Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 74 (9011 total)
62 online now:
nwr, Phat (AdminPhat) (2 members, 60 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
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 10 of 1163 (785973)
06-14-2016 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Adequate
06-13-2016 2:08 PM


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 that the whole idea is a delusion, mostly having to do with the millions of years between "records" and the fact that the "record" is so neatly stacked in layers of different kinds of rock which defies the explanation of normal death and burial. A major proof against the Old Earth explanation is the apparent lack of normal surface activity on the earth as shown by the relative flatness of the layers, and some of knife-edge flatness, all the way up through the "Quaternary" period, at which time massive disturbances of the surface of the earth are evident for the first time in all that history. This is evident in the Grand Canyon particularly, where the layers are exposed to such a great depth, but it is easily enough inferred from less clearcut exposures. I've proved this many times.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-13-2016 2:08 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-14-2016 2:35 AM Faith has responded
 Message 14 by jar, posted 06-14-2016 9:04 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 16 by edge, posted 06-14-2016 9:39 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 12 of 1163 (785976)
06-14-2016 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Dr Adequate
06-14-2016 2:35 AM


You "show" a lot of false stuff. Who cares? What I said is true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-14-2016 2:35 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-14-2016 5:42 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 18 of 1163 (785991)
06-14-2016 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Dr Adequate
06-14-2016 5:42 AM


Of course photographs can lie. Yours are particularly adept at it. Just pick a photo of phenotypic diversity in the whole collection of dogs and you lie through your teeth about the reduced genetic diversity in the separate breeds. Just pick a photo of a collapsed section of strata and pretend it is about the laying down of the strata. You bet photos lie.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-14-2016 5:42 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-14-2016 10:54 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 21 of 1163 (786064)
06-15-2016 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by edge
06-15-2016 10:53 AM


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.

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. Also, evolution occurs rapidly within a Species or Kind. All living creatures would be dead in far less than a million years.

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.

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.

\ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by edge, posted 06-15-2016 10:53 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by edge, posted 06-15-2016 11:52 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 23 of 1163 (786071)
06-15-2016 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by edge
06-15-2016 11:52 AM


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

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.

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.

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

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

Well, I'll post the cross section, which certainly fits exactly what I described. Layers all laid down before they were tectonically upended. No other way to interpret it. No sign of such a disturbance between the Paleozoic and the Mesozoic. 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.

No point in repeating the rest of my irrefutable post.

If you so enjoy baiting us then don't complain if we take the bait.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by edge, posted 06-15-2016 11:52 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by edge, posted 06-15-2016 1:16 PM Faith has responded
 Message 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-16-2016 12:42 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 25 of 1163 (786082)
06-15-2016 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by edge
06-15-2016 1:16 PM


Re: The fossil order is some kind of illusion, proved by all the evidence of the Flood
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?

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

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.

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.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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 24 by edge, posted 06-15-2016 1:16 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by edge, posted 06-15-2016 7:34 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 29 of 1163 (786100)
06-16-2016 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Dr Adequate
06-16-2016 12:42 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-16-2016 12:42 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-16-2016 1:43 PM Faith has responded
 Message 32 by edge, posted 06-16-2016 2:10 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 31 of 1163 (786102)
06-16-2016 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Dr Adequate
06-16-2016 1:43 PM


Re: OFFS
The rift that separated the Americas from Europe and Africa divided them down to the ocean floor and includes the Atlantic RIDGE between them that continuously burps up magma and continues to push them apart. This supposedly occurred during the Permian period. I would expect some disturbance of strata , and so should you.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-16-2016 1:43 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-16-2016 2:55 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 33 of 1163 (786105)
06-16-2016 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by edge
06-16-2016 2:10 PM


Your comments about the strata have no bearing on my point as far as I can tell from your utter lack of explanatory comment.

As for the fossil order I already said there isn't yet a clear explanation from the Flood point of view. The explanations that have been tried all have some merit, but none is conclusive and all have problems. So there is no point in focusing on it. There are plenty of other arguments that support the Flood and blast the ToE to smithereens.

ABE: Since this is all off topic, and there is no creationist answer to the OP, I think this is my last post on this thread. You should soon run out of things to say with no creationist to bash.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by edge, posted 06-16-2016 2:10 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 35 of 1163 (786107)
06-16-2016 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Dr Adequate
06-16-2016 2:55 PM


there was no Atlantic ridge when the rift formed
Yes, the rifting of the Atlantic caused and is still causing the production of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Do you know where, Faith? In the middle of the Atlantic. Hence the name, Faith. This is why it isn't called the Mid-British Ridge. See, the tectonic activity takes place where the tectonic activity takes place, and not somewhere else.

I'm starting to worry about your thinking processes, Dr. A. When the rift occurred it split the continents exactly where the UK happens to sit, right on the western edge of the European continent. There was no Atlantic ridge as yet because there was no Atlantic Ocean as yet.

I looked up the stuff a long time ago. Since there are no millions of years and this is all a hypothetical argument anyway it hardly matters which Fake Time Period it supposedly occurred in --there should be evidence of disturbance whenever it was. It's pretty clear to me that the split ACTUALLY occurred during the end phase of the Flood or shortly thereafter, probably in connection with a lot of volcanic activity at all the rifts between the various splitting continents, that this all occurred after all the strata were laid down, and that it shook things up quite a bit, producing mountains on both sides of the opening Atlantic, causing the deformation of the strata as shown on the cross sections of England posted. And the same shaking-up accounts for ALL the tectonic deformations everywhere on earth, including the cutting of the Grand Canyon. Though I think the Rockies formed later, or at least more slowly, by the continuous tectonic pushing of the continents after the drift was underway.

But as this is all off topic I really should leave you and edge to your Cooperative Creationist Bashing enterprise.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-16-2016 2:55 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-16-2016 3:17 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 37 of 1163 (786109)
06-16-2016 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Dr Adequate
06-16-2016 3:17 PM


Re: there was no Atlantic ridge when the rift formed
There is nothing to say about the fossil order, why do you keep nagging about it?

The disturbance in question should have occurred to the layers associated with the supposed time the rift occurred. You need to show a distinction between disturbance to the Jurassic layers and those underlying it, and the rest of the strata of England. There is none.

I'm trying to respect the topic of your thread by leaving it.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-16-2016 3:17 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-16-2016 3:28 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 39 by Faith, posted 06-16-2016 4:07 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 39 of 1163 (786111)
06-16-2016 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Faith
06-16-2016 3:20 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 06-16-2016 3:20 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by edge, posted 06-16-2016 4:26 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 42 of 1163 (786114)
06-16-2016 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Dr Adequate
06-16-2016 5:44 PM


Re: Passive Margin -- not
Just saw your post, haven't seen edge's. The margins are passive NOW, but when the magma rose up THROUGH the supercontinent right on the edge of where the UK is now, which I think was positioned up against where Greenland is now -- both sides of the rift had to have been affected, disturbed, deformed. Tthe continents were TOGETHER then, ONE HUGE SUPERCONTINENT that spanned west to east from California to China oir Siberia or something like that -- the rift SPLIT them, the Atlantic ridge was formed IN THE RIFT, but was not the Atlantic ridge as we know it until the continents were fairly far apart; and the volcanic action was probably a lot of the reason FOR the rift, and it was RIGHT THERE dividing the British Isles from the AMerican continent. There was no Atlantic Ocean until the continents had moved apart sufficiently. Really, Dear Dear Dr. A, there is something wrong with your thinker on this subject.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-16-2016 5:44 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 43 of 1163 (786115)
06-16-2016 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by edge
06-16-2016 4:26 PM


Re: there was no Atlantic ridge when the rift formed
WHEN THE CONTINENTS SPLIT, at that very point where the volcanic action was happening at the very rift where it split, any passive margin would have suffered some active disturbance.

Since there is NO sign of any disturbance to a select number of layers from the Jurassic down, but only to ALL of them after they were ALL in place, perhaps it's fair to say that the degree of disturbance we see in the upended strata can be called "minimal." But it is definitely disturbed and not in the "time period" where Geology says the continents separated, but AFTER all of them were in place --which is when it seems to me the Creationist to be somewhere around the last weeks of the abating of the Flood waters, or later or earlier but somewhere in THAT time period. There is certainly disturbance there in those deformed rocks of which Merrie Olde England is composed. The passive margin seems to have nothing to do with the observed phenomena.

Your problem is that your brain is locked in to establishment Geology. You don't know how to think outside the box.

The Great Chalk was deposited during the Flood, apparently at the level called Cretaceous. It has nothing to do with millions of years of time. The continents did not split until after the Flood so the supercontinent would have been intact when the chalk was deposited as a layer, the rift not forming until ALL the strata were laid down right through the "Recent" time periods.

ABE: I agree with Asgara that all this is off topic. I have nothing to say about the fossils as presented in the OP. So I'm gone from this thread.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by edge, posted 06-16-2016 4:26 PM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by dwise1, posted 06-17-2016 1:43 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 47 of 1163 (786136)
06-17-2016 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by dwise1
06-17-2016 1:43 AM


Re: there was no Atlantic ridge when the rift formed
I don't even know why there would be any question about the sequence of the layers, which lay atop which. You seem to think there's some question. I don't get it. Of course one was laid upon another.

Then you go on:

If we find the fossil of an organism within layer B, can we not assume that that organism must have been present when layer B was deposited? If not, then do explain why not.

What do you mean by "present?" The usual picture is of organisms being carried along with sediments and buried together.

In other words, it does make complete sense that the organisms whose remains are found in the various layers were indeed around when those layers were deposited.

"Around?" You mean overtaken by the sediments that buried them? If that's what you are picturing, and I really don't know for sure, then I think that could have happened in some cases but I think the usual idea is that most of them would have been carried as corpses (though some still living) in the sediment-laden water and deposited together with the sediment.

It does not matter what absolute time period that happened. Layer A was deposited after B which was deposited after C which was deposited after D.

Of course.

Regardless of any absolute dating of the layers, we know full well what the relative dating of those layers are. So if something was buried in layer D, then that had to have happened when D was being deposited. So when we find something deposited in C, we know that it was buried after that something in D was buried. Relative dating!

Of course. Successive depositions.

So then, yes Faith, the presence of a fossil within a given layer does indeed have everything to do with when it existed.

I'm afraid this is a non sequitur in relation to your premises. It's not about a difference in time of existence, only in time of burial, which on the Flood model could have taken as little time as hours, or possibly days or even weeks, but not likely longer. The Flood idea is that all the fossilized creatures were living at the same time, and all died in the Flood, and all were carried in the Flood waters to their burial place and deposited in some sort of order having to do with mechanical principles involving things like size and weight, possibly place of origin, and how water would behave under the circumstances.

Ages do indeed correspond with layers. You may not agree with the ages assigned to a given layer, but you cannot possibly disagree that the age of something buried within a given layer must agree with the age of that given layer.

Your logic is badly flawed somewhere in this picture of things, since you are talking about "ages," which is hardly the word for layers laid down within days or weeks at the longest.

If you disagree, then please explain yourself.

Hope I have done so above.

Claiming adherence to an inflexible dogma is not an acceptable explanation.

I don't think I've ever done that in a discussion of how the Flood might have worked.

By the way, however, there is nothing less dogmatic about the Old Earth interpretations of Geology or the ToE explanations of biology.

Especially considering that that is the explanation for your own untenable position.

??? Creationists do try to make sense of the physical world apart from Biblical foundations.

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 45 by dwise1, posted 06-17-2016 1:43 AM dwise1 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