Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
38 online now:
DrJones*, marc9000, Theodoric, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (4 members, 34 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,001 Year: 22,037/19,786 Month: 600/1,834 Week: 100/500 Day: 58/42 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do creationists try to find and study fossils?
Percy
Member
Posts: 19078
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 151 of 182 (698367)
05-06-2013 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Faith
05-05-2013 9:52 PM


Re: Steve Austin Nautiloid Article
Faith writes:

I don't know anything about why his work isn't in the regular journals, and I'm not really into defending anything about the thesis of this thread anyway.

So I'm wasting my time trying to engage you in discussion about the topic?

As the only one promoting creationist views in this thread you have a powerful influence on the topic, far more than 5% (you're one of nineteen participants), far more than 50% (there are two sides in the debate, and you represent all of one side). You probably have at least 90% control of what gets discussed. Evolutionists can only respond to what you say, and if you say little to nothing about the topic, then there will be little to no discussion about the topic.

If people want to discuss the flood again, then someone should propose a flood topic.

I know I'm behaving like a moderator, but I already joined as a normal participant, so participants should consider this a plea from a fellow participant to get on topic, not a moderator request.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 9:52 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Pressie, posted 05-06-2013 8:34 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 154 by Faith, posted 05-06-2013 9:37 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2082
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 152 of 182 (698368)
05-06-2013 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Percy
05-06-2013 8:06 AM


Re: Steve Austin Nautiloid Article
Also, nobody has ever explained exactly how Naulitoids somewhere in North America would indicate a global flood.

Maybe Faith could enlighten us about it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Percy, posted 05-06-2013 8:06 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Faith, posted 05-06-2013 11:17 AM Pressie has not yet responded

JonF
Member
Posts: 5610
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 153 of 182 (698370)
05-06-2013 9:37 AM


To be fair, Faith is being honest. All she knows is what's presented in the article and the video. She can't point to the data that's needed to evaluate the investigation as scientific research.

I guess the takeaway is that creation scientists do investigate fossils but they do so in an amateurish and unrepeatable way.


Faith
Member
Posts: 33872
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 154 of 182 (698371)
05-06-2013 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Percy
05-06-2013 8:06 AM


Re: Steve Austin Nautiloid Article
No, I'm not saying I'm not going to participate, more that I got pulled into it in spite of myself. I'm trying to watch the Garner video despite a lot of distractions and should soon be able to present SOMETHING about Austin's work on the nautiloids.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Percy, posted 05-06-2013 8:06 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Taq, posted 05-06-2013 1:07 PM Faith has responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 33872
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 155 of 182 (698378)
05-06-2013 11:01 AM


Garner's presentation of Steve Austin's nautiloid studies
OK, in the video of the lecture given by Paul Garner, which I'll put at the bottom of this post, the whole section dealing with Steve Austin's study of the nautiloid layer in the Grand Canyon runs from 22:47 to 39:40 on the counter.

22:47 starts with a presentation of the characteristics of the Redwall Limestone.

24:20 history of the nautiloid discoveries in Nautiloid Canyon starting in 1966, with pictures of the fossils.

27:30 says nautiloids had been understood to be quite rare in the Canyon despite the find in 1966 but goes on to say Austin disproved this.
(Picture of Austin in the Canyon at 28:19) First with Kurt Wise in 1995 they documented 71 fossils in Nautiloid Canyon. In March 1999 Austin took a trip along the river stopping where redwall nautiloids were exposed, finding hundreds. Concluded that the nautiloid layer runs the entire extent of the Canyon, some 277 miles, a lot more of them than had been previously supposed.

30:30 Austin's map showing Jeff Canyon 21 nautiloids which he says is typical at 1 nautiloid per square meter, and from this estimates the whole layer could contain a billion or even 10 billion.

31:30 Histogram showing diameters of 403 nautiloid fossils from three locations in the Canyon, demonstrating that they represent an entire population killed at once rather than random deaths

32:43 shows Austin's Rose Diagrams of the orientations of the nautiloids, 185 from one side canyon and another 100 plus from another canyon, which is to demonstrate that they were caught in a rapid flow and not randomly individually buried

35:15 shows distribution within the bed is in the center of the bed which he argues shows rapid flow which is demonstrated with a diagram of the Hyperconcentrated Flow Model at 36:10, showing that high speed flows develop a layered structure.

At 37:45 Garner summarizes the points above.

P.S. I've collected the various articles linked on this thread to read later. I'm SOOOOO tired I'm going back to bed now.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Faith, posted 05-06-2013 5:10 PM Faith has not yet responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 33872
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 156 of 182 (698379)
05-06-2013 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Pressie
05-06-2013 8:34 AM


Re: Steve Austin Nautiloid Article
Also, nobody has ever explained exactly how Naulitoids somewhere in North America would indicate a global flood.

Maybe Faith could enlighten us about it.

Everything in the Grand Canyon I think demonstrates the Flood and the video of Garner's lecture covers most of it. The sedimentary layers themselves ought to be regarded as evidence of the Flood, and their fossil contents are further evidence.

The extent of the layers across many states and most of the continent in some cases shows deposition by water, a huge amount of water covering the whole continent, and of course the fossil contents show the bazillion dead things the Flood was expected to bring about.

As for nautiloids in particular, Austin simply found a lot of them in one layer in the Grand Canyon, extending the length of the canyon and beyond, and did studies to show that they don't represent random individual deaths but the death of the entire population at once in a mass kill by a catastrophic event.

If you want me to go back and account for something where I said you were lying please give me the link. Thanks.

Content hidden (use "peek" if you wish to see it). Faith has withdrawn this (more or less off-topic) material from this topic, per message 163. - Adminnemooseus

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Text in red.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Pressie, posted 05-06-2013 8:34 AM Pressie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Coyote, posted 05-06-2013 11:40 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 158 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-06-2013 11:45 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 159 by Coragyps, posted 05-06-2013 11:55 AM Faith has responded
 Message 162 by PaulK, posted 05-06-2013 3:03 PM Faith has responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 445 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 157 of 182 (698381)
05-06-2013 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Faith
05-06-2013 11:17 AM


Re: Steve Austin Nautiloid Article
Everything in the Grand Canyon I think demonstrates the Flood and the video of Garner's lecture covers most of it. The sedimentary layers themselves ought to be regarded as evidence of the Flood, and their fossil contents are further evidence.

The extent of the layers across many states and most of the continent in some cases shows deposition by water, a huge amount of water covering the whole continent, and of course the fossil contents show the bazillion dead things the Flood was expected to bring about.

Again, you are ignoring the dating. Those layers were deposited over a long period of time, not a single year.

We have clear evidence of evolution in the distribution of the various species. And a great time depth is clearly demonstrated by the various layers.

Here is an article which lays this out clearly enough even you could understand:

http://www.chem.tufts.edu/science/franksteiger/grandcyn.htm

But then I don't expect you will accept any evidence that goes against your beliefs.

You shouldn't even pretend to be doing science, as what you are doing is the exact opposite--religious apologetics.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Faith, posted 05-06-2013 11:17 AM Faith has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 158 of 182 (698382)
05-06-2013 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Faith
05-06-2013 11:17 AM


Re: Steve Austin Nautiloid Article
Everything in the Grand Canyon I think demonstrates the Flood ...

Apart from the things that don't, but you can pretend they don't exist.

The sedimentary layers themselves ought to be regarded as evidence of the Flood ...

Should sedimentary layers being deposited today be regarded as evidence of the Flood?

If yes, why?

If not, then why should we regard identical sedimentation in the past as being evidence of the Flood? (Note that: "Because I really want to") is not really a reason.)

The extent of the layers across many states and most of the continent in some cases shows deposition by water, a huge amount of water covering the whole continent ...

Your evidence does not support your assertion.

As for nautiloids in particular, Austin simply found a lot of them in one layer in the Grand Canyon, extending the length of the canyon and beyond, and did studies to show that they don't represent random individual deaths but the death of the entire population at once in a mass kill by a catastrophic event.

But Austin's own (claimed) data disprove that. He says there's 1 nautiloid per square meter. But that makes it ecologically impossible for them to represent a single "mass kill": no predator that big can have that population density.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Faith, posted 05-06-2013 11:17 AM Faith has not yet responded

Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5414
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 159 of 182 (698383)
05-06-2013 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Faith
05-06-2013 11:17 AM


Re: Steve Austin Nautiloid Article
The sedimentary layers themselves ought to be regarded as evidence of the Flood...

Including, of course, the Coconino sandstone, which is full of crossbeds that incontrovertibly show that they could not have been deposited under water. You can't get dunes that steep under water, Faith. You can try the experiment yourself in your kitchen.


"The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails." H L Mencken

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Faith, posted 05-06-2013 11:17 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Faith, posted 05-06-2013 7:29 PM Coragyps has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


(1)
Message 160 of 182 (698385)
05-06-2013 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Faith
05-05-2013 10:02 PM


Re: a great example of how creationists do not study fossils.
They only "look different" in the sense that the alphabet blocks in the collection have different letters and there's a stain on one and the dog's tooth marks on another, but otherwise they are identical.

Yeah, if you ignore the differences, they're identical. Consider the Coconino Sandstone and the Muav Limestone. One is sandstone, the other is limestone. They are different colors. One has footprints in it, the other has no footprints in it. One exhibits cross-bedding, the other does not. One contains no marine fossils, the other contains many. They're as different as two sedimentary rocks can be, but apart from that, they're identical.

The sedimentary layers are all originally horizontal, remarkably flat-topped, remarkably without the sort of erosion one finds on surface land, and so on and so forth, showing their having been produced by the same processes having roughly the same history.

As you know, this is not true. We showed you photographs.

And your ridiculous remark that the water would have produced such phenomena really is beneath you or ought to be

It was you who claimed one process. I believe that there were several. Now it appears you are willing to admit at least two: that water covered all the land, and that land animals walked about on it. Did they breathe while they were doing so?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 10:02 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Faith, posted 05-06-2013 7:25 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 8207
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 161 of 182 (698391)
05-06-2013 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Faith
05-06-2013 9:37 AM


Re: Steve Austin Nautiloid Article
No, I'm not saying I'm not going to participate, more that I got pulled into it in spite of myself. I'm trying to watch the Garner video despite a lot of distractions and should soon be able to present SOMETHING about Austin's work on the nautiloids.

We are hoping for something like a scientific paper with an introduction, methodologies, results, and discussion section. This is the type of paper that scientists write when they communicate their findings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Faith, posted 05-06-2013 9:37 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Faith, posted 05-06-2013 7:19 PM Taq has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 15639
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 162 of 182 (698393)
05-06-2013 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Faith
05-06-2013 11:17 AM


Re: Steve Austin Nautiloid Article
quote:

Everything in the Grand Canyon I think demonstrates the Flood and the video of Garner's lecture covers most of it.

Really ? Then I guess that you have come up with an explanation for the boulder in the video, discussed here. Message 186

Personally I can't see a viable explanation that doesn't accept that the Shinumo Quartzite had been metamorphosed before the boulder was eroded out of it - and before the Tapeats had come close to being lithified. And quartzite is a hard rock, so that's some significant erosion there.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Faith, posted 05-06-2013 11:17 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Faith, posted 05-06-2013 7:17 PM PaulK has responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 33872
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 163 of 182 (698398)
05-06-2013 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Faith
05-06-2013 11:01 AM


Re: Garner's presentation of Steve Austin's nautiloid studies
I'm sorry I wrote message 156. The thread should now be focused on the material in Message 155.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 05-06-2013 11:01 AM Faith has not yet responded

foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 85 days)
Posts: 920
Joined: 12-26-2011


(2)
Message 164 of 182 (698402)
05-06-2013 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Faith
05-05-2013 11:22 PM


Re: a great example of how creationists do not study fossils.
You said all the sedimentary layers are perfectly flat and show no signs of erosion like the current land surface does. I suppose that was off topic for you to mention it? Since you mentioned it, I am responding to it. There are surfaces that show erosion like the current land surface does. I just showed it to you. Now, it is up to you to tell me why the Great Unconformity is not an erosion surface like that of today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 11:22 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Faith, posted 05-06-2013 7:13 PM foreveryoung has acknowledged this reply

Faith
Member
Posts: 33872
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 165 of 182 (698405)
05-06-2013 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by foreveryoung
05-06-2013 5:46 PM


Re: a great example of how creationists do not study fossils.
When I'm talking about the lack of erosion surfaces on the layers I'm referring to the stack above the Great Unconformity.

But my explanation of the Great Unconformity is that it was originally horizontal layers like all the rest but after the entire stack was in place there was a volcanic eruption beneath the canyon which tilted the lower strata and caused very rough erosion by the friction of the movement between those and the upper strata which remained intact. There may also have been tectonic lateral movement as the cause of or at least in conjunction with the eruption.

Garner in the posted video discusses this erosion layer toward the end of his talk, explaining it as caused by an abrasive slurry rather than the way I explain it, but still it's another explanation than the Old Earth explanation of the gradual erosion of the unconformity, an erosion that occurred rapidly instead of slowly.

Evidence of the volcano's eruption after the stack was in place is in the igneous intrusions and the granite and the schist at the basement of the canyon, and in the mounded nature of the uplift of that area into which the canyon was cut. There is also further interesting evidence in what Garner identifies as earthquake effects near the end of his talk but I haven't fully processed that information.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by foreveryoung, posted 05-06-2013 5:46 PM foreveryoung has acknowledged this reply

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019