|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Great Creationist Fossil Failure | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Boof Member (Idle past 275 days) Posts: 99 From: Australia Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Faith writes: 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?
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024