quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--Can fossils give us an accurate way of calculating the density, or weight to a permineralized bone besides that it is hollow? Of course a smaller pterasaur would weigh less than a large one. My question would be how do we know how dense the bones were or something of that nature. Another factor would be a ratio between body size, density, arrodynamics (if thats how you spell it), strength and wingspan. A modern albatross uses feathers, very much considerably effecting its flight. Few of my previous speculations were probably wrongly asserted. Though this does not contredict at all the idea that pterasaurs were less fortunate from some mechenism that brought them to their death earlier on than birds.
The bones have cavities, like birds, ergo they are less dense. Pterosaur bones are adapted for flying. Its entirely possible they could fly better than birds. That they are extinct doesnt mean they died in the flood. Speculation, that could be applied either way does not explain the placement of pterosaurs in the fossil record.
Bats manage perfectly well with membranes instead of feathers. Their flying skill, if anything, exceeds that of birds given their agility in the air.
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--When scientists drill into amber they find little airpockets, upon examination of the amber you can see that the air density would have been approx, 50% higher, thus with every breath of air you would get twice the oxygen. What caused the extra density is under discussion, to my knowledge, of the source, many people use the vapor canopy theory, to be the cause, I have yet to ask the question really, I havent gotten to it I guess, It would be wize for me not to cling on to anything for dear life of the preasurization, it possibly could have been from a more powerful magnetic field, but that thought just popped into my mind this second. I believe that the vapor canopy can well explain it, though, we do not need the vapor canopy to the degree of one of the direct sources of Flood water.
If there was a vapour canopy giving 50% extra air pressure, it would reasonably DECREASE oxygen levels by 33%, ie from 21% to 14% by volume. How did you get extra 50% air pressure giving 100% more oxygen? Obviously you assume that the water vapour exists on top of the atmosphere pushing it down increasing oxygen levels.
I need evidence that shows water, representing 50% of atmospheric pressure can exist on top of the existing atmosphere. What mechanism allows this given the actual reverse is observed. Ie most water vapour exists at the bottom of the atmosphere, due to the density of water vapour compared to other gases?
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--Intelligence very much can be considered relevant, it contributes to an organism's ability to reason, understand, comprehand, and realize its ability to do a certain task an aloted time. If I threw you out in the middle of the ocean and I threw a 8 year old out in the middle of the ocean. You would survive much easier, or atleast avoid drowning for a longer period of time. Or if you put an ape, an iguana, and a snake in a forest area and flood it with water different factors including intelligence would effect what they will decide to do to avoid drowning. Regarding habitats there wouldn't exactly be too many levels to choose from, the levels would possibly be, bottom ocean, surface ocean, land dwelling, and fliers, possibly tree climbing ability would be a factor but probley wouldn't be very relevant in some cases.
So I would last minutes longer than an 8 year old? What difference would intelligence make beyond knowing how to swim?
If you put an ape, an iguana, & a snake in a forest area that was about to become what would be tantamount to the mid-pacific inside 24 hours, intelligence would be irrelevant, they would all die, mere hours would separate them.
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Also, this doesnt explain why there ARE fossil amphibians, of the same size & body plan as carboniferous amphibian examples, in the same younger deposits as mammals & reptiles. If theyre so dense why arent they ALL deposited earlier? I need evidence to show all amphibians are denser than reptiles, & both are more dense than all mammals. Otherwise its just supposition."
--Because there are more factors than just density, size and body structure. Also amphibians are well adapt to water (not that they all can really breath water so are subject to drowning) and would be able to menuver in a flood easier which would further increase the factor of intelligence in some kinds. 'Evidence to show all amphibians are denser than reptiles, & both are more dense than all mammals' wouldn't be too well of a concluding assertion. Better would be an experiment on how different kinds of animals would react in these situations all together. This would be a massive experiment in order for it to be accurate so we can only make logical theories on how the events would take place.
If amphibians are the best adapted terrestrial vertebrates ie they live in water much of the time, they should be the last deposited, not first.
You need to show that what affects reptiles, doesnt affect amphibians, doesnt affect mammals, etc. in earliest deposited examples of each, without exception.
You are trying to introduce factors beyond denstity (rightly) that will affect an organisms taxanomic appearance in the fossil record. My point is, that these are so many & varied that you SHOULD be able to find large mammals with dinosaurs, & small pterosaurs/mice/moles/ etc. etc. etc. with early amphibians. Factors that affect one species of amphibian wont affect another, & given so many potential variables are involved, the clear defining points in the fossil record couldnt happen. There will always be a reason why a mole should be found with early fish.
Why do shelled molluscs appear in the Cambrian & not at the bottom of the pre-cambrian? These babies go straight to the bottom. Also, why do soft bodied cephalopods first appear in the same layer, they should float, be suspended etc.
I may have unintentionally mislead you as well, unicellular life appears about 2.9 bn years ago, but soft bodied stuff appears about 2 bn years ago. Jellyfish like stuff. Jellyfish most definitely should be the last to be deposited, they make a life out of floating, yet there they are, right near the bottom, BELOW shelled molluscs.
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--Mammals exist in the fossil record all the way down to the extent of the beginning of the 'Mesozoic Era', Triassic and Permian Period. A supposedly '240-290 Million years of sediment' almost half of the Geologic column. I don't see a problem to why mammals are burried in the last half of the Geologic column. Maybe you didn't explain the question to what exactly you were asking.
Ill clarify, there are species of rodents, felines, bats, primates, proboscideans etc. that are all mammals, & exist in the same habitats, that are the same size, are all hairy, subsist with the same lifestyle etc. Yet still are not found in the same aged sediments as other examples of rodents, felines, bats, primates, proboscideans etc! Given the factors leading to their depostion, they should be. Same is true of all taxonomic classifications.
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"But there are fossil fish bigger than some cetaceans, not to mention existing ones. Were not just talking whales here, ALL marine mammals, as well as the reptile nothosaurs, plesiosaurs & icthyosaurs. So why would a whale not be buried as fast as a fish? You expect us to believe that the sum total of sedimentary rock was laid down in 190 days. An entire blue whale, let alone a dolphin, could be buried in a single day."
--Yes it would be burried quite fast if it indeed was burried. If an animal as massive as a whale were not to be fully burried then other animals would quickly rush in and attack it as prey. The sediments would have been layed down in jumps, not all at once and not gradually. If it were gradually layed down I would have enough trouble wondering why there are fossils down there at all.
But making the sediments lay down in fast deposits & having intervening periods, means even more is deposited at once, making it even more likely it was buried in one go. What would be big enough to eat a blue whale that didnt suffer extinction? & youre just addressing the blue whale. The other cetaceans that are of similar size to nothosaurs, plesiosaurs, & icthyosaurs survived where they didnt, why? Why did some cetaceans die out & not others?
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"There are single celled fossils in pre Cambrian rocks. These are very small & light, & DO suspend more easily in water than a dead fish. So, if countless billions of fish were killed in the fast changing conditions, why do other multicellular swimming organisms exist below them ? (Pikaia, Odontogriphus, Opabinia, Amiskwia, to name but four.) &, Why were most the easily suspended organisms of all deposited before all of them, without exception?"
--Unless you could prove me wrong on this (I did a brief search on altavista and encarta but couldn't find anything) I would speculate that single celled fossils in pre Cambrian rocks wouldn't just be found in pre Cambrian rocks. So there would have to be some sort of mechenism to make multicelliar organisms not be burried in this sediment without exception (according to current findings in the quantity of preCambrian sediments digged through). I would argue that for one we havent unless you can prove me wrong dug through very much preCambrian rock at all.
http://www.naturesafari.com/... Wisconsin
http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Books/Chapters/... China
http://www.siu.no/noradrap.nsf/... East Africa
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/... Australia
http://www.infoniagara.com/d-history-geo.html Canada
http://www.kaibab.org/gc/geology/gc_layer.htm Grand Canyon
http://www.wm.edu/geology/virginia/piedmont_kids.html Virginia
http://www.coloradocollege.edu/Dept/GY/faculty/... Montana & Idaho
http://www.shropshire-cc.gov.uk/museum.nsf/... England
I could go on for some time. Pre-cambrian rocks consist of about 4/5ths of the fossil record & there is no shortage of them. I did a search on Yahoo with pre cambrian rocks & the results just went on & on, these examples were drawn from the first 2 pages. Weve seen a LOT of these formations.
Single celled organisms do exist in the fossil record at higher levels, but thats not the point. They (along with some soft bodied multicellular animals & plants) were buried before anything else, & they should have been last.
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
I would think that in order for this to be seen in the fossil record produced by a Global Flood this would be quite similar to what we would see. When Fish die they don't sink to the bottom right away they float to the top rather quickly. If a massive flow of rushing practically boiling hot water were to make contact in wide areas to sea creatures they would die and float to the surface rather quickly accept for a few acceptions to these poor fellas that I would think would be in pre Cambrian rock but then again we havent searched threw much of that rock. Also a factor would be that we would have to be digging through rock that is already under ocean water probably deeper than about 1000 feet. Otherwize if there was a Global flood then you wouldn't find sea creatures, period, in pre-Cambrian sediments in land areas now with very few acceptions according to uplift rates and whether it was underwater before the flood. In the beginning of the flood multicelliar organisms would have been all throughout the water so would be burried in all layers I would speculate, including pre-cambrian strata. I don't know how clear I was on this but if you have any specific questions ask away.
As I have shown theres a lot of rock.
How did the predators of unburied blue whales survive these hot waters? When cetaceans float, their lungs can fill with water, making them denser than water, making them sink. Ray finned fishes that have enclosed swim bladders, that cant fill with water. So cetaceans, nothosaurs, plesiosaurs & icthyosaurs should exist below the first ray finned fish.
Multicellular life is found at the bottom of the Marianas Trench, the lowest surface point on the planet, so I would expect these arthropods at the bottom of pre Cambrian sediment, along with shelled molluscs, & (not) single celled organisms.
Single celled life in the oceans exist as phytoplankton in the upper layers, & are not distributed uniformly. The last to be deposited, not the first.
Uplift rates would not allow marine strata to become terrestrial in 4,500 years. Need evidence if youre claiming otherwise.
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"The oldest undoubted fossils, primitive algae, exist in rocks 2.9 bn years old. (There are questionable example going back to 3.5bn years) What ever way you cook it, pre cambrian single celled life takes up at least 4/5ths of the fossil record. Whether you accept current dating or not. So why were these little fellas buried 5 times earlier than the fish, which you say were the first to be affected?"
--The Sediment deposits would have happend in Jumps, it wasn't gradually layed down such as would be in a uniformitarian framework. The first thing that happens to most fish when they die is they float to the surface for a period of time and then sink to the bottom. No doubt pre-Cambrian strata is the oldest, its just whether you want to place the stamp of billions and millions or hours, weeks, and months on their deposits.
Mainstream geology doesnt suggest a uniformatarian deposition either (not saying you think it does, but just to clarify).
Fish are already in the seas when the flood started, and countless billions would have died from quick environment changes in the water located too close to erupting underwater basins during the flood. - In response to my argument that fish should be late in the record because they are marine in the first place (when you thought the Cambrian was the beginning). However, when I pointed out that when the Cambrian period started the fossil record was already 4/5ths complete you changed your mind & said fish float when they die. So they could be later after all!
This was a bit naughty of me, because I knew where I was going with this. The point I wanted to make was that you will say anything to explain anything, you have a theory to explain their early AND late deposition. So will the real fish theory please stand up!
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--For one, I would doubt that angiosperms would sink before gymnosperms.
Why? Are you on the verge of a pterosaur claim again? Evidence.
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Flowering plants would be much more likely to float the longer period of time given angiosperms characteristics when in water. I found that plain grass floats to the bottom quite fast also though it decays considerably faster than others. I would give about 20 days to a maximum of about 35 days for the plants to sink according to the fossil record and other factors allow. Also it isn't 10% of the fossil record that would be the location of the plants. The sediment deposits would have happend in jumps, not gradually. It could have very well been 50% of the fossil record that elapsed before plants began to deposit, but of course that isn't what we see. The experiment you propose ignores hundreds of factors that could only be accuratelly observed as a massive experiment for flood deposition.
Firstly, to criticise my experiment that expands upon yours is a bit rich!
Secondly,what are angiosperm/gymnosperm characteristics in water? This is an extraordinary claim that gymnosperms sink 1st! You must explain why gymnosperms of all sizes sink first.
Evidence pls.
Grass, a flowering plant appears in the fossil record. Given grass floats to the bottom quite fast (your words), it should appear much sooner. Its decay is irrelevant, it is COMMON in the record.
How much faster do other angiosperms decay?
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--I think you mean, 'why are angiosperms burried after gymnosperms without exception'. Well for one, we havent looked through much sediment, given the factors for the flood there most certainly would be rare occurances of unusual burrials for the geologic time scale. However, we have only dug through probley .001% of the worlds sediment if not less. And both don't float to the same degree, Flowering and non-Flowering plants have different characteristics that would effect the period of burrial.
So, what youre saying is, angiosperms & gymnosperms are buried at the same time, but we just havent seen it? Your claiming gymnosperms 1/ sink 1st, so we SHOULD see them in lower layers compared to angiosperms. 2/ are now saying that they are there all along, but we just haven't seen them in the same early layers!
The fossil record is entirely consisent re angio/gymnosperms. Do angiosperms sink slower or not?
Isnt this like the just because transitional fossils havent been found, doesnt mean they dont exist in the fossil record argument that were not allowed to make?
Thats a no-go. In hundreds of years of study, not one instance of what you describe has been found. Additionally, were not just talking flowering plants & conifers, but horse tails, seed ferns, ferns, & club mosses, & you need to prove to me that they do indeed sink before angiosperms.
Ive seen creationists argue that the fossil record is 99.9% complete & there are no transitional fossils. Make your mind up creationists!
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"How do all these insects survive on logs for 190 days without food? How do insects & other terrestrial arthropods survive, given they live on desert floors & lack access to vegetation?"
--No one ever said that they all had to survive or even a considerable amount of them, only a couple of pairs of the same kind of insect would have to survive the flood. Food would have been abundant, vegitation piles and driftwood could have been massive and cover hundreds of square footage for insects and various anthropods to live on for the duration of the flood. Variation of anthropod species would not have been much effected untill after the Flood. Say there were only 20-100 variations of different anthropods, conversely to our hundreds of thousands today.
How do bees feed given dead vegetation doesnt produce nectar?
How do colonies of insects survive without there nests, not to mention queens, & males that only emerge on a couple days every year? This day varies from species to species.
How do 20-100 variations turn into hundreds of thousands in 4,500 years?
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Taking size, drag, habitat etc. into consideration as a way to explain taxonomic deposition of fossils fails miserably. For every example of, this was denser, it flew, or it was large, or it was small can be countered by a plethora of examples from different classes/phyla of animals & plants that refute this reasoning."
--What exactly would these abundant examples from different classes/phyla of animals & plants that refute this reasoning be?
Ive given plenty, but fire some more at me & Ill just as reasonably say why something else should be the same, when it isnt. I didnt want to get into this, but if you insist. In fact its what weve been doing for a couple of posts now.
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--Unfortunatelly I don't have the resource to this reference so that I would be able to read this myself. But some factors would attribute to the way a meteor enters the atmosphere, speed and acceleration, size of the meteor, angle and trajectory on which it is entering the atmosphere.
The ONLY factors are mass & velocity. Are you saying one entered the atmosphere & gently alighted upon terra firma when all comets are observed to have VERY high velocities? To give one example.
http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~mcombi/HST/hyaku.html
In this case 53 km/s!
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--Large fragments of the meteor would not be a problem for extraterrestrial planets but to trigger the flood if it indeed was a comet (kent hovind proposes this as to a mechenism needed to freeze mammoth in place upright and keep vegetation in their stomaches green but this is not needed because an elephants stomach acts as a storage compartment with less or no acidic activity to eat away at the vegetation) would not need to be a massive commet any times larger than a football field, the chunks could have been an ice meteor no bigger than a 20 ft diameter. possibly being the cause of the few large meteor impact sites around the world. This would trigger the collapse of the vapor canopy (if it is even needed) and a trigger to disrupt or even start tectonic activity.
--The meteor does not need to be anything at all compaired to the Jupiter meteor explosion. Just enough to shatter the vapor canopy if it is indeed needed.
Why would a comet trigger the vapour canopy, should such an unlikely thing exist?
Mammoths could be found in place upright if they floated upright as water froze.
So were not saying water comes from the comet now?
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"So it comes down to this, all other theories have too much heat, & dont adequately explain where the water came from, or where it goes. The only adequate alternative is to use existing water."
--Not 'all' other theories, though this is too me the best explainable one seeing it hasn't fatal problems if there is at all any.
"No adequate mechanism for the rise of the ocean basins, & their subsequent drop exists"
--Well if the existing water in the oceans has always been relatively the same quantity I see no problem in using tectonic uplift to bring the water to its current destination. Unless someone can point out a one.
The problem you dont see is there is no evidence, nor mechanism for it.
This comes to the crux of my argument, you have claimed the evidence points towards a flood scenario. If so, which one? All of them? You need to cite these evidences so they can be discussed. You have said a lot of this might have, or I see no problem in using tectonic uplift but not produced evidence. So, if the evidence so clearly points to a flood, which scenario? & lets have that evidence.
I quote myself in another thread.
See my signature? Occams razor. For our purposes it means the best theory to fit all the evidence. Very simple, no contention there. But I've seen you say that the evidence points to a flood. So, I'm trying to pin you down to exactly what evidence you have, & what the theory you have doesn't explain, that other theories do, & vice versa. At the end of the day, the theory that best fits the evidence is exactly that, the best theory. I could theorise that salt water comes from a Galactic Goat that pisses brine, we could discuss it if you want. If you have evidence that points to different interpretations that CAN'T be explained by mainstream geology, lets have them. At the same time you need to consider what any flood theories don't explain. So, given you & others maintain there is evidence that makes a flood theory the best theory, lets have it! I'm not asking anything unreasonable. Just that you back up your claims.
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-27-2001]
[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-27-2001]
{Shortened display form of a bunch of URLs, which were causing the pages to be way overwide. - Adminnemooseus}
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-22-2006 04:16 PM
™ Version 4.2
