Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Loudmouth]

If the strata were formed rapidly and catastrophically (and there are many indications that it was), then no, we would certainly not expect to find all life forms in all strata.

Why wouldn't we expect to see mammals in the oldest sediments?

For starters, we would only expect to find remnants of benthic sea-floor ecosystems in the lowest layers of strata.

Why wouldn't these include whale carcasses, bony fish, and other modern species? Why is there a complete lack of modern bony fish in the lowest layers of marine strata?

 

[dad]

Why wouldn't we expect to see mammals in the oldest sediments?

Why should we!?

 

[Loudmouth]

Why should we!?

There weren't any mammals prior to the flood?

 

[dad]

There weren't any mammals prior to the flood?

Not in sediments preserved apparently. No man either.

 

[lifepsyop]

No, it wouldn't. It would be a real problem, because what we have here is a clear lineage. It shows the gradual evolution from one animal into another. The whale's ancestry would not be called into question by say, an ambulocetus found very recently; however, given that it's currently understood that whales evolved from land-bound mammals, finding a whale fossil before land-bound mammals like pakicetus would most likely be very problematic. We'd need to examine if the entire sequence needs to be shifted backwards based on the fossil evidence, and whether that's even possible given the surrounding geological evidence.

That is totally inconsistent reasoning.

Evidence of advanced tetrapods were found before the prevailing non-tetrapod/tetrapod "transition" model. This was not a problem for Evolution.

How would it then be a problem that whale fossils are found before the prevailing non-whale/whale "transition model?

You can't have one without the other. Evolutionists would appeal to the exact same explanatory device: That lineages exhibiting more basal whale traits fossilized after whales had already evolved.

 

[lifepsyop]

Why wouldn't we expect to see mammals in the oldest sediments?

Because mammals generally do not make their livings on the sea-floor. Despite what evolutionists seem to believe, it is unlikely that rabbits would be swimming underwater with trilobites.

Why wouldn't these include whale carcasses, bony fish, and other modern species? Why is there a complete lack of modern bony fish in the lowest layers of marine strata?

This discussion would go on for dozens of pages. I've had it many times. Unfortunately we are limited to a lot of ad-hoc speculation without knowing what biogeography looked like before the catastrophe, among many other factors.

However, on principle alone, we know rapid catastrophic burial of all life on Earth would indeed produce some type of an order in the sediment layers. We can speculate all day about what that order would look like, but it is certain that all of life would not be "jumbled up together" in every layer. Evolutionists who believe that are the same ones who believe that all sediments would be jumbled up together and homogenized. That's simply not how nature works.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because mammals generally do not make their livings on the sea-floor.

I said the oldest, not the wettest. There are terrestrial sediments at the bottom of geologic columns as well.

This discussion would go on for dozens of pages. I've had it many times. Unfortunately we are limited to a lot of ad-hoc speculation without knowing what biogeography looked like before the catastrophe, among many other factors.

However, on principle alone, we know rapid catastrophic burial of all life on Earth would indeed produce some type of an order in the sediment layers.

How would it produce a fossil order? Why would no bony fish of any kind be found in the oldest marine sediments?

 

[Loudmouth]

Not in sediments preserved apparently. No man either.

Why aren't they there?

 

[lifepsyop]

How would it produce a fossil order?

How would it not? An order would be the inevitable consequence of a world of animals occupying different ecological zones and geographical regions while being catastrophically buried. It is simply irrational to believe everything would be jumbled up together in all layers.

 

[Loudmouth]

How would it not? An order would be the inevitable consequence of a world of animals occupying different ecological zones and geographical regions while being catastrophically buried. It is simply irrational to believe everything would be jumbled up together in all layers.

There are bony fish in every marine ecological zone. Why wouldn't we find them in the earliest sediments?

 

[The Cadet]

If Evolution was false, and the strata represents hundreds of millions of years of life on Earth, then yes we would probably expect to find the same life forms in all layers. (or at least a similar presence/absence pattern in all layers)

If the strata were formed rapidly and catastrophically (and there are many indications that it was), then no, we would certainly not expect to find all life forms in all strata.

For starters, we would only expect to find remnants of benthic sea-floor ecosystems in the lowest layers of strata.

Why? Also, there is no evidence that a single flood can lay down more than one layer of strata (indeed, all the evidence we've gathered so far indicates that this does not happen), but even if it could, there's simply no explanation for why you would never find modern marine animals in the lowest levels. We never find whales, dolphins, or even ictheosaurs in the lowest layers of strata. We also find coccolithaphores littered throughout the strata, including above early dinosaurs and other tetrapods.

...Although personally, I'd like to see the evidence that a single flood can lay down multiple strata before we go any further, because as said, that contradicts the evidence we have.

 

[lifepsyop]

There are bony fish in every marine ecological zone. Why wouldn't we find them in the earliest sediments?

Obviously because we don't know what zones they occupied or what their geographical distribution was before catastrophe. For all you know they could have been restricted to inland seas.

 

[lifepsyop]

...Although personally, I'd like to see the evidence that a single flood can lay down multiple strata before we go any further, because as said, that contradicts the evidence we have.

Multiple horizontal strata is a direct prediction of a worldwide flood model, as demonstrated by sedimentology experiments.

Evolutionists hate that.

 

[Loudmouth]

Obviously because we don't know what zones they occupied or what their geographical distribution was before catastrophe. For all you know they could have been restricted to inland seas.

Is that what you are going with, a complete fantasyland where bony fish are limited to little pools?

 

[lifepsyop]

Is that what you are going with, a complete fantasyland where bony fish are limited to little pools?

This coming from someone who believes fish turned into people.

 

[Loudmouth]

This coming from someone who believes fish turned into people.

So you are going with the made up fantasy that thousands and thousands of bony fish species were somehow missing from all of these marine ecosystems? Really?

 

[RickG]

To me, an evolutionist is someone who generally believes in an Evolutionary creation narrative of the universe and everything in it.

Thank you, I cannot disagree with that. The reason I asked is because when there is a specific itemizing of a scientific discpline, I view it as a person of either an academic and/or professional background, thus geologist, chemist, biologist, etc.. By your definition I would be an evolutionist, by mine I would not.

If Evolution was false, and the strata represents hundreds of millions of years of life on Earth, then yes we would probably expect to find the same life forms in all layers. (or at least a similar presence/absence pattern in all layers) ]/quote]

We agree there.

If the strata were formed rapidly and catastrophically (and there are many indications that it was), then no, we would certainly not expect to find all life forms in all strata.

I would have to disagree with you there. Catastrophic formation would cause much disorder and mixing (fluvial sedimentology 101). Would you mind providing an example of catastrophic formation?

For starters, we would only expect to find remnants of benthic sea-floor ecosystems in the lowest layers of strata.

So clams, starfish, and crabs, to mention a few, would be only in the lowest layers?

 

[The Cadet]

Multiple horizontal strata is a direct prediction of a worldwide flood model, as demonstrated by sedimentology experiments.

Evolutionists hate that.

I'm obviously missing quite a bit of context here, so I went to watch the full documentary, and it starts off by claiming that polystrate fossils are somehow a problem for conventional geology. But this is a problem solved some 140 years ago! At that point, the documentary immediately loses any right to make any claim not based on the evidence. But having watched five minutes in, it makes countless claims that it does not cite sources for. I'm sorry, but when you let off a howler like that right at the start, you cannot expect me to take it seriously. It's like if a documentary on global warming started off by claiming, "We have no idea what the absorption spectrum is for CO2" - we know the answer to that question, and we've known it since before anyone involved in this production has been born!

I have no idea what the experiment they're doing in your video is, and I'm not particularly sure I care. I've watched enough incredibly bogus documentaries to know when I'm wasting my time. If you'd like to summarize what's going on there, feel free, but honestly, the claim that the worldwide flood laid down all the strata remains completely untenable. There are numerous deposits the world over that simply could not have been laid down quickly. Salt and chalk beds, in particular, simply could not form quickly - the latter could not form quickly as it would require an ocean density of coccolithophores that's downright ridiculous; the former could not form quickly as salt is water-soluble and requires time to evaporate before anything else can be deposited above it.

I love your logic, paraphrased: People who have AIDS are extremely likely to be HIV+; therefore, HIV causes AIDS.
Try this logic: People who have tuberculosis are extremely likely to have fevers; therefore fevers cause tuberculosis.

AIDS only ever occurs among those who are HIV positive. What's more, countless other factors were tested to attempt to reproduce the drop in C4 cell concentration and none succeeded - there is simply nothing else which correlates to AIDS. Your analogy fails for numerous reasons; predominately because we actually know a thing or two about tuberculosis, fevers, and HIV. HIV is a virus in the family of lentiviruses, each of them known to cause similar disorders in various other mammalian species. The implication you're trying to draw with this analogy seems to be that HIV could be a symptom of AIDS. Um, buddy, I hate to be that guy, but you do realize that Bechamp's theory was overturned a century or so ago, right? This is like coming in here and advocating Lamarckism, or Aristotelian physics - it's completely insane.

You also completely ignored the utility of AZT and HAART in treating AIDS, both extremely strong demonstrations that HIV does, in fact, cause AIDS.

 

[RickG]

Multiple horizontal strata is a direct prediction of a worldwide flood model, as demonstrated by sedimentology experiments.

What sedimentology experts?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What sedimentology experts?

Actually none. A Flood "geologist" has tried to claim that the deposits are of the nature of a delta. The problem is that that would only explain the geologic column if it was all coarsely sorted. It cannot deal with the real geologic column at all with fined grained shales that could not have been deposited in that matter, carbonates that were definitely not deposited in that matter. It does not even explain sandstones that well since there are sandstones of different sources and different depositional environments. In other words it is the prefect ad hoc Floodist explanation since it only convinces the ignorant.