|
Author
|
Topic: Is the Global Flood Feasible? Discussion Q&A
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1733 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Fossil Sorting: Fossils are found in a regular order. Floods are chaotic. --The fossil record is a bit chaotically ordered in a sense, even though this is expected by both uniformitarian and Flood theory.
What sense is that?
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1733 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
For a very rudimentary illustration on how fossil succession is basically found: (diagram deleted) ---This is expected by both uniformitarian and Flood Geology, it is evidence by interpretation. Of course any critique is urged.
Please explain. What are we looking at? Is this something that you made up? How is it explained by flood geology? How is it explained by mainstream geology? Are these species ranges? Are they transgressive sequences?
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1733 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I agree with TCs qualifications of what I said. I think in some places I said hydrodynamic sorting/burial order and what TC said is what I meant by that. Survival order modulated by hydrodynamic sorting etc. Evoltuionsist sometimes suggest hydrodynamic sorting rather than microevoltuion for shellfish morphological patterns.
To refute your survival order argument (and in the words of a well-known creationist on these boards): one word ... 'trees.' Have you forgotten about your little problem with flowering plants? And just how does hydrodynamic sorting influence that problem? I hate to rain on your little parade, but please explain.
quote:
Did anyone else read recently how most of the dinosaur tracks (there are hundreds of sites in the US now) found are (i) almost always in straight lines - escape IMO not hunting and (ii) are often in the same direction! The dinoasur graveyards are also often in the direction of the running. I will try and be a good boy and track down my sources.
Yes, do that. Do you understand the type of sediments that dinosaur tracks are found in? What might they have been hunting? In fact, why would an herbivore be hunting at all? Why would they have walked in anything but a straight line? Have you seen tracks of migrating animals? Why do you jump immediately to the conclusions that they are escaping from something?
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1733 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge, we obviously believe that ecology, mobility, survival, swimming ability and hydrodynamic properties are responsible for the GC. These things are not easy to model but some attempts have bben made with good preliminary results.
You mean there is no quantitative model? Tell us how the mobility of trees affected their position withing the geological column. Or maybe it was their intelligence. quote:
I don't know about flowering plants of the top of my head.
Hmm, one of the problems of an incomplete education.
quote:
I'm talking about a preponderance of fast running herbivores and carnivores at most track sites. It doesn't prove anything, it's only suggestive Edge.
Just going by what you say, it is suggestive that the herbivores were running away from the carnivores. So maybe it was a hunting scenario after all? It thought you said that you had a great respect for Occam's Razor.
quote:
The fossil graveyard locations are interestiong though. Do you know about paleocurrents too? Do you know that the rapid currents which laid down the North American sediments were in the same direction for '100s of millions of years'.
This one I would like some documentation of. If you mean that the prevailing currents were the same direction, I can see that. On the other hand I have personally seen current reversals in the rock record. And what do you mean by rapid? Does that include the limestones and cherts?
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1733 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Hmm, one of the problems of an incomplete education."
--I for one am getting a big annoyed at the intensity of the negative rhetoric being thrown at Tranquility... I was not aware that Evo's were all wise and all intelligent in the vastness of scientific fields. I also do recall them getting rather edgy that Creationists will post work on a topic that is not 'directly' related to their field of study whether or not it is a bit related or not. I do not find this prejudiced bias figure at all pleasing which is spreading like a virus here. Could we ease up on the sarcasm a little whether or not you think anyone's assertions are erroneous or not.
Well, TB was the one who wished to emphasize his PhD and his extensive readings of professional geological literature. Perhaps I take offense that someone could, by reading a few papers, come here and question the hard work of thousands of professional geologists over that last two hundred years and then imply that they are too blind to see their errors. It also undermines all the years put in by students to get a basic degree.
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1733 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
We really are mainstream in every way except for believing in literal creation. We respect the scientific method and are trying to understand where mainstream science went wrong.
There is an alternate explanation, you know.
quote:
At one point the three of us where on the executive committees for 3 of Australias top scientific societies! We lament what has happened.
I do to.
quote:
We love science. Having said that it effects my day to day work in almost no way at all. Macroevoltuion contributes very little to science even in life sciences contrary to popular opinion.
Other than the fact that it explains the fossil record, you mean?
[quote]And I absolutely promise to post data ASAP. Most of my 'data' is mainstream geology quotes (that I have copied from texts) ... Sorry, but this raises all kinds of red flags. How many quotes from mainstream scientists do you think our creationist friends have already dug up? I hope you have something new.
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1733 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Reply - Edge #330 & Joe Meert #331 --I know what your saying, and whatever is going to be presented in the future or already may have been will be as is. What I addressed was just a courtesy tip to be a bit less sarcastic. We all have great questions here and have great answers to them, though sometimes it seems as if a silent flame-war is beginning to break out in the background.
Please assume that my ridicule and sarcasm are directed at the professional creationists who have led you astray. I apologize if it seems otherwise.
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1733 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
I think this thread is about to die if someone doesn't start a discussion and will end up back at the bottom of the list. Anyone have anything interesting they might want to iterate here? Any data on some sort of find in the Geologic column somewhere in the world, anything on plate tectonics or whatever. Just want to get a discussion or opposition heard. I've seen Mark24 still around, lithification? Or maybe back to something that is specific.
Tranquility Base said: And I absolutely promise to post data ASAP. Most of my 'data' is mainstream geology quotes (that I have copied from texts) and my 'revelation' on how paleontology works which I will document. In addition I have a good understanding of comparative genomics from my mainstream work.
|
™ Version 4.2
