Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


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 571 of 1163 (790629)
09-01-2016 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 570 by Boof
09-01-2016 8:51 PM


Re: More amazing sorting
We seem to be having one miscommunication after another.
"Lowest IN THE STRATA"* is what I meant; Precambrian rocks are at the bottom of the stratigraphic column -- if such a column exists at that location. At the location you are talking about there are only the Precambrian rocks, there are no strata above them, apparently having eroded away. The rocks at this location are exposed, even to an appreciable height it sounds like, not buried under more recent strata.
It's just a fact that wherever Precambrian rocks are found they are known to contain few fossils and particularly primitive fossils. No Precambrian rocks anywhere have fish or the other creatures you list as not being present in this location. That's because they aren't Precambrian fossils; they occur in strata above the Precambrian.
-------------
*Geology says "oldest" not "lowest" but both are true.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 570 by Boof, posted 09-01-2016 8:51 PM Boof has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 572 by Boof, posted 09-02-2016 2:37 AM Faith has replied
 Message 575 by jar, posted 09-02-2016 8:43 AM Faith has not replied

  
Boof
Member (Idle past 246 days)
Posts: 99
From: Australia
Joined: 08-02-2010


Message 572 of 1163 (790631)
09-02-2016 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 571 by Faith
09-01-2016 10:01 PM


Re: More amazing sorting
Yes but you are avoiding the question, which is the point of this whole thread. Why don't those fossils appear in this strata? The 'evolutionary' answer is quite straightforward. The flood-related answer is non-existant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 571 by Faith, posted 09-01-2016 10:01 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 573 by Faith, posted 09-02-2016 2:44 AM Boof has not replied

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


Message 573 of 1163 (790632)
09-02-2016 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 572 by Boof
09-02-2016 2:37 AM


Re: More amazing sorting
I've answered it earlier in the thread: I don't know why there seems to be this apparent sorting. I suspect it's an illusion of some sort, that's all, meaning the sorting is more apparent than real. I have the usual guesses about the original location of the various creatures and their different abilities to flee the Flood, and that may explain some of it, but that's it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 572 by Boof, posted 09-02-2016 2:37 AM Boof has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 574 by Pressie, posted 09-02-2016 6:23 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 576 by Tangle, posted 09-03-2016 5:31 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 574 of 1163 (790633)
09-02-2016 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 573 by Faith
09-02-2016 2:44 AM


Re: More amazing sorting
Faith writes:
I have the usual guesses about the original location of the various creatures and their different abilities to flee the Flood, and that may explain some of it, but that's it.
So you think that all the plants fled the flood, along with all the fish and snails and elephants and lions and aardvarks and humans when the Barberton Sequence was deposited? The plants ran away?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 573 by Faith, posted 09-02-2016 2:44 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 575 of 1163 (790641)
09-02-2016 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 571 by Faith
09-01-2016 10:01 PM


Learning what terms mean.
Faith writes:
"Lowest IN THE STRATA"* is what I meant; Precambrian rocks are at the bottom of the stratigraphic column -- if such a column exists at that location.
Precambrian is simply a time period and in fact a really, really, really long time period.
The Precambrian time period was all of the time from the formation of the earth up until the Cambrian which was only about 500 million years ago. The Precambrian covers a time span of about 4 Billion years. It is not some layer but rather a collection of quite varied geological as well as biological evidence including the Great Rusting where life forms created the materials that allow our great cities to exist. The Precambrian is not simply the bottom of the geological column and the time frame of existence on Earth but rather the vast majority of it.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 571 by Faith, posted 09-01-2016 10:01 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 577 by PaulK, posted 09-03-2016 5:39 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 576 of 1163 (790671)
09-03-2016 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 573 by Faith
09-02-2016 2:44 AM


Re: More amazing sorting
Phat writes:
it's an illusion of some sort
It's an 'illusion' that you can touch with your own fingers.
Hundreds of geologists and palaeontologists have researched this stuff, they find what's there and note what isn't. It's what's called a fact. There's no illusion, you can prove it for yourself if you care to do so.
Saying 'I don't know' then calling the facts of what is known to be there and what is missing an illusion isn't even convincing yourself is it?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 573 by Faith, posted 09-02-2016 2:44 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 577 of 1163 (790672)
09-03-2016 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 575 by jar
09-02-2016 8:43 AM


Re: Learning what terms mean.
It's rather simple really. The Cambrian was defined, and the Precambrian is everything older. Writing it as "pre-Cambrian" might be a little more obvious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 575 by jar, posted 09-02-2016 8:43 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 578 of 1163 (793726)
11-05-2016 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 569 by ringo
09-01-2016 1:08 PM


Re: More amazing sorting
Even as a creationist, I agree with you that there would be fossils before the flood. I place the flood at the PT boundary which is where the flooding evidence exists. All fossils before the PT boundary are pre-flood fossils.
To explain the pre-Cambrian fossils, obviously after creation the earliest fossils would be the short life-span fossils , like bacteria etc. Then during the Cambrian Explosion we have the first fossilization of the longer lifespan creatures like trilobites etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 569 by ringo, posted 09-01-2016 1:08 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 579 by Percy, posted 11-05-2016 5:10 PM mindspawn has replied
 Message 582 by jar, posted 11-05-2016 5:43 PM mindspawn has replied
 Message 586 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-05-2016 6:05 PM mindspawn has replied
 Message 615 by petrophysics1, posted 11-05-2016 8:25 PM mindspawn has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 579 of 1163 (793727)
11-05-2016 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 578 by mindspawn
11-05-2016 4:50 PM


Re: More amazing sorting
mindspawn writes:
Even as a creationist, I agree with you that there would be fossils before the flood. I place the flood at the PT boundary which is where the flooding evidence exists. All fossils before the PT boundary are pre-flood fossils.
You and Faith should have a discussion.
To explain the pre-Cambrian fossils, obviously after creation the earliest fossils would be the short life-span fossils , like bacteria etc.
Unless you consider cell division as the birth of new bacteria, bacteria today are as old as creation, which is a pretty long lifespan.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 578 by mindspawn, posted 11-05-2016 4:50 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 580 by mindspawn, posted 11-05-2016 5:21 PM Percy has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 580 of 1163 (793729)
11-05-2016 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 579 by Percy
11-05-2016 5:10 PM


Re: More amazing sorting
Sorry if I didn't explain that clearly enough, I was referring to the existence of fossils of bacteria, and explaining why those fossils preceded those of the Cambrian explosion. The sequence of events in the fossil record fits in with the sequence one would expect from creation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 579 by Percy, posted 11-05-2016 5:10 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 581 by PaulK, posted 11-05-2016 5:28 PM mindspawn has replied
 Message 609 by Percy, posted 11-05-2016 8:11 PM mindspawn has not replied

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


Message 581 of 1163 (793730)
11-05-2016 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 580 by mindspawn
11-05-2016 5:21 PM


Re: More amazing sorting
quote:
The sequence of events in the fossil record fits in with the sequence one would expect from creation.
I don't think so. Lifespan is an odd concept with bacteria anyway, but how long does it take a stromatolite to grow ? And aren't many trilobite fossils cast-off exoskeletons ?
What about land life ? And why so few recognisably modern creatures at all ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 580 by mindspawn, posted 11-05-2016 5:21 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 583 by mindspawn, posted 11-05-2016 5:44 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 582 of 1163 (793732)
11-05-2016 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 578 by mindspawn
11-05-2016 4:50 PM


Re: More amazing sorting
mindspawn writes:
I place the flood at the PT boundary which is where the flooding evidence exists.
Finally a date. So the Biblical Flood happened about 250 million years before the first human. Got it.
That sure makes God pretty stupid it seems. You'd think if it was humans sinning that got God's panties in a wad he would wait until there were some human to try to kill them with a flood.
maindspawn writes:
To explain the pre-Cambrian fossils, obviously after creation the earliest fossils would be the short life-span fossils , like bacteria etc.
Got it. So the creation stories in the Bible really are just myths and lies. Interesting.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 578 by mindspawn, posted 11-05-2016 4:50 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 584 by mindspawn, posted 11-05-2016 5:48 PM jar has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 583 of 1163 (793733)
11-05-2016 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 581 by PaulK
11-05-2016 5:28 PM


Re: More amazing sorting
You make a good point about the exoskeleton being cast off, I didn't think about that But regarding the order of fossils, surely it's obvious that if bacteria and trilobites are created at the same time in numbers, dead cells of bacteria would exist before the first trilobite casts off it's exoskeleton? So the obvious order of fossilisation between these two life-forms would be firstly dead cells of bacteria, then trilobites. This is consistent with the order one would expect from creation week. It appears that most major present phyla did appear in the Cambrian Explosion, also consistent with creation week.
I know Wikipedia isn't always the best place to gather evidence, but I see no reason to dispute this comment:
Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia
Many of the PRESENT PHYLA appeared during this period,[11][12] with the exception of Bryozoa, which made its earliest known appearance in the Lower Ordovician.[13]
Wikipedia references:
11) Budd, G.E. (2003). "The Cambrian Fossil Record and the Origin of the Phyla". Integrative and Comparative Biology. 43 (1): 157—165. doi:10.1093/icb/43.1.157. PMID 21680420.
12) Jump up ^ Taylor, P.D.; Berning, B.; Wilson, M.A. (2013). "Reinterpretation of the Cambrian 'bryozoan' Pywackia as an octocoral". Journal of Paleontology. 87 (6): 984—990. doi:10.1666/13-029.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 581 by PaulK, posted 11-05-2016 5:28 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 588 by PaulK, posted 11-05-2016 6:07 PM mindspawn has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 584 of 1163 (793735)
11-05-2016 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 582 by jar
11-05-2016 5:43 PM


Re: More amazing sorting
Well this isn't the thread to discuss the flaws of radiometric dating. I'm merely referring to the ordering of the fossils. Which are pretty consistent with what one would expect from creation. Obviously the dead cells of bacteria would accumulate first and therefore be vulnerable to fossilization in numbers before the first trilobite exoskeletons are fossilized in numbers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 582 by jar, posted 11-05-2016 5:43 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 585 by jar, posted 11-05-2016 5:52 PM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 587 by Coyote, posted 11-05-2016 6:05 PM mindspawn has not replied

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


Message 585 of 1163 (793736)
11-05-2016 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 584 by mindspawn
11-05-2016 5:48 PM


Re: More amazing sorting
mindspawn writes:
Well this isn't the thread to discuss the flaws of radiometric dating. I'm merely referring to the ordering of the fossils. Which are pretty consistent with what one would expect from creation.
I know you make that assertion but reading any of the Biblical Creation Myths I find no mention of bacteria or tribolites.
And radiometric dating was not mentioned nor needed to show that there were no humans alive at the time of the PT boundary or the Biblical Flood according to you.
Yup, a pretty stupid God it seems.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 584 by mindspawn, posted 11-05-2016 5:48 PM mindspawn 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