tracks also transported to the Cambrian location? If so, you have a truly wondrous fludde. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

I try to keep the distinction clear because I mostly have terrestrial sediments in mind, but may forget to. In any case why should a core sample be only marine sediments?Unfortunately I've been up all night and though I wish I could continue I'm going to have to sleep, so I won't get to this until later.

I inferred it from the drawing itself that shows a straight contact line above each filled channel, and I do think it's quite possible for a channel to be eroded underground. Aren't karsts formed underground? Don't salt domes penetrate up through strata from deep underground? Doesn't the chemical-laden water that cements the rocks trickle through the rocks?Anyway even if I give a better interpretation later, I don't think it's important to this topic whether water ran in these channels at the surface or not since the surface was still just flat sediment and not a landscape.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I inferred it from the drawing itself that shows a straight contact line above each filled channel

---

That is not a valid inference, also it isn't true of all the channels. Look at the small channel on the bottom right. Also the coal seam with the fossil tree stumps dips into the bed of a channel instead of going on top of it.

quote:

---

Anyway even if I give a better interpretation later, I don't think it's important to this topic whether water ran in these channels at the surface or not since the surface was still just flat sediment and not a landscape.

---

Obviously it was not flat if it had channels running through it. Also if any of the channels were on the surface it would contradict your idea that all the sediments were deposited at the same time. So it does seem to matter.

Well, you often refer to the Grand Canyon sediments and, IIRC, to some of the marine sediments of the Cretaceous Seaway.If you want to refer to the Navajo Sandstone (terrestrial), here is a depiction of its current extent: It's original extent was up to 2.5 times this area. That would be about the area of Texas. Now, while Texas is large and the Navajo erg is large, they are hardly on the same scale as the continent of North America.My point is that not all strata are continental in scale. Some are not even county-wide in scale. They may pinch out or they may transition to another rock type. This is more common in terrestrial deposits because of the variable size of the basins in which they are deposited. Some are just lakes. Volcanic environments, even more so.The point is that environments move around due to tectonism and climate, etc. So, why are the fossils unique to a Triassic environment not the same as those in same environment of the Pleistocene or the Devonian?If this is just 'flotsam' randomly raining down on the sedimentary environment, one would expect a lot of similarity and no patterns.But if there is no global fludde, then there is no problem explaining terrestrial deposits in any part of the geological record. I have no idea who said it would be. I have drilled plenty of core in non-marine rocks.