Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8987 total)
45 online now:
AZPaul3, Coragyps, PaulK, xongsmith (4 members, 41 visitors)
Newest Member: Robert Smith
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 878,011 Year: 9,759/23,288 Month: 774/1,544 Week: 166/322 Day: 20/66 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?
edge
Member (Idle past 263 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 211 of 518 (810710)
05-31-2017 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Faith
05-31-2017 7:26 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
I mean it already existed before the Flood.

No, these fossils are found part of the way up into the flood sediments. How did they have time to grow roots and form footprints and coral reefs part way up in the flood stratigraphic column?

So you claim you do claim to find an intact ecosystem within a rock "in life position?" Can you demonstrate this?

Can I use YEC sources?

I already said I assumed you were talking about the various elements of such a system being found randomly buried in the rock, but that the whole system would not have been like an intact diorama, which is what you now seem to be saying it would. For this I need to see the evidence.

The study of fossil assemblages rather than individual fossils has been recognized as a more powerful tool in chronostratigraphy and paleoecology for a long time now. Here are a few articles to make the point.

http://gsabulletin.gsapubs.org/content/75/12/1197

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/203/4384/999

http://www.sciencedirect.com/...article/pii/0031018287900344

The third one might be the most pertinent to this discussion.

quote:
"1. (1) Fossil communities from localities with a similar lithology have a similar ecological structure, with respect to trophic type and life position.

2. (2) Dominant species in a fossil community are more or less segregated in feeding type and/or life position.

3. (3) There is a tendency toward habitat segregation among the dominant species sharing a common trophic type and life position."


Not necessarily turbulent. Are the layers formed by Walther's Law formed in turbulence?

No and that's kind of the point.

Aren't you the one who sees the geological record as a bunch of mudflows?

But Taq imputed that absurd idea to me -- that they were deposited after the mountains were in place.

That is the normal YEC position on the topic. So, you are an anomaly.

But all the ordering of the fossil record is, anyway, is the silly evolutionist ideas of what evolved from what. Since nothing but variations and races of a Kind evolved from a Kind the whole idea of an evolutionary ordering is artificial to begin with.

Ah, good.

Then maybe you can show us a Cambrian giraffe-kind.

You can't rule out the whole creationist argument, sorry.

Watch me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Faith, posted 05-31-2017 7:26 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Faith, posted 06-01-2017 12:29 AM edge has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 212 of 518 (810711)
06-01-2017 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by edge
05-31-2017 11:50 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
edge writes:

Faith writes:

I mean it already existed before the Flood.

No, these fossils are found part of the way up into the flood sediments.

What are you talking about? What "flood sediments" would you ever acknowledge? What does "part of the way up" mean? ALL the strata are Flood sediments.

How did they have time to grow roots and form footprints and coral reefs part way up in the flood stratigraphic column?

They did NOT grow ANYTHING during the Flood, nothing grew during the Flood, what kind of nonsense are you pulling here? What does "part way up in the flood stratigraphic column" mean? The roots grew before the Flood. The coral reefs grew before the Flood. Both were uprooted and transported in the Flood. The footprints were formed between tides during the Flood.

edge writes:

Faith writes:

So you claim you do claim to find an intact ecosystem within a rock "in life position?" Can you demonstrate this?

Can I use YEC sources?

Of course.

edge writes:

Faith writes:

I already said I assumed you were talking about the various elements of such a system being found randomly buried in the rock, but that the whole system would not have been like an intact diorama, which is what you now seem to be saying it would. For this I need to see the evidence.

The study of fossil assemblages rather than individual fossils has been recognized as a more powerful tool in chronostratigraphy and paleoecology for a long time now. Here are a few articles to make the point.

http://gsabulletin.gsapubs.org/content/75/12/1197
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/203/4384/999
http://www.sciencedirect.com/...article/pii/0031018287900344

No, I am sorry but I can't read links right now. I need to SEE this.

edge writes:

The third one might be the most pertinent to this discussion.

"1. (1) Fossil communities from localities with a similar lithology have a similar ecological structure, with respect to trophic type and life position.

No idea what "similar ecological structure" looks like in an assemblage of fossils, nor "trophic type" nor even "life position." I need to know what a "fossil community" LOOKS LIKE. You make it sound like it actually looks like an ecosystem in life. Show me.

2. (2) Dominant species in a fossil community are more or less segregated in feeding type and/or life position.
3. (3) There is a tendency toward habitat segregation among the dominant species sharing a common trophic type and life position."

This sounds to me like the usual hyperanalytical tea-leaf-reading approach to the contents of sedimentary rocks. In any case it's all analysis and you made it sound like there is practically an extant ecosystem within a rock that isn't just a bunch of dead things. But this is clearly just a bunch of dead things that may have existed together in life but are now just a bunch of dead things in a rock. As I originally said. There is no "ecosystem" here, just overzealous analytical geological types as usual trying to make a living scene out of a mere fossil-bearing rock.

edge writes:

Faith writes:

Not necessarily turbulent. Are the layers formed by Walther's Law formed in turbulence?

No and that's kind of the point.
Aren't you the one who sees the geological record as a bunch of mudflows?

I see it as a stack of layered sediments containing dead things that may have been laid down by various means, including rising sea level (Walther's Law), tidal (wave) deposition, and precipitation from standing water, possibly all three during different phases of the Flood.

edge writes:

Faith writes:

But Taq imputed that absurd idea to me -- that they were deposited after the mountains were in place.

That is the normal YEC position on the topic. So, you are an anomaly.

I do differ from other YECs on some points but it's hard to believe that could be the "normal YEC position."

edge writes:

Faith writes:

But all the ordering of the fossil record is, anyway, is the silly evolutionist ideas of what evolved from what. Since nothing but variations and races of a Kind evolved from a Kind the whole idea of an evolutionary ordering is artificial to begin with.

Ah, good.
Then maybe you can show us a Cambrian giraffe-kind.

Oh don't be silly. The point was that interpreting the existing order as evidence of evolution is artificial because evolution only occurs within Kinds.

edge writes:

Faith writes:

You can't rule out the whole creationist argument, sorry.

Watch me.

I don't think I could bear to watch a grown man do something so irrational.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by edge, posted 05-31-2017 11:50 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by edge, posted 06-01-2017 1:49 PM Faith has responded
 Message 218 by edge, posted 06-01-2017 2:36 PM Faith has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 263 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 213 of 518 (810776)
06-01-2017 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Faith
06-01-2017 12:29 AM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
Oh don't be silly. The point was that interpreting the existing order as evidence of evolution is artificial because evolution only occurs within Kinds.

It's not silly. If there is a giraffe kind and giraffes have only evolved within that kind, then there must have been an ancestral giraffe kind in the Cambrian.

Please show us such a fossil.

More later.

ETA: I'm only using giraffes as an example. I'd be glad to see a trout kind in the Cambrian, or other such kind of kind who evolved from their earlier kind.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Faith, posted 06-01-2017 12:29 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by jar, posted 06-01-2017 1:56 PM edge has not yet responded
 Message 215 by Faith, posted 06-01-2017 1:57 PM edge has responded
 Message 216 by PaulK, posted 06-01-2017 2:01 PM edge has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32683
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 214 of 518 (810778)
06-01-2017 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by edge
06-01-2017 1:49 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
Or ANY of the kinds that are mentioned in the Biblical myths.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by edge, posted 06-01-2017 1:49 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 215 of 518 (810779)
06-01-2017 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by edge
06-01-2017 1:49 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
edge writes:

Faith writes:

Oh don't be silly. The point was that interpreting the existing order as evidence of evolution is artificial because evolution only occurs within Kinds.

It's not silly. If there is a giraffe kind and giraffes have only evolved within that kind, then there must have been an ancestral giraffe kind in the Cambrian.
Please show us such a fossil.

There is no such thing as a Cambrian period.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by edge, posted 06-01-2017 1:49 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by edge, posted 06-01-2017 2:28 PM Faith has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16338
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 216 of 518 (810780)
06-01-2017 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by edge
06-01-2017 1:49 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
Even a bryozoan would be good. Is there any sensible reason why they would be absent from the Cambrian if Flood geology was true ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by edge, posted 06-01-2017 1:49 PM edge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 263 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 217 of 518 (810782)
06-01-2017 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Faith
06-01-2017 1:57 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
There is no such thing as a Cambrian period.

Do you also deny superposition?

Or the presence of a Cambrian System of rocks?

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Faith, posted 06-01-2017 1:57 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Faith, posted 06-01-2017 8:58 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 263 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 218 of 518 (810784)
06-01-2017 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Faith
06-01-2017 12:29 AM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
This sounds to me like the usual hyperanalytical tea-leaf-reading approach to the contents of sedimentary rocks. In any case it's all analysis and you made it sound like there is practically an extant ecosystem within a rock that isn't just a bunch of dead things. But this is clearly just a bunch of dead things that may have existed together in life but are now just a bunch of dead things in a rock. As I originally said. There is no "ecosystem" here, just overzealous analytical geological types as usual trying to make a living scene out of a mere fossil-bearing rock.

I can see you as an investigator arriving at the scene of a multiple murder and saying, "Oh, it's just a bunch of dead people."

What you are looking at is data.

And you have decided that it has no meaning.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Faith, posted 06-01-2017 12:29 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by PaulK, posted 06-01-2017 2:44 PM edge has not yet responded
 Message 220 by Faith, posted 06-01-2017 8:54 PM edge has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16338
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 219 of 518 (810785)
06-01-2017 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by edge
06-01-2017 2:36 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
Just another example of Faith's anti-scientific attitude. She doesn't want people examining the data so she can maintain the pretence that the fossil record is evidence for the Flood rather than unanswerable evidence against her crazy Flood geology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by edge, posted 06-01-2017 2:36 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 220 of 518 (810811)
06-01-2017 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by edge
06-01-2017 2:36 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
edge writes:

I can see you as an investigator arriving at the scene of a multiple murder and saying, "Oh, it's just a bunch of dead people."

That's very cute.

What you are looking at is data.

And you are misinterpreting the data. I don't have a problem with the idea that the rock contains the elements of a former ecosystem, there's nothing wrong with that idea. I do object to the idea that you can practically see the functioning ecosystem as it existed in life in the same positions and relationships. What's there is dead things that are elements of that former system and the intact diorama-ish ecosystem talk is just the usual OEGeo hyperbole.

And I note you haven't tried to defend the impression that you find something more than random dead things in the rock, what amounts to an actual intact ecosystem. I guess I can safely ignore that impression now.

The data no doubt shows what existed before the Flood, and that would be a worthwhile thing to research.

have decided that it has no meaning.

Not NO meaning, just the standard Geo fantasy meaning.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by edge, posted 06-01-2017 2:36 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by edge, posted 06-01-2017 9:11 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 221 of 518 (810812)
06-01-2017 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by edge
06-01-2017 2:28 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
edge writes:

Do you also deny superposition?
Or the presence of a Cambrian System of rocks?

No problem if you want to designate by some kind of name a system of rocks that occurs at a certain position in the Geological column, that seems very useful. It's the Time Scale idea that's nonexistent, the rocks are quite real and interestingly always found in the same position in the column.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by edge, posted 06-01-2017 2:28 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by edge, posted 06-01-2017 9:16 PM Faith has responded
 Message 226 by dwise1, posted 06-01-2017 10:06 PM Faith has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 263 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 222 of 518 (810813)
06-01-2017 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Faith
06-01-2017 8:54 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
And you are misinterpreting the data. I don't have a problem with the idea that the rock contains the elements of a former ecosystem, there's nothing wrong with that idea. I do object to the idea that you can practically see the functioning ecosystem as it existed in life in the same positions and relationships. What's there is dead things that are elements of that former system and the intact diorama-ish ecosystem talk is just the usual OEGeo hyperbole.

I'm not sure how that got to be the point. No one says that there is a snapshot of a functioning ecosystem. I was saying that there are distinct fossil populations that suggest previous ecosystems and contain no fossils from higher or lower strata. And they are often in life position suggesting that there has been no transport. This does not relate to a rapid flooding event that laid down thousands of meters of sediment in a year.

How do these distinct populations develop in life position with sedimentation rates that a year-long flood would require?

And I note you haven't tried to defend the impression that you find something more than random dead things in the rock, what amounts to an actual intact ecosystem. I guess I can safely ignore that impression now.

This is just your interpretation of my original statement.

Why do we not see mixed communities of what I would call Cambrian and Holocene creatures?

The data no doubt shows what existed before the Flood, and that would be a worthwhile thing to research.

Not really. There is no evidence to suggest that there were cows, elephants, clams, bryozoans and dolphins present on earth before the flood. Why is that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Faith, posted 06-01-2017 8:54 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Faith, posted 06-01-2017 9:53 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 263 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 223 of 518 (810814)
06-01-2017 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Faith
06-01-2017 8:58 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
No problem if you want to designate by some kind of name a system of rocks that occurs at a certain position in the Geological column, that seems very useful. It's the Time Scale idea that's nonexistent, the rocks are quite real and interestingly always found in the same position in the column.

Yes, and the fossils are always found in the same order.

So, if the oldest rocks are at the bottom of the column, why are there no mammals or dinosaurs or even clams there?

Why do we find rooted trees and dinosaur footprints farther up in the geological column if they were around before the flood?

I mean, if the sediments were deposited in one year to a thickness of thousands of meters, there should be some evidence somewhere that humans and trilobites coexisted.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Faith, posted 06-01-2017 8:58 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Faith, posted 06-01-2017 10:05 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 224 of 518 (810817)
06-01-2017 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by edge
06-01-2017 9:11 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
edge writes:

[qw=Faith] And you are misinterpreting the data. I don't have a problem with the idea that the rock contains the elements of a former ecosystem, there's nothing wrong with that idea. I do object to the idea that you can practically see the functioning ecosystem as it existed in life in the same positions and relationships. What's there is dead things that are elements of that former system and the intact diorama-ish ecosystem talk is just the usual OEGeo hyperbole.

I'm not sure how that got to be the point. No one says that there is a snapshot of a functioning ecosystem. [/qs]

The way it was worded suggested that but since you are saying it's wrong I'll drop it.

I was saying that there are distinct fossil populations that suggest previous ecosystems and contain no fossils from higher or lower strata. And they are often in life position

"In life position" is also problematic. What can that mean? And "often" suggests something other than reliably in life position. I have no problem with the elements of an ecosystem being found together in the rock, just the suggestion that they somehow appear just as they did in life.

... suggesting that there has been no transport. This does not relate to a rapid flooding event that laid down thousands of meters of sediment in a year.

I'd grant the logic of the idea except that the idea that anything occurred in situ within the geological column is too absurd.

How do these distinct populations develop in life position with sedimentation rates that a year-long flood would require?

I've got to suppose that "in life position" is a bit of an exaggeration for starters. As for sedimentation rates the Flood carried a LOT of stuff, what can I say, and it deposited it by various means as it progressed. Which would deposit the most, rising sea level deposition a la Walther's Law, deposition by tides and waves, or deposition by precipitation from standing water?

qs=edgeWhy do we not see mixed communities of what I would call Cambrian and Holocene creatures? [/qs]

I don't know. There are lots of things that the Flood must have done that I am not in a position to know. Maybe some creationist ministries do but I'm not up on all their arguments. My position is basically that the Flood makes sense of the facts at the most general level, the layered sediments, the superabundance of dead things contained in them, the Flood no doubt providing exceptionally good conditions for fossilization compared to any slower and drier event, as well as observations I've made about the strata themselves in various former posts, the absence of the kind of erosion between layers that would indicate time on the surface for instance. Since the Flood is the best explanation for what is seen, and the Time Scale is a ludicrous explanation, requiring time periods to be defined by rocks among other nonsensical weirdnesses (for instance the allotment of millions of years for a microevolution that can be observed to occur in normal time is a weirdness), I go with the Flood and don't expect to answer all the ways the Flood did some unaccountable things.

edge writes:

Faith writes:

The data no doubt shows what existed before the Flood, and that would be a worthwhile thing to research.

Not really. There is no evidence to suggest that there were cows, elephants, clams, bryozoans and dolphins present on earth before the flood. Why is that?

You would prove something by a lack of evidence? Anyway what is this evidence that is lacking? I suspect it's just Evo In Evo Out, or OE In OE Out.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by edge, posted 06-01-2017 9:11 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by edge, posted 06-01-2017 10:47 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 225 of 518 (810818)
06-01-2017 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by edge
06-01-2017 9:16 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
Yes, and the fossils are always found in the same order.

So, if the oldest rocks are at the bottom of the column, why are there no mammals or dinosaurs or even clams there?

Why do we find rooted trees and dinosaur footprints farther up in the geological column if they were around before the flood?

I mean, if the sediments were deposited in one year to a thickness of thousands of meters, there should be some evidence somewhere that humans and trilobites coexisted.

Why are you raising these ancient questions that have been answered many times? The answer is nobody knows. For whatever reason the Flood sorted things that way. The lower strata are mostly all marine, there's a start, and the upper get into the land animals which makes some kind of sense. Beyond that who knows? See Message 224: the Flood explains the facts so much better than the Time Scale does there's no point in worrying about the things that aren't yet understood.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by edge, posted 06-01-2017 9:16 PM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by dwise1, posted 06-01-2017 10:27 PM Faith has responded
 Message 239 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2017 12:02 AM Faith has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020