Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
478 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, nwr, PaulK, Phat, ringo, Tangle (7 members, 471 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,329 Year: 4,441/6,534 Month: 655/900 Week: 179/182 Day: 12/47 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fountains of the deep, new evidence
Astrophile
Member
Posts: 90
From: United Kingdom
Joined: 02-10-2014


(1)
Message 106 of 106 (745592)
12-24-2014 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Colbard
12-08-2014 8:58 AM


And the finer particles don't find their way down past and below the larger boulders and rocks?

I grant you that pebbles, sand, and silt deposited in the waning stages of a flood can filter down and fill up the gaps between the larger boulders and cobbles deposited by the faster flows at the peak of the flood, but the average particle size, and in particular the size of the largest particles, will decrease from bottom to top of the succession. Also, fine-grained sediments can't be deposited below the coarser particles, because when the speed of the flow is low enough for sand and silt to be deposited, it is much too slow to move the boulders and cobbles.

The flood did not produce one continuous layer, but hundreds of layers in most instances. Your evolutionary models show the big stuff on top, the little things at the bottom. That is a wished model, hardly the general case.

Your argument in Message 79 appears to be that a flood deposits small particles (e.g. small fossil shells) first (i.e. at the bottom of the succession) and large particles (e.g. the bones of mammoths, dinosaurs, whales and pliosaurs) last, at the top of the succession, and that geologists have mistaken this hydrologically sorted succession for a temporal succession. This is your argument, not the evolutionists' model.

In reply, I pointed out that there are rock formations that contain only fossil shells (of a wide range of sizes) that have been assigned to the youngest geological epochs (e.g. the Pliocene and Pleistocene) because they rest on top of rocks belonging to older systems; by your argument evolutionists should have assigned these shell-bearing rocks to the oldest systems. Now you say:


Your evolutionary models show the big stuff on top, the little things at the bottom. That is a wished model, hardly the general case.

But that is not what the evolutionary models show: geologists know perfectly well that there are large fossils (as well as small ones) in Paleozoic and Mesozoic rocks and small fossils (as well as large ones) in Cenozoic rocks. It was you who said that a flood would deposit small particles at the bottom and larger particles at the top, so it is your argument that is contradicted by the observed distribution of fossils.

We find shells mixed in with mammoths. No millions of years in between.

Well, yes, we now find barnacles, brachiopods and oysters living at the same time as elephants, but we don't find fossil mammoths mixed in with trilobites or ammonites. For that matter, we don't find fossil mammoths mixed in with dinosaurs or plesiosaurs, or fossil belemnites mixed in with fossil trilobites. The point is that the fossil shells of the Cenozoic were completely different from the fossil shells of the Paleozoic, and you can't treat them as though they were the same.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Colbard, posted 12-08-2014 8:58 AM Colbard has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022