Another Flood Question

[David_M]

Until I can simply observe the earth from the heights that a rocket can go, I will not rely on what someone else has told me they observe with their evidence akin to low resolution ufo videos or modern CGI.

e.g:

So you are happy ignoring all the simply verified pieces of evidence that the earth is not flat? All the evidence that you can gather with a little bit of effort. Evidence that would disprove your literalist bible interpretion?

Got it, you aren't interested in facts only in reinforcing your delusions.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Lakes and streams mate, lakes and streams. That’s enough to refute your assertions, palaeontologists have actually studied this stuff you know.

Well then mate, if they have actually studied this stuff, you shouldn’t have any problems citing a reference where animals starting fossilization have been found in those lakes and streams then.

Ahh, so you looked, but couldn’t find one single example, so thought you’d just make a claim and that would suffice as evidence, right?

It seems you lack a basic knowledge of how fossils are formed and are making outlandish claims based on that ignorance.

Oh I understand quite well, they are buried quickly and deeply. Their bones are then replaced by minerals. Don’t be upset because you confused the process of desication as equal to the process of fossilization.

I have no desire to play pigeon chess with you on this topic as anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see that your bizarre claims about a worldwide sedimentary strata due to a global flood and fossilisation only occurring in catastrophic floods are pure fantasy.

No, everyone can see you have yet to provide one piece of evidence that one single animal is undergoing fossilization. Is this one of those missing common ancestor claims that everyone is just supposed to take for granted, when not a single one can be found?

Your claim that fossilisation isn’t occurring now is even more bizarre, how on earth can you pretend to know such a thing.

Because you or anyone else can’t find one single animal beginning fossilization. If it was happening, and if it was studied as you claim above, then there should be sources and evidence. Show them....

When you can provide evidence of these things let me know, until then I’ll leave it thanks. Your own posts do more to demonstrate the craziness of your position than any rebuttal could.

How can I show you evidence of what does not exist? That would be like asking me to prove to you common ancestors exist when not a single one can be found. You claim it’s been studied and is happening, so you should have no problem backing up your claim. I say you are full of hot air and have no evidence at all.

I have evidence, not a single animal has been found beginning fossilization in the recent past, confirmed by your inability to provide an example of a single solitary one.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

More incorrect statements, in fact if the earth was flat a global flood would be slightly more difficult to believe as it would have an edge that would always have to be higher than the highest piece of land). For a globe earth there is no real problem with sufficient water (which is a real problem for the flood no matter the shape of the earth).

How much water would you need?

Here’s just a little below North America.

Huge Underground 'Ocean' Discovered Towards Earth's Core

Here’s a little more beneath Asia.

Huge Underground "Ocean" Found Beneath Asia

I’m sure when they continue to look they’ll find more under every continent and under the oceans as well.

 

[Jimmy D]

Well then mate, if they have actually studied this stuff, you shouldn’t have any problems citing a reference where animals starting fossilization have been found in those lakes and streams then.

Ahh, so you looked, but couldn’t find one single example, so thought you’d just make a claim and that would suffice as evidence, right?


Oh I understand quite well, they are buried quickly and deeply. Their bones are then replaced by minerals. Don’t be upset because you confused the process of desication as equal to the process of fossilization.


No, everyone can see you have yet to provide one piece of evidence that one single animal is undergoing fossilization. Is this one of those missing common ancestor claims that everyone is just supposed to take for granted, when not a single one can be found?


Because you or anyone else can’t find one single animal beginning fossilization. If it was happening, and if it was studied as you claim above, then there should be sources and evidence. Show them....


How can I show you evidence of what does not exist? That would be like asking me to prove to you common ancestors exist when not a single one can be found. You claim it’s been studied and is happening, so you should have no problem backing up your claim. I say you are full of hot air and have no evidence at all.

I have evidence, not a single animal has been found beginning fossilization in the recent past, confirmed by your inability to provide an example of a single solitary one.

Why do you want to see examples of "recent" fossilization? You're right in that I haven't found any examples - but that's because I can't be bothered looking, I don't know if they're there or not and frankly I couldn't care less.

It seems Ophiolite has taken the time to address your weird claims though so take it up with him.

I was merely posting in response to your nonsense that only catastrophic events are responsible for fossilization, any legitimate scientific source will tell you that isn't true. Unless a lake, stream, tar pit, or the regular flooding of an alluvial plain is "catastrophic".

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm not going to repeat thousands of pages of evidence. Perhaps you know about the evidence of an object striking off the coast of what is now the Yucatan Peninsular. That, plus the iridium layer found worldwide is evidence of something other than a flood, for which there is no evidence.

Yes, much of the evidence is found in sedimentary rock. However, it is the ages of that rock that supports the interpretation of the evidence.

Sure I’ve heard of it, have you heard of the 3 meter gap? Only 1 single solitary brow bone has been found 15cm below the K-T boundary. Dinosaurs went nearly extinct millions of years before that event, such is why their bones can barely be found in that 3 meter gap before the K-T boundary. None are found in it, and none are found after it. If the meteor that caused the K-T boundary killed the dinosaurs, fossils would not stop 3 meters before it, but continue through it and then stop after it as they began to die out.

The actual data shows that they almost went extinct by the flood that buried them worldwide before the K-T event happened. That 3 meter gap exists worldwide and is consistent worldwide. You got no evidence at all that this caused the extinction of the dinosaurs except someone made that claim years ago, before they discovered that all dinosaur fossils end 3 meters before this event, equating to several million years of time..... surely if the event caused their extinction, there should be evidence they existed in profusion up to and in that layer, then began to die out after the event as climate changed?

Instead we see the exact opposite, their ending in sedimentary material several million years before the K-T boundary. With not a single fossil found in the boundary or even after it.

Oh I have heard of it, I just understand the actual evidence doesn’t support their claim it killed the dinosaurs. It seems once evolutionists get a theory, they refuse to abandon it even when the actual evidence falsifies the theory.

 

[Ophiolite]

Well then mate, if they have actually studied this stuff, you shouldn’t have any problems citing a reference where animals starting fossilization have been found in those lakes and streams then.

Ahh, so you looked, but couldn’t find one single example, so thought you’d just make a claim and that would suffice as evidence, right?


Oh I understand quite well, they are buried quickly and deeply. Their bones are then replaced by minerals. Don’t be upset because you confused the process of desication as equal to the process of fossilization.


No, everyone can see you have yet to provide one piece of evidence that one single animal is undergoing fossilization. Is this one of those missing common ancestor claims that everyone is just supposed to take for granted, when not a single one can be found?.

You have overlooked post #438, wherein I provided one example and a further link to allow you to conduct a self education program that would remove your ignorance on the topic. I presume you missed seeing it, since you are repeating the faulty assertions that are refuted by the links provided.
Don't worry overmuch about it: it's easy to miss the occassional post. However, I pointed out in that post that you had two options. I am keen to know which one you choose.

 

[David_M]

How much water would you need?

Here’s just a little below North America.

Huge Underground 'Ocean' Discovered Towards Earth's Core

Here’s a little more beneath Asia.

Huge Underground "Ocean" Found Beneath Asia

I’m sure when they continue to look they’ll find more under every continent and under the oceans as well.

If you consider the current elevations of the earth then a global flood would need then over 2 1/2 times more water than is currently present as surface water on the planet.

All of the water you are linking to is moisture held inside rocks (As the 2nd article clearly states). So although the area in the 2nd article is the size of an ocean it doesn't contain anywhere near the same amount of water, its less than 1% of the amount of water in the arctic ocean.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Why do you want to see examples of "recent" fossilization? You're right in that I haven't found any examples - but that's because I can't be bothered looking, I don't know if they're there or not and frankly I couldn't care less.

It seems Ophiolite has taken the time to address your weird claims though so take it up with him.

I was merely posting in response to your nonsense that only catastrophic events are responsible for fossilization, any legitimate scientific source will tell you that isn't true. Unless a lake, stream, tar pit, or the regular flooding of an alluvial plain is "catastrophic".

And yet you can’t find a single one beginning fossilization.... won’t find any even if you do look. Made claims it’s been studied, then can’t provide a single one. Then deny the obvious, only catastrophic events cause fossilization.

All evolutionists make claims they have evidence of this or that, then when actually looked at find it isn’t evidence at all.

It’s like this claim of a meteor and fossils ending 3 meters before it in sediments, which equates to several million years.

Once you people get a theory you refuse to abandon it despite the evidence against it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You have overlooked post #438, wherein I provided one example and a further link to allow you to conduct a self education program that would remove your ignorance on the topic. I presume you missed seeing it, since you are repeating the faulty assertions that are refuted by the links provided.
Don't worry overmuch about it: it's easy to miss the occassional post. However, I pointed out in that post that you had two options. I am keen to know which one you choose.

No, I think shells are already basically rock to begin with. Where are the fish bones? The land animal bones? You show me shells which would last millions of years anyways and claim you see fossilization.

Kid: Oh look mom, I found shells that last millions of years on their own and so it backs up my belief animals are being fossilized.

Mom: Have you found animal bones undergoing fossilization?

Kid: Why no mom, but I found shells.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If you consider the current elevations of the earth then a global flood would need then over 2 1/2 times more water than is currently present as surface water on the planet.

All of the water you are linking to is moisture held inside rocks (As the 2nd article clearly states). So although the area in the 2nd article is the size of an ocean it doesn't contain anywhere near the same amount of water, its less than 1% of the amount of water in the arctic ocean.

And yet the article clearly also said three times the amount of surface water. You only asked for 2 1/2 Times, so I got 1/2 more needed just under one continent. But you’ll pretend you didn’t read that part right? Right?

Here, let’s clarify things for you a bit to take away your meritless claims.

Huge Underground Reservoir Holds Three Times as Much Water as Earth’s Oceans — NOVA Next | PBS

Not that I expected an evolutionist to research something on their own that might prove their claims false.

 

[Ophiolite]

No, I think shells are already basically rock to begin with.

Definitions within science are important. (I understand they are also important in theology, so I would hope you would understand the truth of that statement.) Shells are most assuredly not rock to begin with. Shells that come to form rock or a portion of rock have undergone several changes. A number of the 37,000 links I suggested you consult deal with this. You could try checking those out, or choose to remain ignorant.

Where are the fish bones? The land animal bones?

The post to which I was responding did not, I think, specify fish bones and animal bones. My palaeontological studies focused very much on invertebrates, so that was the example I gave in response. If your question used terms with standard scientific meaning, then my response met your request.

I now understand that your use of terminology was loose. That's OK. Your ignorance in this field has been established. I offered you a way to address that - by studying some of the 37,000 links on taphonomy. You could still do that, or choose to remain ignorant.

You show me shells which would last millions of years anyways and claim you see fossilization.

IF you were not so ignorant about the process of fossilisation you would understand why your remark here is meaningless. The links are still there on Google Scholar for you to investigate, or you could choose to remain ignorant.

Kid: Oh look mom, I found shells that last millions of years on their own and so it backs up my belief animals are being fossilized.

Mom: Have you found animal bones undergoing fossilization?

Kid: Why no mom, but I found shells.....

Irrelevant and ignorant. You can choose not to be ignorant. Just try this link. It won't hurt.

 

[Jimmy D]

And yet you can’t find a single one beginning fossilization.... won’t find any even if you do look. Made claims it’s been studied, then can’t provide a single one. Then deny the obvious, only catastrophic events cause fossilization.

All evolutionists make claims they have evidence of this or that, then when actually looked at find it isn’t evidence at all.

It’s like this claim of a meteor and fossils ending 3 meters before it in sediments, which equates to several million years.

Once you people get a theory you refuse to abandon it despite the evidence against it.

You're the one making the claim chief - that fossilization only occurs during catatrosphic flood events - and it's been demonstrated to be wrong.

Having said that, isn't the general consensus amongst paleontologists that there was a gradual extinction process before the KT boundary for the dinosaurs? So I'm not sure what your point is? Did anyone suggest otherwise?

I suggest a read through this article..

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/07/case-closed-dino-killer

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Another Flood Question

So let’s deduce the true facts. Strata upon strata of shells, then a catastrophic event occurs and animals are found.

But evolutionists automatically assume the shells indicate a progression, since animals are found afterwards. Yet those layers upon layers of shells they recently discovered, formed even when animals existed right at the same time.

Using the same deduction, millions of years from now after a catastrophic event occurs which extinct current life, we can deduce that marine life formed first, and only after did animal life form, even if we understand that animal life existed right alongside the marine life.

But we wouldn’t want to apply the observational evidence we see occurring now to the past, now would we.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Definitions within science are important. (I understand they are also important in theology, so I would hope you would understand the truth of that statement.)

Are they? Then you would agree that finches are the same species and no hybridization is occurring, correct? I mean definitions are important, right?

Definition of SUBSPECIES

“a category in biological classification that ranks immediately below a species and designates a population of a particular geographic region genetically distinguishable from other such populations of the same species and capable of interbreeding successfully with them where its range overlaps theirs.”

Or is it now ok for you to ignore that definition and classify finches that interbreed separate species, because you want to be able to claim speciation?

Shells are most assuredly not rock to begin with. Shells that come to form rock or a portion of rock have undergone several changes. A number of the 37,000 links I suggested you consult deal with this. You could try checking those out, or choose to remain ignorant.

Andso we find shells, followed by animals after we have a catastrophic event in the future, assume marine life formed first and evolved into animal life, even if we know animal life existed at the same exact time as those shells, right?

The post to which I was responding did not, I think, specify fish bones and animal bones. My palaeontological studies focused very much on invertebrates, so that was the example I gave in response. If your question used terms with standard scientific meaning, then my response met your request.

I know it didn’t specify them, as none were found. So after layer upon layer of shells, then in the future when something happens to fossilize fish and animal bones, we will assume fish and animals evolved after an extended period of time later, even if we also understand right now they existed right alongside those shells.

I now understand that your use of terminology was loose. That's OK. Your ignorance in this field has been established. I offered you a way to address that - by studying some of the 37,000 links on taphonomy. You could still do that, or choose to remain ignorant.

Or your so ignorant you refuse to accept that layer after layer of shells being deposited, while animals existed right alongside them, yet can’t be found, might cause a sane person to question his belief of the same thing being found in the fossil record?

IF you were not so ignorant about the process of fossilisation you would understand why your remark here is meaningless. The links are still there on Google Scholar for you to investigate, or you could choose to remain ignorant.

If you could have a rational discussion without resorting to ad hominem attacks because your scared..... your terrified to compare what we found now to the past.

Irrelevant and ignorant. You can choose not to be ignorant. Just try this link. It won't hurt.

Yes, yes, more shells, yet no animals beginning fossilization, because simple hurricanes, local floods, and all the other excuses evolutionists use do not create any. But perhaps you should rethink your layers upon layers of shells in the fossil record and deduce from the current situation that animals existed right alongside them, yet can’t be found in any of the strata the shells are found in, because a catastrophic event has not occurred yet to bury those animals in sediment of sufficient depth, just as none can be found until later in the fossil record until they were buried in sediment of sufficient depth.

But no, you wouldn’t want to compare the situations, would you...... even if they are exactly the same.... yes, absolutely terrified to use the current example of what we observe and apply it to the past....

Oh the evidence you are submitting is telling indeed. Thatlayers of marine life can be found and no animals, even if animals existed right alongside them.... telling indeed. But let’s not use what we now observe and apply it to the past, instead let’s ignore it and conclude animals don’t exist right now alongside that marine life, since that’s what the strata indicates... oy vey!

 

[Ophiolite]

Are they? Then you would agree that finches are the same species and no hybridization is occurring, correct? I mean definitions are important, right?

Definition of SUBSPECIES

“a category in biological classification that ranks immediately below a species and designates a population of a particular geographic region genetically distinguishable from other such populations of the same species and capable of interbreeding successfully with them where its range overlaps theirs.”

Or is it now ok for you to ignore that definition and classify finches that interbreed separate species, because you want to be able to claim speciation?

You are obviously confusing me with someone who has an interest in Darwin's finches. I don't. I'm here to help remove your ignorance of taphonomy.

Andso we find shells, followed by animals after we have a catastrophic event in the future, assume marine life formed first and evolved into animal life, even if we know animal life existed at the same exact time as those shells, right?

Well, I suppose an uneducated and ignorant person might make such an egregious error, but no relevantly educated scientist would. Now could we get back to the specific point: your ignorance of the fossilisation process. If you keep introducing irrelevancies you will just remain ignorant of these processes and I don't want that to happen.

I know it didn’t specify them, as none were found. So after layer upon layer of shells, then in the future when something happens to fossilize fish and animal bones, we will assume fish and animals evolved after an extended period of time later, even if we also understand right now they existed right alongside those shells.


Or your so ignorant you refuse to accept that layer after layer of shells being deposited, while animals existed right alongside them, yet can’t be found, might cause a sane person to question his belief of the same thing being found in the fossil record?

I am confident these two paragraphs were meant to make sense. They don't.

If you could have a rational discussion without resorting to ad hominem attacks because your scared..... your terrified to compare what we found now to the past.

What ad hominem attack? You cannot seriously be claiming to be the only human on the planet that is not ignorant? Ignorance is a natural state of humans. We are ignorant of far more than we are knowledgable of. You are ignorant of the fossilisation process. This is evident from your faulty assertions on the subject. Stating that objective fact is not an ad hominem.

Yes, yes, more shells, yet no animals beginning fossilization, because simple hurricanes, local floods, and all the other excuses evolutionists use do not create any. But perhaps you should rethink your layers upon layers of shells in the fossil record and deduce from the current situation that animals existed right alongside them, yet can’t be found in any of the strata the shells are found in, because a catastrophic event has not occurred yet to bury those animals in sediment of sufficient depth, just as none can be found until later in the fossil record until they were buried in sediment of sufficient depth.

But no, you wouldn’t want to compare the situations, would you...... even if they are exactly the same.... yes, absolutely terrified to use the current example of what we observe and apply it to the past....

Oh the evidence you are submitting is telling indeed. Thatlayers of marine life can be found and no animals, even if animals existed right alongside them.... telling indeed. But let’s not use what we now observe and apply it to the past, instead let’s ignore it and conclude animals don’t exist right now alongside that marine life, since that’s what the strata indicates... oy vey!

So, you have made the decision to remain ignorant. That is your choice and I will always respect the right of people to make their own choices.

Here is the abstract from one of the papers you have chosen to describe as being about "more shells, yet no animals beginning fossilisation". You will notice it is about animals beginning fossilisation. This refutes your assertion and so I am done here.

Warning: it's probably best you don't read it, as that might make you a little less ignorant about the process of fossilisation. Sourced here.

A.K.Behrensmeyer "Time resolution in fluvial vertebrate assemblages" Paleobiology Vol 8. Issue 3 1982 pp211-227

Calibrating levels of time resolution that are accessible in the fossil record is important in understanding what evolutionary phenomena can be profitably studied using fossils. A model for attritional bone assemblage formation in fluvial deposits, based on observations of taphonomic processes in modern environments, provides order-of-magnitude estimates for time intervals represented in single unit, ‘contemporaneous' vertebrate samples. In order to form units with adequate material for analysis of morphological variation or paleoecological associations, it appears that bones must be spatially concentrated or stratigraphically condensed by sedimentary processes or biological agencies. In many cases this means that significant periods of time will be represented by single unit assemblages. According to predictions from modern environments, carcasses contributed through normal attrition can accumulate in the soil to ‘fossiliferous' densities over time intervals of 102–104 yrs. Attritional channel assemblages include bones from three sources: floodplain land surfaces, floodplain deposits, and the active channel, and represent time intervals on the order of 102–104 yrs. Given additional limitations on the composition of the fossil sample imposed by circumstances of preservation, outcrop availability and collecting strategy, attritional fluvial assemblages probably can be resolved only to 103 years even under the best conditions. Time intervals represented by fossils are not necessarily the same as those represented by sedimentary events in fluvial systems because bones can continue to accumulate and may be concentrated during times of erosion or non-deposition. Fluvial vertebrate assemblages of comparable taphonomic history can be used to document evolutionary changes over periods longer than their finest level of time resolution. While they may not be applicable to questions of punctuated or gradual transitions over shorter time scales, the longer-term patterns should have their own evolutionary significance.

Edit: corrected a tranposed "an" & "and".

 

[Astrophile]

"So far scientists have not found a way to determine the exact age of the Earth directly from Earth rocks because Earth's oldest rocks have been recycled and destroyed by the process of plate tectonics. If there are any of Earth's primordial rocks left in their original state, they have not yet been found. Nevertheless, scientists have been able to determine the probable age of the Solar System and to calculate an age for the Earth by assuming that the Earth and the rest of the solid bodies in the Solar System formed at the same time and are, therefore, of the same age. "

Geologic Time: Age of the Earth

What is the pretence in the above?

Is it a solar system? (heliocentricism)

You forgot to quote from your link the oldest direct age measurement obtained from terrestrial material.

mineral grains (zircon) with U-Pb ages of 4.4 Ga have recently been reported from sedimentary rocks in west-central Australia.

The age of these zircon grains is 96% of the age of the oldest known solar system material (4568.2 million years) - http://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo941.

 

[Astrophile]

Sure I’ve heard of it, have you heard of the 3 meter gap? Only 1 single solitary brow bone has been found 15cm below the K-T boundary. Dinosaurs went nearly extinct millions of years before that event, such is why their bones can barely be found in that 3 meter gap before the K-T boundary. None are found in it, and none are found after it. If the meteor that caused the K-T boundary killed the dinosaurs, fossils would not stop 3 meters before it, but continue through it and then stop after it as they began to die out.

The actual data shows that they almost went extinct by the flood that buried them worldwide before the K-T event happened. That 3 meter gap exists worldwide and is consistent worldwide. You got no evidence at all that this caused the extinction of the dinosaurs except someone made that claim years ago, before they discovered that all dinosaur fossils end 3 meters before this event, equating to several million years of time..... surely if the event caused their extinction, there should be evidence they existed in profusion up to and in that layer, then began to die out after the event as climate changed?

Instead we see the exact opposite, their ending in sedimentary material several million years before the K-T boundary. With not a single fossil found in the boundary or even after it.

First, can you please give a reference or a link for these statements, particularly that the 3-metre gap exists worldwide and its thickness is the same everywhere?

Second, three metres of sedimentary rock do not equate to 'several million years'. If one divides the maximum thicknesses of the rocks of the geological periods by the durations of those periods, one obtains a maximum deposition rate, averaged over the period, of about 200 metres per million years. At this rate of deposition, three metres of rock would represent about 15,000 years. Whatever the cause of the gap, it appears that the time that it represents is much less than a million years.

 

[I'm_Sorry]

So you are happy ignoring all the simply verified pieces of evidence that the earth is not flat? All the evidence that you can gather with a little bit of effort. Evidence that would disprove your literalist bible interpretion?

Got it, you aren't interested in facts only in reinforcing your delusions.

Show me a curve.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You are obviously confusing me with someone who has an interest in Darwin's finches. I don't. I'm here to help remove your ignorance of taphonomy.

Hmm, an evolutionist not interested in the species that started the entire theory..... Except all you did was show your unwillingness to apply what we observe in the strata now to the past....

Well, I suppose an uneducated and ignorant person might make such an egregious error, but no relevantly educated scientist would. Now could we get back to the specific point: your ignorance of the fossilisation process. If you keep introducing irrelevancies you will just remain ignorant of these processes and I don't want that to happen.

Well if I am wrong, show me animal fossils beginning fossilization. Instead you showed me layer upon layer of strata with only marine life from the recent past with no animals found in it. Then showed me your unwillingness to apply what you know observe to the past, even if you know animals existed at the same time as the current marine life, just no evidence could be seen of them in that strata. Then try to blame your unwillingness to apply what you observe now to the past on someone else. Typical evolutionist that believes attacking the poster instead of the post somehow solves the problem presented in the post. All it shows is pure fear....

I am confident these two paragraphs were meant to make sense. They don't.

Whatever excuse you need to ignore the observational data.

What ad hominem attack? You cannot seriously be claiming to be the only human on the planet that is not ignorant? Ignorance is a natural state of humans. We are ignorant of far more than we are knowledgable of. You are ignorant of the fossilisation process. This is evident from your faulty assertions on the subject. Stating that objective fact is not an ad hominem.

Yet it seems the one who is claiming someone else is ignorant of the fossilization process, can’t provide one single solitary animal undergoing fossilization from the recent past....

Here is the abstract from one of the papers you have chosen to describe as being about "more shells, yet no animals beginning fossilisation". You will notice it is about animals beginning fossilisation. This refutes your assertion and so I am done here.

Warning: it's probably best you don't read it, as that might make you a little less ignorant about the process of fossilisation. Sourced here.

A.K.Behrensmeyer "Time resolution in fluvial vertebrate assemblages" Paleobiology Vol 8. Issue 3 1982 pp211-227

Calibrating levels of time resolution that are accessible in the fossil record is important in understanding what evolutionary phenomena can be profitably studied using fossils. A model for attritional bone assemblage formation in fluvial deposits, based on observations of taphonomic processes in modern environments, provides order-of-magnitude estimates for time intervals represented in single unit, ‘contemporaneous' vertebrate samples. In order to form units with adequate material for analysis of morphological variation or paleoecological associations, it appears that bones must be spatially concentrated or stratigraphically condensed by sedimentary processes or biological agencies. In many cases this means that significant periods of time will be represented by single unit assemblages. According to predictions from modern environments, carcasses contributed through normal attrition can accumulate in the soil to ‘fossiliferous' densities over time intervals of 102–104 yrs. Attritional channel assemblages include bones from three sources: floodplain land surfaces, floodplain deposits, and the active channel, and represent time intervals on the order of 102–104 yrs. Given additional limitations on the composition of the fossil sample imposed by circumstances of preservation, outcrop availability and collecting strategy, attritional fluvial assemblages probably can be resolved only to 103 years even under the best conditions. Time intervals represented by fossils are not necessarily the same as those represented by sedimentary events in fluvial systems because bones can continue to accumulate and may be concentrated during times of erosion or non-deposition. Fluvial vertebrate assemblages of comparable taphonomic history can be used to document evolutionary changes over periods longer than their finest level of time resolution. While they may not be applicable to questions of punctuated or gradual transitions over shorter time scales, the longer-term patterns should have their own evolutionary significance.

Edit: corrected a tranposed "an" & "and".

More than just a simple typo. Try 10^3 and 10^4 years, not 103 and 104 years. Typo tho, right. So now we are right back into Noah’s Flood time era.... Not that I expect you to be able to distinguish such.

Which is why I asked for bones within the last 4,000 years beginning fossilization. So you can attempt to prove it’s ongoing or I can prove it only happens during catastrophic events. It seems so far the catastrophic event and none in post flood times can be found and is winning out.

So under the best of conditions, resolving to only 10^3 years, not 103 years is the best that can be hoped for. But as stated, fossils may not be contemporary with the sediment found in due to erosion or later deposition, so the safe date of 10^4 years is assumed, which is 10,000 years. But there is no guarantee by his own words that the fossils actually belong to the sedimentary layer they are found in due to that erosion and later deposition. And since erosion would affect more recent layers first, depositing the fossils in older strata, we can assume a date closer to 4,000 years for those fossils, or during the time of Noah’s flood.

See if you can comprehend the fact that erosion works first on the more recent layers, depositing fossils in older layers. So if found in 10,000 year old layers, they must have come from more recent layers, deposited by accumulation even under his own theory. So on average we can reasonably date them to be around 4 to 5 thousand years old, putting th em smack dab in the era of Noah’s flood. And the funny thing is archeologists use the Bible to date finds, understanding it is one of the most historically accurate writings available. The historical accuracy of the Bible isn’t in question, it’s only specific parts of it that people object to, even if every other part has been found to be more historically accurate than every other non biblical historic account.

So you have just put the fossils in the range of the time of Noah’s flood. We appreciate your hard work in finding more evidence for us. Thank you very much!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Double post