Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9071 total)
571 online now:
Aussie, AZPaul3, dwise1, PaulK, Tanypteryx (5 members, 566 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,056 Year: 4,168/6,534 Month: 382/900 Week: 88/150 Day: 19/42 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fossilisation is rare, so ....
Peter
Member (Idle past 708 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 1 of 33 (9782)
05-16-2002 7:17 AM


If fossilisation is rare, and occurs only in very
limited/particular environmental circumstances,
how can one explain the large numbers of fossils found
unless they have been being deposited over a very, very
long period of time ?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by TrueCreation, posted 05-16-2002 6:22 PM Peter has taken no action
 Message 5 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-17-2002 3:52 AM Peter has taken no action

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 33 (9803)
05-16-2002 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Peter
05-16-2002 7:17 AM


"If fossilisation is rare, and occurs only in very
limited/particular environmental circumstances,
how can one explain the large numbers of fossils found
unless they have been being deposited over a very, very
long period of time ? "
--Burry them in a short period of time. Silly!

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Peter, posted 05-16-2002 7:17 AM Peter has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Joe Meert, posted 05-16-2002 7:06 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 4908 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 3 of 33 (9804)
05-16-2002 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by TrueCreation
05-16-2002 6:22 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"If fossilisation is rare, and occurs only in very
limited/particular environmental circumstances,
how can one explain the large numbers of fossils found
unless they have been being deposited over a very, very
long period of time ? "
--Burry them in a short period of time. Silly!


JM: That was a no-brainer. I think the question was poorly worded

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by TrueCreation, posted 05-16-2002 6:22 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by TrueCreation, posted 05-16-2002 8:01 PM Joe Meert has taken no action

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 33 (9807)
05-16-2002 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Joe Meert
05-16-2002 7:06 PM


"JM: That was a no-brainer. I think the question was poorly worded "
--I had to do alot of research to answer that one. Peter may have been going for something else. Peter?

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Joe Meert, posted 05-16-2002 7:06 PM Joe Meert has taken no action

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 33 (9876)
05-17-2002 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Peter
05-16-2002 7:17 AM


I know what Peter is getting at. he's trying to say that since fossilization is rare we shouldn't have so many fossils. The reason that isn't necessarily true is that in the flood model we do expect to get a lot of fossilization - it was rapidly buried by definition. In the gradualism case that isn't so but then they've got time on their side. So both groups have mechanism for fossil formation but IMO the flood model is far better and explains why we get fossil graveyards, fossils of animals giving birth, ofssils of animals devouring other animals and fossils of trees passing through hundreds of strata.

------------------
You are go for TLI


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Peter, posted 05-16-2002 7:17 AM Peter has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by mark24, posted 05-17-2002 5:17 AM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 7 by edge, posted 05-17-2002 10:56 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4424 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 6 of 33 (9877)
05-17-2002 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Tranquility Base
05-17-2002 3:52 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I know what Peter is getting at. he's trying to say that since fossilization is rare we shouldn't have so many fossils. The reason that isn't necessarily true is that in the flood model we do expect to get a lot of fossilization - it was rapidly buried by definition. In the gradualism case that isn't so but then they've got time on their side. So both groups have mechanism for fossil formation but IMO the flood model is far better and explains why we get fossil graveyards, fossils of animals giving birth, ofssils of animals devouring other animals and fossils of trees passing through hundreds of strata.


But no fossil trees at the bottom of the GC. Let me remind you, you have a video showing sinking trees, still rooted. Given that large fossil plants can't be considered rare, don't you find it odd that there are no tree fossils at the bottom of the GC? Don't you also find it odd that gymnosperms appear before angiosperms in the fossil record, yet both produce both small plants to large trees?

But one thing ata a time.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[This message has been edited by mark24, 05-17-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-17-2002 3:52 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-19-2002 10:41 PM mark24 has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 935 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 7 of 33 (9880)
05-17-2002 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Tranquility Base
05-17-2002 3:52 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I know what Peter is getting at. he's trying to say that since fossilization is rare we shouldn't have so many fossils. The reason that isn't necessarily true is that in the flood model we do expect to get a lot of fossilization - it was rapidly buried by definition.

Precisely. In that case fossilization is NOT rare. Hence, in a way, Peter is correct.

quote:
In the gradualism case that isn't so but then they've got time on their side. So both groups have mechanism for fossil formation but IMO the flood model is far better and explains why we get fossil graveyards, fossils of animals giving birth, ofssils of animals devouring other animals and fossils of trees passing through hundreds of strata.

Actually, I expect fossils to exhibit in death all of the natural processes of life. I don't really expect to see them preparing a will. Do not modern animals sometime die in child birth? Do not some animals die choking on something they (recently) ate? Actually, everything you mention here is expected in the uniformitarianist viewpoint.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-17-2002 3:52 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Joe Meert, posted 05-17-2002 11:11 AM edge has taken no action
 Message 12 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-19-2002 10:48 PM edge has taken no action
 Message 30 by PeterW, posted 05-23-2002 9:32 AM edge has taken no action

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 4908 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 9 of 33 (9882)
05-17-2002 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by edge
05-17-2002 10:56 AM


quote:
Originally posted by edge:
Actually, I expect fossils to exhibit in death all of the natural processes of life. I don't really expect to see them preparing a will. Do not modern animals sometime die in child birth? Do not some animals die choking on something they (recently) ate? Actually, everything you mention here is expected in the uniformitarianist viewpoint.

JM: Not only that, but in the midst of the flood (Jurassic), we have beetles boring through dinosaur bones that were just dead and lying around. They were lying on the surface long enough to feed two generations of beetles. That is to say nothing of fossilized bees and termites and the development of Mesozoic soil ecosystems on land!

Cheers

Joe Meert

ref:
Hasiotis, S. 2000. The invertebrate invasion and evolution of mesozoic soil ecosystems: the ichnofossil record of ecological innovations, Paleon. Soc. Pap., v 6, 141-169

Hasiotis and Fiorello, 1999. Preliminary report on borings in Jurassic dinosaur bones: evidence for invertebrate-vertebrate interactions, Utah Geol. Surv, Misc Publ. 99-1, 193-200.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by edge, posted 05-17-2002 10:56 AM edge has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by TrueCreation, posted 05-18-2002 3:03 PM Joe Meert has taken no action
 Message 13 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-19-2002 10:51 PM Joe Meert has taken no action

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 33 (9929)
05-18-2002 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Joe Meert
05-17-2002 11:11 AM


"JM: Not only that, but in the midst of the flood (Jurassic), we have beetles boring through dinosaur bones that were just dead and lying around. They were lying on the surface long enough to feed two generations of beetles. That is to say nothing of fossilized bees and termites and the development of Mesozoic soil ecosystems on land!

Cheers

Joe Meert

ref:
Hasiotis, S. 2000. The invertebrate invasion and evolution of mesozoic soil ecosystems: the ichnofossil record of ecological innovations, Paleon. Soc. Pap., v 6, 141-169

Hasiotis and Fiorello, 1999. Preliminary report on borings in Jurassic dinosaur bones: evidence for invertebrate-vertebrate interactions, Utah Geol. Surv, Misc Publ. 99-1, 193-200."
--Might there be an online reference of some sort for this, sounds interesting, though unfortunately my spectrum of accessible texts is limited. (more directly, the boreholes)

------------------

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-18-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Joe Meert, posted 05-17-2002 11:11 AM Joe Meert has taken no action

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 33 (9984)
05-19-2002 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by mark24
05-17-2002 5:17 AM


Mark: the lower levels of the GC are marine. Not many trees expected there! I guess you're talking terrestial beds? Tell me about them.

------------------
You are go for TLI

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-19-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by mark24, posted 05-17-2002 5:17 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by mark24, posted 05-20-2002 6:09 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 33 (9985)
05-19-2002 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by edge
05-17-2002 10:56 AM


Edge I recently saw on TV one of the worlds most eminent dinosaur paleontologists (Horner?) saying that the dinosaur graveyards were undoubtedly huge flood events. And I'm not saying that proves Noah, it's just suggestive.

We think that the view of dinosaurs on huge desert plains is wrong - becasue most dinaosaur fossils found in our opinions are on deluged escape routes not habitats. Same reason why not many eggs are found where the fossils are found etc.

We actually do have a point you know. Our model does explain some things very neatly although I am yet to see an evolutionist admit it.

------------------
You are go for TLI


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by edge, posted 05-17-2002 10:56 AM edge has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Joe Meert, posted 05-19-2002 11:45 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 33 (9987)
05-19-2002 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Joe Meert
05-17-2002 11:11 AM


Those are good points Joe (on bettles/bones) that the flood geologists have to answer.

------------------
You are go for TLI

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-19-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Joe Meert, posted 05-17-2002 11:11 AM Joe Meert has taken no action

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 4908 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 14 of 33 (9993)
05-19-2002 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Tranquility Base
05-19-2002 10:48 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]Edge I recently saw on TV one of the worlds most eminent dinosaur paleontologists (Horner?) saying that the dinosaur graveyards were undoubtedly huge flood events. And I'm not saying that proves Noah, it's just suggestive.
[/QUOTE]

JM: Be careful. Horner is one of the more 'misquoted' scientists. I think the 'quote' floating around creationist websites makes it sound as if they were killed in a flood. My recollection of the book is that Horner concluded the dinosaurs were all killed during a volcanic eruption and that there bones were later washed away in a flood. Unfortunately, I know longer have the book. I do know that it has been misquoted NUMEROUS times to suggest that the dinosaurs were killed in a flood when this is NOT what Horner concludes.

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-19-2002 10:48 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-19-2002 11:52 PM Joe Meert has taken no action

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 33 (9994)
05-19-2002 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Joe Meert
05-19-2002 11:45 PM


I saw this about a month ago on Australian TV and these were not miscellaneous bones. It was 'complete sauropods on top of complete T-Rex (like) skeltons' etc. We'll see, but a I'm sure sure you know that many of the worlds best fossil sites are graveyards with completely preserved (intact) skeletons. In our model we know what happened.

------------------
You are go for TLI


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Joe Meert, posted 05-19-2002 11:45 PM Joe Meert has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-20-2002 12:16 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4424 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 16 of 33 (10023)
05-20-2002 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Tranquility Base
05-19-2002 10:41 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Mark: the lower levels of the GC are marine. Not many trees expected there! I guess you're talking terrestial beds? Tell me about them.


Why are they marine? You have sinking trees! Surely you would get marine & terrestrial fossils mixed in, right at the bottom of the GC!

You told me that you have a video of sinking trees, with root systems attached, & asserted this as an alternative explanation of successive layers of fossil forests, that contain rooted trees. However, those same sinking trees will be found all around the world at the bottom of the GC, alongside all the shelly fauna, I might add.

Why is this not found?

Another point is that this doesn't explain that the layers at specimen ridge show successive, COMPLETE layers of soil, separated by a conglomerate, not a jumbled mess of trees laying on top of each other with no conglomerate inbetween, which is what we would expect if your video were indicative of reality when these forests were "laid down". Also, in formations such as that found at specimen ridge, wouldn't hydrodynamic sorting put the rooted, sinking examples at the bottom, the sheared off trunks would float & be carried off around the world in the turbulent flood waters, meaning fossil forests such as this wouldn't occur AT ALL? This is a global catastrophism, not a local flood, & surely any volcanoes would be non-terrestrial at that time too?

So,

1. Why are there no trees at the bottom of the GC, if they sink.

2. How does your video explain the nature of the layering at specimen ridge?

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[This message has been edited by mark24, 05-20-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-19-2002 10:41 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-21-2002 9:36 PM mark24 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022