Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?

Sorry, I don't know what you are referring to. You should too. It's a good study. OKEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The deeply incised meanders we usually see are at the eastern end of the canyon where the river is starting

---

There seem to be meanders in the west, too.

quote:

---

It isn't the receding Flood waters that produced the meanders, the point is that it would have been after the Flood waters had receded enough to leave the flat plateau where streams would continue to run for a while, and meanders form on flat plateaus.

---

In other words the river DID carve the Canyon ? After the meanders had formed ?

quote:

---

I really don't know what the problem is. The river cut the meanders but the meanders are nowhere near the size of the wide parts of the Grand Canyon which it couldn't have cut

---

That is odd, i can't see that the meandering sections are much narrower and surely the width is as more to do with erosion by rain and wind and ice than with the river - although the river cut exposed the sides to those forces. The river, however, is responsible for the depth and the course of the Canyon which in my mind is sufficient to say that the river cut the Canyon.

quote:

---

Seems to me the river formed after the receding Flood had carved out the wide parts of the canyon farther down river.

---

Where do you put the divide ? Because it doesn't look viable to me.

It's pretty common knowledge hereabouts that, even though Austin said that evidence from the Mount St. Helens eruption caused him to become a young earther, he had already published YEC articles under his pseudonym for years.Most people would call that deceptive. Is that really how you want YECism to be known?

THE Flood. You are right that we're off topic but I thought the OP topic was pretty well answered already. I think marine fossils in mountains are evidence for the Flood, because they are found in strata which are to my mind evidence of the Flood themselves, deposited originally in the strata which were then tectonically raised into mountains after the Flood. Well, no, not a normal marine environment. The Flood wasn't that. And again I think the strata are evidence of the Flood. Yes Not sure about trilobites, maybe I missed that argument. but marine fossils in the mountains are evidence of the Flood primarily because they are found in strata.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You have the same problem with trilobites as you do with Grand Canyon strata. Trilobites are dated from about 521 million years ago until they disappeared in the mass extinction at the end of the Permian about 252 million years ago.Two problems are insurmountable for you:1) trilobites span well over 250 million years, not one year, and
2) there were no humans around for well over 250 million years after trilobites disappeared.Creationists keep trying to hand-wave away the dating issue, but it doesn't go away.

The fact that the tilted section is right up against the fault line certainly suggests a simultaneous event. And again, as I recall, edge described the tilting as the result of dragging by the fault.And how would separate tectonic events select some but not other phenomena to affect anyway? I don't see any reason to separate any. The most sensible interpretation is that they all occurred as a result of the same tectonic movement. Seems to me I've given sufficient evidence. Not clear if you are talking about the GS event or the Great Unconformity. You seem to be confusing the GS unconformity with the Great Unconformity, probably my fault since I talked about both in that paragraph. The raising of the land I was talking about was over the Great Unconformity under the Grand Canyon. Since all the strata follow that contour and the canyon itself is cut into it, that appears to be evidence that the strata were there before the raising of the land: the whole stack was raised. The overall cross section shows that raising of the whole stack.I'll leave the Cardenas lava flow for now because I'm not making that case very well. Which fault? Why would the fault at the far north affect the Supergroup just because they happened at the same time?I'll have to deal with the Cardenas later.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Trilobites show up in a great number of layers spanning supposedly hundreds of millions of years without evolving beyond the usual variations within the Kind. They are just cousins of each other that got buried in separate strata. They and the coelecanths mentioned on another thread, which also show up in a great number of layers/"time periods," don't change from layer to layer or "time period" to "time period" beyond the usual changes attributable to microevolution within the Kind. Since these are as far as I know the only two creatures to appear in so many "time periods" their nonevolution is evidence against macroevolution in general and against the whole Old Earth dating system. It's the ones that show up in only one or two "time periods' that are claimed to have evolved so dramatically based on absolutely no evidence that they did. When we have real evidence, in the case of the trilobites and coelecanths we can see that there is no such thing as macroevolution in the fossil record. And therefore the dating methods are again shown to be false. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The fact that the tilted section is right up against the fault line certainly suggests a simultaneous event.

---

Why ? Where else would it be ?The fact that the Claron formation sits flat on top of the tilted strata is very strong evidence to the contrary.

quote:

---

And how would separate tectonic events select some but not other phenomena to affect anyway?

---

I don't know what you are talking about. Are you perhaps asking how different events do different things ? Or are you wondering how events can fail to affect things that do not yet exist ?

quote:

---

Seems to me I've given sufficient evidence.

---

None is not sufficient.

quote:

---

Not clear if you are talking about the GS event or the Great Unconformity

---

I was talking about angular unconformities in general at that point.

quote:

---

The raising of the land I was talking about was over the Great Unconformity under the Grand Canyon

---

That is what I was talking about as should be obvious. How can accurately describing it lead you to think I was talking about somewhere else ?

quote:

---

Since all the strata follow that contour and the canyon itself is cut into it, that appears to be evidence that the strata were there before the raising of the land: the whole stack was raised.

---

And as I said that was done by the faulting. The tilting of the Supergroup is obviously a separate event.

quote:

---

Which fault? Why would the fault at the far north affect the Supergroup just because they happened at the same time?

---

Obviously the fault that split the Supergroup strata. What other fault could I mean ?

There are at least nine orders of trilobites, and thousands of different genera. That's way too large a variation for a "kind" because if you argue for such a broad variation for the "trilobite kind" here, you have to accept such a broad variation for other critters. For example, all primates are within a single order, Primates. You can't have it both ways with your definition of "kind." Coelacanths occur in at least five families, each with a number of genera and species. So, no, you can't claim that trilobites and coelecanths "don't change from layer to layer." The changes between families are macroevolution, and took a lot of time to occur.And like trilobites, they span a huge amount of time--far more than a year. Coelecanths date as far back as 400 million years.Again, the dating issue shows young earth beliefs to be false. You can deny the evidence all you want, just as you do with dating, but denials are not evidence! Claims you make up so that things fit your religious beliefs are not evidence. Again, this is not the case. It is your argument that is shown to be false.

And all that time, their morphology evolved. What a miracle. How do you imaging this type of detailed sorting happened? Actually, trilobites changed quite a bit. Oh, really? Since you are the expert, how long should it take for a fossil to evolve? And what do you mean by 'so many time periods'?
AFAIK, coelacanth only shows up in two time periods. Okay then, where are the Devonian coelacanths? Or the Cretaceous trilobites?

Only within the Kind, by the built-in variability. I don't suppose the order reflects the order of divergence; they are certainly all contemporaries and some lower in the strata could have diverged from those higher. As for why the separate varieties are together, as usual my answer is that birds of a feather flock together and would have been buried together in the Flood. 'But no more than the built-in genetic variability. A general clue to the definition of a Kind, not always true but generally true, would be what we call them. If we recognize them as trilobites and call them trilobites then they are of the trilobite Kind. They are all three-lobed whatever differences they also have. Same with the coelacanths. They are all coelacanths although they too have many variations in the fossil record. Well, some seem to evolve from time period to time period, don't they? there's the claim that you can see the evolution of reptiles to mammals in the fossil record although reptiles are seen in only one "time period."Actually more than that but nowhere near the trilobites and coelacanths. It shows up in every time period fromthe Devonian to the present (Trilobites are present in strata from the lower Cambrian to the upper Permian.) According to the link above there are coelecanths in the DevonianBut the point here is that the variation over hundreds of millions of years is all clearly within the Kind as evidenced at least by what we call them and their general morphology. Is there a creature in the Cretaceous that is not a trilobite that the trilobite is supposed to have evolved into after all those hundreds of millions of years? No, they are said to have become extinct before that.In contrast, reptiles are supposed to have evolved into mammals in a jump between time periods. We see a reptile in one and a mammal in the next and the evolution is assumed. But nothing like that degree of change occurred in the trilobites or coelacanths, the creatures that span the greatest number of time periods. They microevolve as we see creatures doing today in our own lifetime. Reptiles never evolved into mammals and there is no evidence that they did. Trilobites and coelacanths remained trilobites and coelacanths over hundreds of millions of years and in the case of the coelacanth into present time. That's the evidenced reality. There is no such thing as macroevolution.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

In contrast, reptiles are supposed to have evolved into mammals in a jump between time periods. We see a reptile in one and a mammal in the next and the evolution is assumed.

---

Faith, making things up is not wise. Especially when the subject has been discussed here. We have a very good fossil record for the transition as you would know if you followed the discussions here (the subject has come up more than once)

quote:

---

But nothing like that degree of change occurred in the trilobites or coelacanths, the creatures that span the greatest number of time periods

---

Obviously you are in no position to make such a judgement.

There's actually a hole that scientists dug up in Russia that's 7.5 miles deep. They found water deposits as deep as 5 miles. They say it 's an evidence of water from the great flood.

I recall the discussion of the reptilian to mammalian ear, for which there is only one example of each showing enormously different structures for which many steps of transition have to be imagined. Two creatures that far apart with no transitional form in the fossil record, one supposedly evolved from the other for which there is absolutely no evidence, just the assumption. Why not? Don't YECs get to define the Kind? Within the Kind there is no need for the transitional steps necessary in macroevolution because the differences are built into the genome. In macroevolution the genome itself has to change. In any case the judgment of trilobite microevolution is very easy and available to anyone with eyes: they are all clearly Tri-Lobe-ites, whereas we are not tempted to call a reptile a mammal or vice versa.

YECs do get to define kind, but not species or other things to do with science.YECs get to deal with talking snakes and other fantasies, while scientists deal with the real world.The difference is YECs are anti-science and so their opinions, claims and beliefs are of no relevance to science.If they followed the scientific method things might be different (for one thing, they wouldn't be YECs).