Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8960 total)
85 online now:
dwise1, LamarkNewAge, PaulK, Tangle, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (5 members, 80 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,618 Year: 1,366/23,288 Month: 1,366/1,851 Week: 6/484 Day: 6/93 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?
Faith
Member
Posts: 34460
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 192 of 518 (810543)
05-30-2017 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by RAZD
05-30-2017 9:10 AM


Just the Usual Flood Scenario
Perhaps some creationist can explain how you can have one layer of mature marine growth on top of another one without the water existing there for decades, if not millennia,

What? I read through your OP and some of the responses to it and don't get how any of this is a problem for the Flood. What you are interpreting as "mature marine growth" means what? A bunch of marine fossils collected together in a rock, isn't that all it is? "Without the water existing there" means what?

The marine fossils in rock layers at the tops of mountains suggest deposition by the Flood before those mountains existed. Then tectonic pressure pushed them up all over the earth so that all those fossils are embedded there in the rocks at the tops of the mountains.

and then add up all the layers that make up the limestone formation and other rocks to depths of 200 meters or more, adding decades (or more) for each layer ...

Where are you getting this "decades" stuff? This is just the usual situation of the deposition of limestone layers containing dead marine creatures one after another in the Flood.

Let the song and dance, complete with hand-waving and wails of denial commence. Because it is always the details that flummox creationist facile "explanations" based on ignorance of the total evidence.

Uh huh. Well, have at it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by RAZD, posted 05-30-2017 9:10 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by edge, posted 05-30-2017 5:18 PM Faith has responded
 Message 203 by RAZD, posted 05-31-2017 6:46 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34460
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 193 of 518 (810544)
05-30-2017 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Minnemooseus
06-01-2008 3:13 PM


Re: Percy, from the "Absence of Evidence" topic
The difference between marine fossils merely being on a mountain topic, and marine fossils being part of the makeup of the entire mountain.

There's also some idea that the more deeply embedded the fossils are the longer the Flood should have taken. Why?

If the argument is that the Flood simply covered existing mountains, that could explain the fossils ON the mountaintops, yes, but the idea is that the Flood deposited all the sedimentary layers that contain fossils, and in the case of mountains this would have happened before the mountains had been raised. After the Flood, the fossil-containing strata were pushed up to become mountains, which is why the fossils are IN the mountain and not just on it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-01-2008 3:13 PM Minnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Taq, posted 05-30-2017 5:29 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 331 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-09-2017 7:34 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34460
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 196 of 518 (810549)
05-30-2017 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by edge
05-30-2017 5:18 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
edge writes:

Faith writes:

What? I read through your OP and some of the responses to it and don't get how any of this is a problem for the Flood. What you are interpreting as "mature marine growth" means what?

A couple of things if I can interject.

Mainly, it means that the bottom of the sea had time to go from a featureless, unpopulated surface to a community of organisms. In other words it became an ecosystem. Considering the growth layers in brachiopod shells or the slow development of coral reefs and other such features, this takes a certain amount of time, certainly exceeding year.

But this is all from the Old Earth/evolutionist point of view. From the Flood point of view all that was already there and the Flood just picked it up and buried it in this or that layer of sediment. Nothing would have formed or grown during the Flood, it would have already been in whatever condition we find it in the fossil record, and all the Flood did was uproot it and move it and bury it.

edge writes:

But even more importantly, how do you get a layered sequence of such communities one after another in the geological record if it is caused by a one-year flood?

The "layered sequence of such communities" isn't relevant to the Flood scenario. It's just how the "communities" got buried in the Flood. Again, they were already there, and for whatever reason they got buried where they are now found by the action of the Flood.

edge writes:

No, it is a lot more than that. It is information that tells us something about the past.

If all the supposed ordering of the fossils in the geological record is in fact merely the accidental effects of a Flood that simply moved around whatever was already there, then this idea that they are clues to an ancient past is an illusion, sort of like reading tea leaves. (except of course the antediluvian ancient past -- THAT you can learn about from the fossils).

edge writes:

Faith writes:

The marine fossils in rock layers at the tops of mountains suggest deposition by the Flood before those mountains existed.

Or deposition by normal marine sedimentation before mountain building.

Yeah, well, that "normal marine sedimentation" has to be fudged to explain the actual strata with their fossils. But my point of course is that it can be accounted for by the Flood followed by mountain building so that the objection that fossils within the rocks can't be explained by the Flood is in fact answered.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by edge, posted 05-30-2017 5:18 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Taq, posted 05-30-2017 5:40 PM Faith has responded
 Message 199 by edge, posted 05-30-2017 6:08 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34460
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 198 of 518 (810552)
05-30-2017 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Taq
05-30-2017 5:40 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
Taq writes:

Faith writes:

But this is all from the Old Earth/evolutionist point of view. From the Flood point of view all that was already there and the Flood just picked it up and buried it in this or that layer of sediment.

You are talking about a solid piece of rock hundreds of thousands of miles in area and hundreds of feet thick. Sorry, doesn't work that way. A whole, unbroken rock the size of a giant sea doesn't get moved by a flood.

But of course that isn't what I said. Dead and dying sea creatures were picked up along with LOOSE sediments and buried with them in layers. That's the main thing the Flood would have done. The strata covered those hundreds of thousands of miles and were hundreds of feet thick, and were compressed quite a bit just by the weight of those that were subsequently laid on top of them.

AFTER the layers with their contents were all in place as the complete stack we call the geological column, AFTER THAT, tectonic movement pushed up sections of it that became the high mountains. This would have added greatly to the compression of the strata already caused by the weight of the stack, so that they retained their parallel form as they were lifted, almost rock already by the time the mountain was there.

Taq writes:

Faith writes:

If all the supposed ordering of the fossils in the geological record are in fact merely accidental effects of a Flood that simply moved around whatever was already there, then this idea that they are clues to an ancient past is an illusion, sort of like reading tea leaves. (except of course the antediluvian ancient past -- THAT you can learn about from the fossils).

Such a process wouldn't sort fossils so that they correlate to specific isotope ratios found in igneous rocks below and above them. This is what disproves your flood story. We should see a random association between isotope ratios and fossils if your scenario is true, but we don't. Instead, we see the correlation predicted by the Old Earth and No Flood scenario.

The evidence is too obviously solid for the Flood -- the layers themselves that are utterly absurd on the Time Scale interpretation but demonstrated to form by water in many different states, the bazillions of fossils that fit the Flood to perfection -- so that this apparent correlation has to be explained some other way. I grant the logic of the position but I expect there is another explanation.

Taq writes:

Faith writes:

But my point of course is that it can be accounted for by the Flood followed by mountain building so that the objection that fossils within the rocks can't be explained by the Flood is in fact explained.

What evidence accounts for this?

The logic accounts for it.

Evidence concerning the unwitnessed past is always subject to interpretation you know. There is nothing open and shut about the isotope argument. But what I've been answering to this point is conjectures that are logically deficient, not evidence.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Taq, posted 05-30-2017 5:40 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by edge, posted 05-30-2017 6:23 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34460
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 201 of 518 (810586)
05-30-2017 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by edge
05-30-2017 6:23 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
edge writes:

Faith answering Taq writes:

But of course that isn't what I said. Dead and dying sea creatures were picked up along with LOOSE sediments and buried with them in layers.

And those currents never mixed clams with brachipods???
Amazing.

Apparently not, far as we know.

edge writes:

Faith writes:

That's the main thing the Flood would have done.

It's a wonder that the flood does whatever YECs say that it does.

YECs simply aim to find the most reasonable logical explanation for what it most likely did. Building the strata containing fossils seems to me and I believe most other YECs to be the main thing it did, leaving the strata as the main evidence of its occurrence.

edge writes:

Faith answering Taq writes:

The strata covered those hundreds of thousands of miles and were hundreds of feet thick, and were compressed quite a bit just by the weight of those that were subsequently laid on top of them.

The problem being?

No problem at all. Please remember I'm answering an absurd straw man of Taq's in which he bizarrely supposed I thought the Flood could create a layer of solid rock covering hundreds of thousands of miles high up in a mountain etc.

edge writes:

Faith answering Taq writes:

AFTER the layers with their contents were all in place as the complete stack we call the geological column, AFTER THAT, tectonic movement pushed up sections of it that became the high mountains. This would have added greatly to the compression of the strata already caused by the weight of the stack, so that they retained their parallel form as they were lifted, almost rock already by the time the mountain was there.

Well, basically, this exactly what we are saying.

Yes of course it is, except that in the Flood scenario it happens a lot faster. But again, keep in mind I'm explaining something to Taq about what YECs think happened, or at least what I think happened.

edge writes:

The point is that you have all of these mature communities and ecosystems sitting atop each other, suggesting very long ages of deposition. In your scenario, all of the ecosystems would be mixed up and all fossil communities would be in transported appearance. It would also be exceeding fortuitous for them to be in the correct same order everywhere. Once again, your logic fails.

First, the idea that there are "mature communities" of anything embedded in these sedimentary rocks needs a little translation. You make it sound like a whole functioning ecosystem in all its original relationships and proportions can be found within the rock like an intact diorama.

But in fact what is in the rock is nothing but a collection of fossils of creatures that in life are often found in such communities. In the rock they are not communities, they are randomly scattered dead things.

There is nothing odd about creatures that flocked together in life ending up together buried by the Flood in a particular sediment. The particular sediment is certainly odd for the Time Scale notion but not for the Flood. The Flood also just puts layers one on top of another and apparently a couple of them happen to contain similar contents.

But what is really strange is this whole idea that one time period is succeeded by another like an apartment building floor built on top of another, the one neatly encased in its own sediment with clear flat top and bottom, the next exactly the same and positioned neatly on top of it. That is NOT the way things happen in reality. Even in the archaeological levels of an ancient settlement built and rebuilt over time you find unevenness from one level to another, not straight flat new levels for each new incarnation of the settlement. If the Time Scale DID have anything to it, that sort of unevenness is what should be expected, not these flat rocks one on top of another.

'Tis Geology Logic that fails in its weird myth about the Time Scale and the Time Periods all marked out by flat rocks. Genuine weirdness.

edge writes:

Faith writes:

The evidence is too obviously solid for the Flood -- the layers themselves that are utterly absurd on the Time Scale interpretation but demonstrated to form by water in many different states, the bazillions of fossils that fit the Flood to perfection -- so that this apparent correlation has to be explained some other way. I grant the logic of the position but I expect there is another explanation.

Not at all. For the reasons mentioned.

Oh entirely. For the reasons mentioned.

edge writes:

I think you are trying to say that you are forced to another explanation by strict adherence to a fable.

It doesn't seem at all forced to me. It's the standard explanation that seems forced. The Bible is not a fable, it's many things but it's mainly a history. Genesis is entirely history. Since it is history its account of the Flood must be taken as historically true, which of course means that if Geology says it never happened Geology is wrong. If Geology says the Earth is older than the Bible says it is, Geology is wrong. Because the Bible is the trustworthy word of God.

Why are these features you mention only suggestive of a single, recent, global flood and not supporting the mainstream viewpoint? Just your opinion that it is absurd is not evidence.

I would think a reasonable person honestly contemplating the strata with their contents, their horizontality, their flatness, their different sediments etc, would have to come to the same conclusion I do, that the Time Scale interpretation is utterly absurd as an attempt to account for it all.

Yes it is the Bible that prompts the Flood explanation, because it's not a fable, it's history, and Geology has made up a fairy tale that contradicts it. And the more I investigate the facts as they show up at EvC or anywhere else, the more they fit the Flood and do not fit the Time Scale.

edge writes:

Faith writes:

The logic accounts for it.

The only logical things you have said support an old ages scenario.
The only other thing you can say is that it is 'absurd'. Why is it absurd?

Reasons given above and many many times at EvC. Just LOOK AT the strata for pete's sake. Imagine a whole living scenario being sandwiched between engulfments of sediment covering hundreds of thousands of miles. Come ON! Every single Time Period begins and ends with a sedimentary ROCK??? No WAY does that make any sense at all. Time Periods should blend into each other, there should be no physical demarcations. THAT's what's absurd.

edge writes:

Faith writes:

Evidence concerning the unwitnessed past is always subject to interpretation you know.

And I suppose you think that all interpretations are equal.

They are not.

Of course not, what a silly idea. I think the Flood interpretation is far and away more reasonable than the Time Scale interpretation. But again you answer out of context. Taq asked for my evidence, I said it was supported by logic, not evidence, and then added that for the ancient past evidence is necessarily a matter of interpretation. It's not like physics where you do an experiment and know the result and someone else can do it and get the same result. That's not possible with the ancient past.

edge writes:

Faith writes:

There is nothing open and shut about the isotope argument. But what I've been answering to this point is conjectures that are logically deficient, not evidence.

The 'isotope argument' is evidence. You should not just dismiss it.

There are some things I can't answer because they are beyond my means and abilities. The abundance of evidence for the Flood to my mind requires that the isotope argument be illusory.

Again I was answering something in context, in this case the idea that fossils occurring within rocks can't be explained by the Flood. That idea is logically deficient since they can be explained by the Flood.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by edge, posted 05-30-2017 6:23 PM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Davidjay, posted 05-31-2017 12:01 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34460
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 205 of 518 (810617)
05-31-2017 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by RAZD
05-31-2017 6:46 AM


Re: Just the Usual Flying Flood Fantasy Song and Dance
RAZD writes:

Faith writes:

What you are interpreting as "mature marine growth" means what? A bunch of marine fossils collected together in a rock, isn't that all it is? ...

Go to any ocean bottom in the world and look at the fully developed ecosystem of organisms living and dying: every place you look you will see organisms of all ages interacting -- that is mature marine growth. By contrast immature marine growth would not show such a fully developed and mature ecosystem and none of the organisms would have reached older ages -- which is what you should observe for sessile organisms (like brachiopods) in any newly inundated area --- the maximum age of sessile organisms can only be the length of time the area has been inundated.

Nothing would have grown in the Flood. All the Flood did was carry things around. Your "mature marine growth" had to have been there before the Flood occurred. Why is this a problem? The Flood moved marine life and buried it as well as land life. What is the problem?

RAZD writes:

The magic flying flood purportedly lasted less than a year, so the maximum age for any sessile marine organisms that grew in an area inundated by the fantasy flood should be 1 year AT THE MOST.

Why do you insist they had to grow in the Flood rather than already have grown in a marine environment before the Flood simply picked them up and buried them in what became a sedimentary rock?

FAZD writes:

Faith writes:

"Without the water existing there" means what? ...

It means they don't grow out of water, there has to be water covering the area for them to grow there, they are organisms that live in water.

So? They grew in water. So? The Flood came along and moved them from where they grew to bury them in sediments that became rock.

RAZD writes:

The marine fossils in rock layers at the tops of mountains suggest deposition by the Flood in a marine environment - for decades and decades - before those mountains existed.

You say you "fixed it for me" but now I can't tell what my original words were. Seems to me the marine environment pre-existed the Flood, which pre-existed the mountains. The marine creatures grew in the marine environment before the Flood buried them, after which the mountains were tectonicially pushed upward containing the strata in which the Flood had buried the marine animals that had grown for decades and decades prior to the Flood.

(Something got lost in here, I don't know what exactly.)

RAZD writes:

Faith writes:

Where are you getting this "decades" stuff? This is just the usual situation of the deposition of limestone layers containing dead marine creatures one after another in the Flood.

Note the length of time needed for each layer to be a mature ecosystem -- some brachiopods were 30 years old when they died and were gradually buried by silt as new brachiopods grew around and on top of them ... brachiopods have growth lines, like tree rings. Even one layer means marine growth lasting longer than the reported time for the purported magic flying flood. Tens of layers means centuries of growth, hundreds of layers means millennia.

There is something really confused going on here. Why do you insist on anything growing IN the Flood? Obviously EVERYTHING grew BEFORE the Flood, all the Flood did was kill things, move things and bury things. As I say to edge above, the layering has to have been done by the Flood, it makes no sense on the Time Scale model. The creatures grew and then were buried in the layers by the Flood.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by RAZD, posted 05-31-2017 6:46 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by RAZD, posted 05-31-2017 5:38 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34460
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 206 of 518 (810618)
05-31-2017 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by RAZD
05-31-2017 7:02 AM


Re: all the evidence needs to be explained
RAZD writes:

Taq writes:

What evidence do you have for rapid mountain building?

And how does that robust earth shaking activity preserve delicate growth like fan corals and crinoids unbroken and still attached to the bottom ... it's magic.

The delicate growth was already embedded in sediments and compacted almost to rock when the tectonic activity pushed up the mountains. Suggesting it was the rock itself that preserved them. "Attached to the bottom" I suppose means that the "bottom" was transported along with the creature.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by RAZD, posted 05-31-2017 7:02 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34460
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 208 of 518 (810685)
05-31-2017 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by RAZD
05-31-2017 5:38 PM


Re: Just the Usual Straw Man Flying Flood Fantasy Song and Dance
RAZD writes:

Faith writes:

Nothing would have grown in the Flood. All the Flood did was carry things around. Your "mature marine growth" had to have been there before the Flood occurred. Why is this a problem? The Flood moved marine life and buried it as well as land life. What is the problem?

You just exchanged one problem for another -- the length of time needed to grow those layers over layers over layers exceeds the time you pretend lapsed between your purported creation date and your purported flood date.

The layers did not grow over layers over layers, the layers were made by the Flood, depositing one dead-creature-laden sediment onto another.

Message 206: The delicate growth was already embedded in sediments and compacted almost to rock when the tectonic activity pushed up the mountains. Suggesting it was the rock itself that preserved them. "Attached to the bottom" I suppose means that the "bottom" was transported along with the creature.

The song and dance is in full swing.

You mean the evo song and dance perhaps? That's also in full swing. If the delicate creatures are preserved in fine sediments that pack into their crevices, the hardening of the whole package should preserve them. Sort of like how you make a mold of an art object with the fine sediment of plaster of paris. Limestone starts as a fine sediment. So does silt. Transporting the creatures doesn't have to be violent, and then they get packed in fine sediment that hardens, and hardens even more as the strata get pushed up into mountains.

RAZD writes:

Faith writes:

Why do you insist they had to grow in the Flood rather than already have grown in a marine environment before the Flood simply picked them up and buried them in what became a sedimentary rock?

Once again the magic flying flood transports huge blocks of sediment intact and undisturbed, as if on a flying carpet, while in other locations it wreaks havoc on the land. Fascinating.

You are creating a pretty obnoxious straw man here. Sediment is deposited by rivers and the sea all the time, nothing about "big blocks" of sediment, just layers of sediment, deposited by precipitation from standing water or sometimes by fast moving water. There is no reason the water couldn't carry delicate objects safely if it's not violent, and the best guess is that there were phases of violence and phases of standing water. The first phase had to have been pretty violent with all that rainfall over the entire earth which had to have created streams and mudslides and rushed downhill one way or another, but as the Flood waters rose and reached their height there would have been a long period of standing water.

RAZD writes:

Faith writes:

You say you "fixed it for me" but now I can't tell what my original words were. Seems to me the marine environment pre-existed the Flood, which pre-existed the mountains. The marine creatures grew in the marine environment before the Flood buried them, after which the mountains were tectonicially pushed upward containing the strata in which the Flood had buried the marine animals that had grown for decades and decades prior to the Flood.

There is no rational link between a flood and tectonic activity, tectonic activity is not caused by floods, and there is absolutely NO mention of earthquakes etc in the bible so you are MAKING STUFF UP.

There are lots of earthquakes mentioned in the Bible, in a way that implies many more occurred than are mentioned. And of course I have to say as usual that this wasn't "A" flood, this was the mother of all floods and it covered the entire earth and had to have been part of an enormous worldwide upheaval. Just getting the water high enough to cover the land implies previously unheard of rainfall, besides the releasing of "the fountains of the deep," whatever those are or were, something that no doubt affected the sea floor.

The order of events that is easily determined from the geological column in many places and also on cross sections, is first the laying down of the strata and then the twisting and deforming of strata in various places, sometimes involving the raising of the land as in the Grand Staircase - Grand Canyon area. This implies tectonic activity soon after the strata were laid down, and this would include the building of mountains.

And yes of course I'm "making stuff up," that's what Hutton did when he invented the Old Earth, it's what Darwin did when he invented the theory of evolution by natural selection. It's all guesswork about the past using whatever knowledge is available, it's the making of hypotheses and theories. Of course I'm making stuff up. It's better stuff than the OE and Evo stuff too, which is just weird.

RAZD writes:

Faith writes:

There is something really confused going on here. Why do you insist on anything growing IN the Flood? Obviously EVERYTHING grew BEFORE the Flood, all the Flood did was kill things, move things and bury things. As I say to edge above, the layering has to have been done by the Flood, it makes no sense on the Time Scale model. The creatures grew and then were buried in the layers by the Flood.

As I said above, you've traded one problem for another -- you don't have millenia for the growth to accumulate to the depths and degree that we see.

And as I said above, those layers did not grow there, the Flood created them, which accounts for the depth, so no millennia of growth was needed, just the transport and burial in layers of things growing on the same plane. This is just the Old Earth fantasy song and dance.

RAZD writes:

But I'm glad you agree that it is impossible for the shells to have grown during the flood.

The idea is so absurd it never entered my mind.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by RAZD, posted 05-31-2017 5:38 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by RAZD, posted 05-31-2017 6:55 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 342 by RAZD, posted 06-10-2017 6:43 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34460
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 210 of 518 (810693)
05-31-2017 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by edge
05-30-2017 6:08 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
Somehow overlooked this post, sorry.

edge writes:

Faith writes:

From the Flood point of view all that was already there and the Flood just picked it up and buried it in this or that layer of sediment.

Where is "there"?

I mean it already existed before the Flood.

So, you are going to pick up this ecosystem and move it to another location during your turbulent flood and then reassemble it in life position?

So you claim you do claim to find an intact ecosystem within a rock "in life position?" Can you demonstrate this? I already said I assumed you were talking about the various elements of such a system being found randomly buried in the rock, but that the whole system would not have been like an intact diorama, which is what you now seem to be saying it would. For this I need to see the evidence.

edge writes:

Faith writes:

Nothing would have formed or grown during the Flood, it would have already been in whatever condition we find it in the fossil record, and all the Flood did was uproot it and move it and bury it.

Sure, all that transport by turbulent currents and there's no mixing with material from other ecosystems?

Not necessarily turbulent. Are the layers formed by Walther's Law formed in turbulence?

And you are going to do this dozens of times at one location in one year?

It does seem that layers formed one on top of another during the Flood.

edge writes:

Faith writes:

If all the supposed ordering of the fossils in the geological record is in fact merely the accidental effects of a Flood that simply moved around whatever was already there, then this idea that they are clues to an ancient past is an illusion, sort of like reading tea leaves. (except of course the antediluvian ancient past -- THAT you can learn about from the fossils).

Sorry, but it doesn't look accidental to me. There are no documentable violations of the fossil record that would suggest an accident.

The fossil record doesn't suggest the accident, the form of the strata suggests that.

An that's a mighty big 'if" that I think we can pretty much rule out.

You can't rule out the whole creationist argument, sorry.

edge writes:

Faith writes:

Yeah, well, that "normal marine sedimentation" has to be fudged to explain the actual strata with their fossils. But my point of course is that it can be accounted for by the Flood followed by mountain building so that the objection that fossils within the rocks can't be explained by the Flood is in fact answered.

So, how is it 'fudged'? What is not 'normal about it?

It wouldn't be laid down as neat and flat as the strata are.

No one is disputing that the fossils were deposited before mountain building

But Taq imputed that absurd idea to me -- that they were deposited after the mountains were in place.

(except for some YECs).

Who?

It is exactly what mainstream science is saying. But that has nothing to do with the ordering of the fossil record.

We haven't been talking about the ordering of the fossil record have we? But all the ordering of the fossil record is, anyway, is the silly evolutionist ideas of what evolved from what. Since nothing but variations and races of a Kind evolved from a Kind the whole idea of an evolutionary ordering is artificial to begin with.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by edge, posted 05-30-2017 6:08 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by edge, posted 05-31-2017 11:50 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34460
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 212 of 518 (810711)
06-01-2017 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by edge
05-31-2017 11:50 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
edge writes:

Faith writes:

I mean it already existed before the Flood.

No, these fossils are found part of the way up into the flood sediments.

What are you talking about? What "flood sediments" would you ever acknowledge? What does "part of the way up" mean? ALL the strata are Flood sediments.

How did they have time to grow roots and form footprints and coral reefs part way up in the flood stratigraphic column?

They did NOT grow ANYTHING during the Flood, nothing grew during the Flood, what kind of nonsense are you pulling here? What does "part way up in the flood stratigraphic column" mean? The roots grew before the Flood. The coral reefs grew before the Flood. Both were uprooted and transported in the Flood. The footprints were formed between tides during the Flood.

edge writes:

Faith writes:

So you claim you do claim to find an intact ecosystem within a rock "in life position?" Can you demonstrate this?

Can I use YEC sources?

Of course.

edge writes:

Faith writes:

I already said I assumed you were talking about the various elements of such a system being found randomly buried in the rock, but that the whole system would not have been like an intact diorama, which is what you now seem to be saying it would. For this I need to see the evidence.

The study of fossil assemblages rather than individual fossils has been recognized as a more powerful tool in chronostratigraphy and paleoecology for a long time now. Here are a few articles to make the point.

http://gsabulletin.gsapubs.org/content/75/12/1197
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/203/4384/999
http://www.sciencedirect.com/...article/pii/0031018287900344

No, I am sorry but I can't read links right now. I need to SEE this.

edge writes:

The third one might be the most pertinent to this discussion.

"1. (1) Fossil communities from localities with a similar lithology have a similar ecological structure, with respect to trophic type and life position.

No idea what "similar ecological structure" looks like in an assemblage of fossils, nor "trophic type" nor even "life position." I need to know what a "fossil community" LOOKS LIKE. You make it sound like it actually looks like an ecosystem in life. Show me.

2. (2) Dominant species in a fossil community are more or less segregated in feeding type and/or life position.
3. (3) There is a tendency toward habitat segregation among the dominant species sharing a common trophic type and life position."

This sounds to me like the usual hyperanalytical tea-leaf-reading approach to the contents of sedimentary rocks. In any case it's all analysis and you made it sound like there is practically an extant ecosystem within a rock that isn't just a bunch of dead things. But this is clearly just a bunch of dead things that may have existed together in life but are now just a bunch of dead things in a rock. As I originally said. There is no "ecosystem" here, just overzealous analytical geological types as usual trying to make a living scene out of a mere fossil-bearing rock.

edge writes:

Faith writes:

Not necessarily turbulent. Are the layers formed by Walther's Law formed in turbulence?

No and that's kind of the point.
Aren't you the one who sees the geological record as a bunch of mudflows?

I see it as a stack of layered sediments containing dead things that may have been laid down by various means, including rising sea level (Walther's Law), tidal (wave) deposition, and precipitation from standing water, possibly all three during different phases of the Flood.

edge writes:

Faith writes:

But Taq imputed that absurd idea to me -- that they were deposited after the mountains were in place.

That is the normal YEC position on the topic. So, you are an anomaly.

I do differ from other YECs on some points but it's hard to believe that could be the "normal YEC position."

edge writes:

Faith writes:

But all the ordering of the fossil record is, anyway, is the silly evolutionist ideas of what evolved from what. Since nothing but variations and races of a Kind evolved from a Kind the whole idea of an evolutionary ordering is artificial to begin with.

Ah, good.
Then maybe you can show us a Cambrian giraffe-kind.

Oh don't be silly. The point was that interpreting the existing order as evidence of evolution is artificial because evolution only occurs within Kinds.

edge writes:

Faith writes:

You can't rule out the whole creationist argument, sorry.

Watch me.

I don't think I could bear to watch a grown man do something so irrational.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by edge, posted 05-31-2017 11:50 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by edge, posted 06-01-2017 1:49 PM Faith has responded
 Message 218 by edge, posted 06-01-2017 2:36 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34460
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 215 of 518 (810779)
06-01-2017 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by edge
06-01-2017 1:49 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
edge writes:

Faith writes:

Oh don't be silly. The point was that interpreting the existing order as evidence of evolution is artificial because evolution only occurs within Kinds.

It's not silly. If there is a giraffe kind and giraffes have only evolved within that kind, then there must have been an ancestral giraffe kind in the Cambrian.
Please show us such a fossil.

There is no such thing as a Cambrian period.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by edge, posted 06-01-2017 1:49 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by edge, posted 06-01-2017 2:28 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34460
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 220 of 518 (810811)
06-01-2017 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by edge
06-01-2017 2:36 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
edge writes:

I can see you as an investigator arriving at the scene of a multiple murder and saying, "Oh, it's just a bunch of dead people."

That's very cute.

What you are looking at is data.

And you are misinterpreting the data. I don't have a problem with the idea that the rock contains the elements of a former ecosystem, there's nothing wrong with that idea. I do object to the idea that you can practically see the functioning ecosystem as it existed in life in the same positions and relationships. What's there is dead things that are elements of that former system and the intact diorama-ish ecosystem talk is just the usual OEGeo hyperbole.

And I note you haven't tried to defend the impression that you find something more than random dead things in the rock, what amounts to an actual intact ecosystem. I guess I can safely ignore that impression now.

The data no doubt shows what existed before the Flood, and that would be a worthwhile thing to research.

have decided that it has no meaning.

Not NO meaning, just the standard Geo fantasy meaning.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by edge, posted 06-01-2017 2:36 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by edge, posted 06-01-2017 9:11 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34460
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 221 of 518 (810812)
06-01-2017 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by edge
06-01-2017 2:28 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
edge writes:

Do you also deny superposition?
Or the presence of a Cambrian System of rocks?

No problem if you want to designate by some kind of name a system of rocks that occurs at a certain position in the Geological column, that seems very useful. It's the Time Scale idea that's nonexistent, the rocks are quite real and interestingly always found in the same position in the column.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by edge, posted 06-01-2017 2:28 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by edge, posted 06-01-2017 9:16 PM Faith has responded
 Message 226 by dwise1, posted 06-01-2017 10:06 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34460
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 224 of 518 (810817)
06-01-2017 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by edge
06-01-2017 9:11 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
edge writes:

[qw=Faith] And you are misinterpreting the data. I don't have a problem with the idea that the rock contains the elements of a former ecosystem, there's nothing wrong with that idea. I do object to the idea that you can practically see the functioning ecosystem as it existed in life in the same positions and relationships. What's there is dead things that are elements of that former system and the intact diorama-ish ecosystem talk is just the usual OEGeo hyperbole.

I'm not sure how that got to be the point. No one says that there is a snapshot of a functioning ecosystem. [/qs]

The way it was worded suggested that but since you are saying it's wrong I'll drop it.

I was saying that there are distinct fossil populations that suggest previous ecosystems and contain no fossils from higher or lower strata. And they are often in life position

"In life position" is also problematic. What can that mean? And "often" suggests something other than reliably in life position. I have no problem with the elements of an ecosystem being found together in the rock, just the suggestion that they somehow appear just as they did in life.

... suggesting that there has been no transport. This does not relate to a rapid flooding event that laid down thousands of meters of sediment in a year.

I'd grant the logic of the idea except that the idea that anything occurred in situ within the geological column is too absurd.

How do these distinct populations develop in life position with sedimentation rates that a year-long flood would require?

I've got to suppose that "in life position" is a bit of an exaggeration for starters. As for sedimentation rates the Flood carried a LOT of stuff, what can I say, and it deposited it by various means as it progressed. Which would deposit the most, rising sea level deposition a la Walther's Law, deposition by tides and waves, or deposition by precipitation from standing water?

qs=edgeWhy do we not see mixed communities of what I would call Cambrian and Holocene creatures? [/qs]

I don't know. There are lots of things that the Flood must have done that I am not in a position to know. Maybe some creationist ministries do but I'm not up on all their arguments. My position is basically that the Flood makes sense of the facts at the most general level, the layered sediments, the superabundance of dead things contained in them, the Flood no doubt providing exceptionally good conditions for fossilization compared to any slower and drier event, as well as observations I've made about the strata themselves in various former posts, the absence of the kind of erosion between layers that would indicate time on the surface for instance. Since the Flood is the best explanation for what is seen, and the Time Scale is a ludicrous explanation, requiring time periods to be defined by rocks among other nonsensical weirdnesses (for instance the allotment of millions of years for a microevolution that can be observed to occur in normal time is a weirdness), I go with the Flood and don't expect to answer all the ways the Flood did some unaccountable things.

edge writes:

Faith writes:

The data no doubt shows what existed before the Flood, and that would be a worthwhile thing to research.

Not really. There is no evidence to suggest that there were cows, elephants, clams, bryozoans and dolphins present on earth before the flood. Why is that?

You would prove something by a lack of evidence? Anyway what is this evidence that is lacking? I suspect it's just Evo In Evo Out, or OE In OE Out.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by edge, posted 06-01-2017 9:11 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by edge, posted 06-01-2017 10:47 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34460
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 225 of 518 (810818)
06-01-2017 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by edge
06-01-2017 9:16 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
Yes, and the fossils are always found in the same order.

So, if the oldest rocks are at the bottom of the column, why are there no mammals or dinosaurs or even clams there?

Why do we find rooted trees and dinosaur footprints farther up in the geological column if they were around before the flood?

I mean, if the sediments were deposited in one year to a thickness of thousands of meters, there should be some evidence somewhere that humans and trilobites coexisted.

Why are you raising these ancient questions that have been answered many times? The answer is nobody knows. For whatever reason the Flood sorted things that way. The lower strata are mostly all marine, there's a start, and the upper get into the land animals which makes some kind of sense. Beyond that who knows? See Message 224: the Flood explains the facts so much better than the Time Scale does there's no point in worrying about the things that aren't yet understood.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by edge, posted 06-01-2017 9:16 PM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by dwise1, posted 06-01-2017 10:27 PM Faith has responded
 Message 239 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2017 12:02 AM Faith has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020