The order of fossils in the geological column

[janxharris]

Does the order of the fossils found, from lowest to highest, equate to what Darwinists (or Neo-Darwinists if preferred) would expect to find. Can they therefore say that the order of fossils that we would expect to find from the Noachian flood is inconsistent with the reality?

 

[lasthero]

Why would see any order at all from a flood?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Does the order of the fossils found, from lowest to highest, equate to what Darwinists (or Neo-Darwinists if preferred) would expect to find. Can they therefore say that the order of fossils that we would expect to find from the Noachian flood is inconsistent with the reality?

Basically yes and yes.

 

[SkyWriting]

Does the order of the fossils found, from lowest to highest, equate to what Darwinists (or Neo-Darwinists if preferred) would expect to find. Can they therefore say that the order of fossils that we would expect to find from the Noachian flood is inconsistent with the reality?

There is enough chaos in the geologic column to keep flood geologists from abandoning the idea that the Noachian flood is responsible for all of it. The scriptures to not demand that interpretation though they allow for it by being vague about geology.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Basically yes and yes.

Just to expand a little on this. Creationists implicitly acknowledge that the order of fossils agrees with an evolutionary process. Therefore this evidence is something their hypothesis also has to explain. And, if their hypothesis is to win, it should explain this evidence better than standard evolutionary theory. To quote one example of this, here is Henry Morris:

"The various fossil assemblages represent, not evolutionary stages developing over many ages, but rather ecological habitats in various parts of the world in one age. Fossils of simple marine invertebrate animals are normally found at the lowest elevations in the geologic strata for the simple reason that they live at the lowest elevations. Fossils or birds and mammals are found only at the higher elevations because they live at higher elevations and also because they are more mobile and could escape burial longer. Human fossils are extremely rare because men would only very rarely be trapped and buried in flood sediments at all, because of their high mobility."

The idea seems to be that the fossils are sorted not by time and evolution, but by differential drowning.

This idea seems very implausible, given the evidence. Why should, say, bony fish and millipedes drown the same as each other, and be found together in the Silurian, and mammals be entirely absent? Why should non-flowering plants be worse swimmers than flowering plants, which only appear in the Cretaceous onward?

 

[lasthero]

One of the glaring things for me about that sort of model is this part:

Fossils or birds and mammals are found only at the higher elevations because they live at higher elevations and also because they are more mobile and could escape burial longer.

If this is true, why do flightless birds like dodos appear AFTER flying birds, and long after flying reptiles?

And why are fossil eggs always found in the same layers as the things they come from?

If this held any water, we would expect to find birds like dodos well below their flying cousins, along with the other land animals. We would expect to find eggs generally at the bottom, since they can't move at all, and they would, for the most part, not be found with their adult counterparts.

But that's not what we see. At all.

 

[Loudmouth]

Does the order of the fossils found, from lowest to highest, equate to what Darwinists (or Neo-Darwinists if preferred) would expect to find. Can they therefore say that the order of fossils that we would expect to find from the Noachian flood is inconsistent with the reality?

It's also important to keep in mind that it you are only talking about relative depth. In some places, Cambrian deposits are right on the surface while in other parts of the world Cambrian deposits are buried under hundreds of feet of sediment.

What flood geologists really need to explain is the relationship between fossil species and the ratio of isotopes in the igneous rocks above and below them. How does a flood sort fossils and igneous rock so that dinosaurs are only found below igneous rock that has a U/Pb ratio consistent with 65 million years of decay? You can argue up and down about whether or not radioactive decay is constant or other topics. What can't be argued is the actual measured ratio of those elements, and there is a huge correlation between those ratios and fossil species that flood geology can not explain.

The Theory of Evolution can explain the relationship between isotope ratios and fossil species quite easily.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Does the order of the fossils found, from lowest to highest, equate to what Darwinists (or Neo-Darwinists if preferred) would expect to find. Can they therefore say that the order of fossils that we would expect to find from the Noachian flood is inconsistent with the reality?

Noah's flood probably wouldn't have created sediment layers or fossils over a wide area. After the initial inwash critters would still be bloated and floating long after most sedimentation occurred, then the outwash would have washed away most organisms that might have sunk and been shallowly buried by the very fine silt sediments.

 

[janxharris]

It's also important to keep in mind that it you are only talking about relative depth. In some places, Cambrian deposits are right on the surface while in other parts of the world Cambrian deposits are buried under hundreds of feet of sediment.

What flood geologists really need to explain is the relationship between fossil species and the ratio of isotopes in the igneous rocks above and below them. How does a flood sort fossils and igneous rock so that dinosaurs are only found below igneous rock that has a U/Pb ratio consistent with 65 million years of decay? You can argue up and down about whether or not radioactive decay is constant or other topics. What can't be argued is the actual measured ratio of those elements, and there is a huge correlation between those ratios and fossil species that flood geology can not explain.

The Theory of Evolution can explain the relationship between isotope ratios and fossil species quite easily.

Thanks. Is there a book or website that goes into a little more detail on this? - I don't know enough to follow your meaning closely yet.

 

[janxharris]

Why would see any order at all from a flood?

So we would expect no order at all?

 

[janxharris]

There is enough chaos in the geologic column to keep flood geologists from abandoning the idea that the Noachian flood is responsible for all of it. The scriptures to not demand that interpretation though they allow for it by being vague about geology.

Do you have any more info on this - a website?

 

[Seipai]

Noah's flood probably wouldn't have created sediment layers or fossils over a wide area. After the initial inwash critters would still be bloated and floating long after most sedimentation occurred, then the outwash would have washed away most organisms that might have sunk and been shallowly buried by the very fine silt sediments.

Yes we find dinosaur eggs only with the dinosaurs of the same species. We don't find them many layers early or many layers late.

I don't know why you even try to repeat this tripe. These claims were debunked by people who actually studied this long before you were born.

There is no self consistent Flood model. They all are eventually debunked by the physical evidence that says there was no Flood.

 

[Seipai]

Do you have any more info on this - a website?

No, all he has is his unfounded opinion.

 

[Seipai]

So we would expect no order at all?

It is up to Flood protagonists to support their claims.

We know that various sediments that we observe could not have come from a flood.

There are mountains based on limestone that came from coral reefs. Coral reefs grow vertically at the rate of millimeters per millennium. Creationists constantly try to conflate the rate of coral growth with the rate of growth of coral reefs. That is a grave error. You would not equate the rate of growth of forest soil with the growth rate of trees.

Remember it is up to the person making the positive claim to support evidence for their claims. Creationists are always long on claims and short on evidence. They want others to do their homework for them.

 

[Seipai]

A free geology course that would be well worth anyone's time who has not studied the science:

Introduction to Geology | Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences | MIT OpenCourseWare

 

[Loudmouth]

Thanks. Is there a book or website that goes into a little more detail on this? - I don't know enough to follow your meaning yet.

A good site is this one:

Radiometric Dating Does Work! | NCSE

One of the sections talks about the dating of the K/T boundary, below which we find dinosaurs and above which we do not. Multiple sites date to the same time period using multiple methods from multiple labs. How is a flood able to sort dinosaur fossils so that they end up under rock of a specific age? No flood model can explain it.

 

[janxharris]

One of the glaring things for me about that sort of model is this part:



If this is true, why do flightless birds like dodos appear AFTER flying birds, and long after flying reptiles?

And why are fossil eggs always found in the same layers as the things they come from?

If this held any water, we would expect to find birds like dodos well below their flying cousins, along with the other land animals. We would expect to find eggs generally at the bottom, since they can't move at all, and they would, for the most part, not be found with their adult counterparts.

But that's not what we see. At all.

Good points. I have, as yet, no refutation.

 

[janxharris]

Henry Morris says this in Geology and the Flood :

Neither does the age depend upon the mineralogic or petrologic character of a rock, as is obvious from the fact that rocks of all types of composition, structure, and degree of hardness can be found in any "age".

Is he correct?

 

[janxharris]

No, all he has is his unfounded opinion.

You seem pretty angry.

 

[lasthero]

Good points. I have, as yet, no refutation.

...hm. Well, I have to give you credit, you're more honest about it than pretty much every creationist I've discussed it with. Typically, these sort of points are just dismissed as insignificant, for no explained reason.

I could point out other things, but those are just the big two problems that always stuck with me.