Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 74 (9011 total)
50 online now:
AZPaul3, nwr, ramoss (3 members, 47 visitors)
Newest Member: Burrawang
Post Volume: Total: 881,566 Year: 13,314/23,288 Month: 244/795 Week: 40/33 Day: 12/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Great Creationist Fossil Failure
edge
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 15 of 1163 (785986)
06-14-2016 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by herebedragons
06-13-2016 11:25 PM


I guess what gets me is how every creationist "mechanism" works independent of other "mechanisms" and which one is invoked depends on the particular argument. For example, "differential motility" is used to explain the order of the fossil record. But then when in a discussion of the geological column, we have all the land being stripped down to bare rock in order to generate enough sediment to form the mile deep deposits, then being rapidly deposited as the flood recedes. The seemingly contradictory nature of these ideas - land being stripped bare from top to bottom and animals running to the highest points - is completely lost on creationists since they are meant to explain different things.

The quality or logic of an argument is irrelevant to a creationist since they already know what the right answer is. Even if an argument is obviously irrational, it doesn't matter because it comes up with the right answer anyway.


A classic example of ad hoc explanation(s).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by herebedragons, posted 06-13-2016 11:25 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 16 of 1163 (785987)
06-14-2016 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Faith
06-14-2016 2:25 AM


It is because there is no clear way to explain the supposed order of the fossil record that I now avoid it. But there are plenty of other proofs ...

Are you trying to hijack the thread?

At least we agree that YEC has no explanation for the fossil record. Thank you for going that far.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 06-14-2016 2:25 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 17 of 1163 (785988)
06-14-2016 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Adequate
06-13-2016 2:08 PM


Creationists are dimly aware that the fossil record exhibits order, ...

An excellent treatment of the topic. Thank you for taking the time to put this together.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-13-2016 2:08 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 20 of 1163 (786061)
06-15-2016 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Adequate
06-13-2016 2:08 PM


We should not anticipate that any creationist will ever explain the actual features of the fossil record in terms of the Flood. It is unlikely at this late date that any of them is going to find out what the fossil record looks like, an activity which would both contradict their prejudices and involve doing some actual work. But I invite any creationist who wants to to give it a try.

And of course anyone else is free to point out problems with the creationist model as it stands. I can think of several more, but this post has gone on long enough ... and the horse is dead.


I think that part of the issue for YECs is that they do not understand the time element involved in the depositional order of fossils. To them, all fossils were deposited in one year, therefor they are all of the same age.

This is kind of the pre-scientific view of fossils where they were thought to be just randomly scattered through the rocks, and possibly, not even the remains of living organisms.

This all came to a crashing halt over 200 years ago when William Smith started mapping the distribution of fossils and recognized their confinement to certain ages of rocks. Before that, no one realized that you could sort a collection of fossils into the exact order that they occur in rock layers ion the field.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-13-2016 2:08 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 06-15-2016 11:12 AM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 22 of 1163 (786068)
06-15-2016 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Faith
06-15-2016 11:12 AM


We understand your ridiculous time scheme just fine, but we KNOW the fossils were deposited in one year while your explanation of millions of years is a bizarre delusion. The strata don't show any differences of age between them, their very existence as layers defies the whole idea of deposition over millions of years which you ought to be able to see yourself if you just opened your eyes. There is tons of evidence that the fossils were rapidly buried, and all of them from bottom to top of the geologic column in the same kind of conditions conducive to fossilization, which conditions are normallyt very rare but exactly what a worldwide Flood would bring about.

Thank you for making my point.

There were a lot of weird explanations for fossils at the beginning of geology as a science, but not by "creationists" who weren't a particular category back then, as most geologists would have considered themselves creationists. Also those ideas were UNBIBLICAL. Today's Creationism is based on the Bible. Those weird ideas had to be given up, but the ideas that supplanted them are just as irrational and fantastical.

Again, you make my point. However, I might quibble over whether the original fossil collectors were 'creationists' or not. They were certainly neptunists and they had their own interpretation of the Bible.

His maps are wonderful but the idea of different ages of rocks is ludicrous. In fact all you have to do is look at his cross section of England to see that they were all laid down at the same time and afterward tectonically forced into their current semi-upright position. The idea that they were each laid down in time periods millions of years apart is defied by that cross section. Especially when you recognize the part of Geology that has the breaking up of a former supercontinent called Pangaea at the end of the Paleozoic period, but there isn't any sign of disturbance to the strata already in place at that time according to OE theory, although there should have been a lot of tectonic disturbance with that event. Nope, just layer after layer as usual, even after the continents split apart -- a miracle of sorts -- and ONLY after ALL were in place THEN we see the tectonic disturbance that pushed them into their current semi-upright position. Ending the Geologic Column itself too. Cause it was all formed by the Flood of Noah.(bold added)

Thank you for admitting that your version of the fossil record is miraculous in nature. That's exactly what I was saying.

As to the rest of this statement, it is totally, demonstrably wrong to any reasonable person.

The apparent order of the fossils is an interesting phenomenon but there is so much evidence of a young earth if you just open your eyes, the OE explanation of that order doesn't hold water.

The 'apparent order of the fossils' works pretty well, though. It is explanatory and predictive (successfully so, I might add).

But I'm glad you admit there isn't enough water for a fludde.

If you want your thread not to be hijacked by creationists, baiting creationists with your absurd theories is not the way to go about it. And I'm REBUTTING the OP anyway.

But YECs are so easy to bait.

Hard to resist...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 06-15-2016 11:12 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 06-15-2016 12:25 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 24 of 1163 (786079)
06-15-2016 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
06-15-2016 12:25 PM


Re: The fossil order is some kind of illusion, proved by all the evidence of the Flood
Right the original fossil collectors were neptunists, which is not creationism, ...

And I didn't say that it was.

.. but the point was that most geologists would have claimed to be Christians, even though their ideas about the fossils were not biblical.

Well, they thought that their ideas were biblical ... just as you do.

I see by what you bolded that you misread what I was calling miraculous -- it was the OE idea that the layers could have continued to be laid down without exhibiting any signs of disturbance even after the continents split apart. THAT idea indeed implies a miracle of sorts.

Is there some reason that a rock layer MUST be deformed? Everywhere?

The Flood was not miraculous, it was real, and evidence for that is that the fossils are real, great evidence for a catastrophic killing and burial of enormous numbers of living things by water; ...

Well, if you were getting buried, yes, you'd see that as catastrophic.

The point is that fossils are being buried all the time, even now (well, they're not fossils yet, but they are on the way).

And, just why are the sorted in the way that they are? Why no Cambrian rabbits or Mesozoic kangaroos?

I mean if it was catastrophic, why are they not jumbled all together?

... and the strata are real, great evidence for deposition by water, layer after layer to an enormous depth.

Yes, the strata are real.

The point being?

Well, I'll post the cross section, which certainly fits exactly what I described.

Problem is that the mainstream science explanation explains it even better, particularly when you get away from this section and look at other parts of the world.

You are committing exactly what we described earlier as an ad hoc explanation. It may work in the south of Great Britain (though certainly not in detail), but not everywhehre such as a Siccar Point.

Well, it's not inherently necessary at any given point on earth. However, it is true elsewhere.

You'd think the splitting up of a continent would have some effect on the layers supposedly already laid down, but Nope, even after the split according to that ridiculous scenario they just keep stacking up as usual, but in reality there was no tectonic disturbance until all were in place, which pushed the entire stack as a unit into its semi-upright position.

Please explain to us why every point on the earth should show the same degree of deformation. Perhaps you have some references, not of your own making, that show this to be the case.

By the way, here is a little more detailed section of the south of Great Britain that shows unconformities and differential deformation according to age.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 06-15-2016 12:25 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 06-15-2016 4:19 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 26 of 1163 (786083)
06-15-2016 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Faith
06-15-2016 4:19 PM


Re: The fossil order is some kind of illusion, proved by all the evidence of the Flood
Well, there is for this particular location. If all that deformation seen in the cross section occurred after all the strata were laid down, wouldn't you expect deformation to have occurred at the point where there was a separation of formerly joined continents?

No, but you stray off-topic.

Must have been a bit of wrenching and banging and crashing going on as it got underway, attended with the volcanism of the Atlantic trench which of course is that line where the continents split, and England is right smack ON that line where Europe split from the Americas.

No, and no.

In fact, there is no Atlantic Trench.

Just seems a little odd to me, and something geologists seem to have overlooked.

I'm sure you are more clever than all of them.

Shall we get back on topic?

I didn't say that though, I referred only to England, which should have been particularly affected because it's right on the line where the major split from the Americas occurred. And since the split occurred somewhere around the Permian, as I recall, you'd think there would be SOME record of the split in all the layers from that layer down to basement rock. But instead they all appear to have been affected by the same disturbance at the same time AFTER they were all in place, including all from the Permian upward as well as below, with no sign of a difference in the Permian or lower layers as one would reasonably expect. How can that be? In fact how could it be that strata could just go on as usual depositing one upon another while the continents are moving apart? I'm sure you can deny it because you're very good at that, but in reality it makes no sense at all, and shows that the whole idea of millions of years is false.

You want me to move away from this cross section, but the cross section is smack on the split between the continents. That's what makes it the perfect example for the point I'm making.

Oh and the cross section you posted shows the same thing: all the strata affected as a unit after all were laid down.


Actually not. The more detailed section shows more erosion and deformation in the lower layers.

And no, the section is not located on the continental 'split'. You've only left out all of Ireland in your analysis.

Do you want to talk about Ireland? I know the geology there a little bit better...

Now, to the extent that stratigraphy and paleontology are kind of hard to separate, I suppose we might be considered on topic, but I'd like an opinion from a moderator before we continue this discussion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 06-15-2016 4:19 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by AdminAsgara, posted 06-15-2016 8:29 PM edge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 32 of 1163 (786103)
06-16-2016 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Faith
06-16-2016 1:26 PM


Re: OFFS
The scale has nothing to do with the point I was making. I made it, it's made.

Then you will notice that the dip of the Chalk (on the right) is less than the dip of the Red Sandstone (on the left).

The scale exaggeration actually accents this difference.

Also, you should look at the more detailed cross-section that I presented, which also shows the Great Unconformity along with some lesser unconformities.

And the question still remains, what about the progression of fossils from left to right on either section. How do you explain the definitive differences? Smith made a point, but all you do is ignore it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 06-16-2016 1:26 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 06-16-2016 2:24 PM edge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 40 of 1163 (786112)
06-16-2016 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Faith
06-16-2016 4:07 PM


Re: there was no Atlantic ridge when the rift formed
IT SHOULD HAVE DISTURBED THE JURASSIC LAYERS ON DOWN, AND NOT DISTURBED THE HIGHER LAYERS BECAUSE THEY WEREN"T LAID DOWN YET. SHEESH.

You're wrong about that and you're wrong about where the rift occurred in relation to the UK.


If anyone is interested, Google 'passive margin' and see what turns up.

It will explain Faith's confusion on this issue. It turns out that the west edge of the European tectonic plate is a passive margin. In fact, it was so passive that the great Chalk could be deposited during the Cretaceous Period, trillions of tiny coccoliths raining down on a quiet sea floor for millions of years. Impossible, of course, according to YEC dogma.

But it is the nature of passive margins to have a minimal amount of deformation compared to other types of plate boundaries.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Faith, posted 06-16-2016 4:07 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-16-2016 5:44 PM edge has not yet responded
 Message 43 by Faith, posted 06-16-2016 7:48 PM edge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 56 of 1163 (786190)
06-18-2016 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Dr Adequate
06-17-2016 1:03 PM


Re: TOPIC
Let's try to make it clearer There is a sharp distinction between the Cenozoic fossil faunas of Africa and South America; there is a marked similarity between the Mesozoic fossil faunas of Africa and South America. I find the explanation obvious: the Atlantic was present in the Cenozoic but absent in the Mesozoic.

This is an interesting topic. Over the last few years, I've been toying with the idea that rifting events have some effect on the rate of evolution. Certainly it would cause isolation as you suggest, allowing evolution to take different directions on separated land masses.

But I'm wondering if there isn't something else. Just look at where humans came into existence on earth: the East African Rift area, an area of incipient continental rifting.

Then there's the evolution of dinosaurs during the Permo-Triassic when North America started to pull away from Africa (though they were probably still connected, just as Africa is still in one piece today).

My contention is that it is not a coincidence that we name the major eras, such as Cenozoic, Mesozoic, Proterozoic, etc., based on the dominant types of life present at the time. This practice goes back to the 1800s as geology was just developing as a science ... no absolute ages available, just raw paleontological data. It was that obvious. Could it have something to do withe the development of geotectonics and its various effects?

So, the effect of geological events or processes on the biology of earth seem undeniable. I wonder what Faith's interpretation of this evidence is.

Probably simple denial.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-17-2016 1:03 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 73 of 1163 (786220)
06-18-2016 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by dwise1
06-18-2016 11:02 PM


Re: conflicting creationist mechanisms
There is another ruinous part to the Stuart Nevins story. Steve Austin has claimed that the aftermath of the Mount Saint Helens eruption is what converted him to Young Earth Creationism. However, the fact is that he had published creationist articles as Stuart Nevins long prior to the eruption. Draw you own conclusion...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by dwise1, posted 06-18-2016 11:02 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 06-19-2016 12:48 AM edge has responded
 Message 75 by Faith, posted 06-19-2016 1:08 AM edge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 83 of 1163 (786239)
06-19-2016 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Faith
06-19-2016 12:48 AM


Re: conflicting creationist mechanisms
PLEASE POST PROOF. This is highly unlikely and I suspect slander.

Here is a report from Karen Bartlett in 1998, on a trip to the ICR creation museum led by Steve Austin.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-visit/bartelt1.html

"At the end of the presentation Austin was confronted by another member of our group, who asked, "Whatever happened to Stuart Nevins? Does he publish anymore?" Those of you familiar with ICR literature may recognize the name from tracts published in the late 70's. Austin admitted that he had published under that penname. So much for his recent, Mt. St. Helen's-induced conversion to creationism."

Here is an article published by Stuart Nevins M.S.:

http://www.icr.org/article/origin-coal/

We see that many positive evidences have appeared which strongly support the allochthonous theory and the accumulation of many of the coal layers during the Noachian Flood. Upright fossil trees within coal seams suggest rapid accumulation of the vegetable debris. Marine animals and terrestrial (not swamp-dwelling) plants in coal imply transportation. The microstructure of many coal strata shows particle orientation, sorted texture, and microlamination indicating transportation (not growth-in-place) of plant material. Boulders present in coal demonstrate transportation processes. The absence of a soil below many coal strata argues for the drifting of coal-forming plants. Coal appears to form a regular and typical portion of the cyclothem being as clearly water-laid as the other rocks. Experiments in the alteration of vegetable material show that coal resembling anthracite does not require millions of years to form, but can be produced rapidly by a short heating process.

There is no date on this article, but note the "M.S." after the author's name, so we can infer that it was before Austin received his PhD in 1979.

Mt. Saint Helens erupted in 1980.

Note that the article is written for the ICR which does not publish non-creationists and that Nevins hits all of the talking points on coal as though he is thoroughly steeped in them.

There is more that I've heard from verbal communication with some of his contemporaries, but that would be hearsay at this point.

Basically, the record shows that Steve Austin plays loose and fast with the facts. He is not to be trusted in any legitimate forum.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 06-19-2016 12:48 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Faith, posted 06-19-2016 2:26 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 85 of 1163 (786241)
06-19-2016 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Faith
06-19-2016 9:03 AM


Re: The Redwall Limestone: A Case In Point
You obviously think all this proves something against the Flood but it's exactly what we'd expect of the antediluvian world -- creatures galore of a different form from those that came later.

Okay so, from which antedeluvian (Precambrian?) animal did the lobster micro-evolve from?

I mean, if they all lived together, or at least at the same time, why not find some lobster-like creature in the Precambrian?

And I haven't even started on dinosaurs or mammals yet.

Some pretty odd ones in comparison with those we are familiar with, though recognizably the same species.

So then, the precursors should be pretty easy to find, eh?

Most species change, you know, they microevolve all the time, few are going to stay the same. Those that got preserved as fossils are simply the forms that were thriving in the antediluvian world. Those we have now either evolved from those that survived, or happened to be the type that did survive-- that's all that makes them "modern," that they are living today.

Okay, so trace that lineage back to the antedeluvian world. Some YEC researcher must have done that by now.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Faith, posted 06-19-2016 9:03 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Faith, posted 06-19-2016 10:54 AM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 90 of 1163 (786247)
06-19-2016 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Faith
06-19-2016 10:54 AM


Re: The Redwall Limestone: A Case In Point
"Antediluvian" means pre-Flood. The Flood built ALL the strata, not just the Precambrian rocks.

http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/...roups/crustacea/fossils.html

It seems like you are saying that lobster-like creatures evolved during the fludde.

Or are you saying that there are not rocks that are pre-fludde so that you don't have to provide evidence for your statement?

Well, it turns out that we do have marine fossils older than the Jurassic, so where are the precursors from which the Jurassic creatures micro-evolved?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Faith, posted 06-19-2016 10:54 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Faith, posted 06-19-2016 1:50 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 99 of 1163 (786267)
06-19-2016 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Faith
06-19-2016 1:50 PM


Re: The Redwall Limestone: A Case In Point
WHy does it seem like I'm saying that?

Because you said that they came along later than the antedeluvial creatures.

I don't know why you asked about lobsters anyway, so I just pointed out that they occur higher in the geo column than the Pre-Cambrian.

So, where were they when the Precambrian deposits occurred?

What?

The only thing I said microevolved is TODAY's creatures, that evolved from pre-Flood creatures.


And I'm asking what pre-flood creature did the lobster micro-evolve from?

I didn't say anyting about Jurassic creatures microevolving.

The picture you showed was from a Jurassic species.

It wasn't pre-flood.

Like all the rest of the fossils in the entire geo column they all died in the Flood and that's what we see in all the strata -- creatures that died in the Flood.

Or creatures that just died in any body of water.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Faith, posted 06-19-2016 1:50 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Faith, posted 06-19-2016 3:07 PM edge has not yet 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