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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Not exactly, without reviewing the information, but I know it involves difference of position of main elements of the inner ear, and of relative size and the absence of a chamber or other structure. Big differences that the ToE expects to have been incrementally bridged over millions of years. The definition of the Kind isn't really necessary to the point I'm making anyway about the small changes over hundreds of millions of years that can be seen in the trilobites and coelacanths, versus the enormjous changes assumed to have occurred between the reptilian and mammalian ear in a much shorter time
'
However, I usually don't try to define the Kind except by the functional processes of evolution that can't exceed the boundaries of the genome because of loss of genetic diversity, which I've argued many times..Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Oh I followed the discussion of the ear evolution at the time. There are no known transitions.And I have certainly made the case many times for the loss of genetic diversity as the way evolution defeats itself. Failure to convince you and other ToE aficionados is not the same as failure to make the case.

Na, invocations of mutations conjured out of thin air are not disproof. Just an article of blind faith, one of the many based on the ToE.It would be very easy to prove my case experimentally but it would take some work either collecting creatures in the wild wherever it is known one population descended from another, or setting up a laboratory situation for the purpose. If I had another lifetime and lots of money I would do it myself.

I just don't see strata figuring in the normal span of time on earth no matter how long it is. Why should there be sedimentary layers at all, why should there be periodic inundations of the land? These are incorporated into the scenarios of time periods because they are there and that's the prevailing theory, but they contradict each other. The flat sedimentary layers span enormous expanses as well as depths, shown by bore holes at hundreds of locations, utterly incompatible with life on the surface of the earth at any given depth. But completely compatible with the worldwide Flood.What there should be if the prevailing theory is right? Just the usual surface of the earth at every depth, no separated sediments, perhaps local areas where former living things did manage to get fossilized despite the rarity of conditions for fossilization. The Flood would have supplied those conditions for all the strata, but normally it's very rare. Evidence of former time periods if thy existed would be rare. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I worked it all out a few years ago. The tectonic movement would have been imperceptible to normal observation after a few hundred years. During the first weeks you could have stood on the western edge of Europe and watched the Americas sail away a few feet per day, but there was nobody there at the time to see it. Probably too much volcanism there at the time anyway.And animals didn't change at any unusual rate at all, same as today. But they did spread out far and wide, and within a few hundred years of the Ark's landing would have reached the ends of the earth. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I think it quite possible without magic, but since you don't I'll just go back to the main evidence for the Flood and against the Time Scale which is the rapidly deposited strata with their abundance of fossils.

You want to know where the sediments came from? They were washed off the land and churned up from the ocean, haven't I said that often enough?:Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

One possibility is that the volcanism was mostly underwater since the continents split at the end of the Flood and in association with whatever caused the waters to recede. Also the Flood would have brought on the ice age. Mitigating factors to the effect of the volcanism perhaps.As for the animals spreading throughout the earth why is that a problem? Even the animals with yearly reproductive cycles or less frequent cycles would have multiplied greatly in a few hundred years. As for sizes, that's built into the genome, all it takes for any particular variation to show up is the isolation of a part of the gene pool in which that variation is high frequency, and since such small populations would have been breaking off and spreading out from season to season into new territories such isolation would occur frequently.Remember there were only eight human beings on earth at the end of the Flood when I'm saying the continents split. A few hundred years later the population would have grown greatly and they would already have spread quite a bit just like the animals. Some by that time may have already started settling in Europe, others in Asia, others in Africa etc.

Marine deposits come from the ocean water, what else? What IS the problem? You aren't making any sense.