Are tectonic plates another one of God's cosmic deceptions?

[Jonathan95]

Maybe this could help you:

"And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan." Genesis 10:25 KJV

 

[Fascinated With God]

Maybe this could help you:

"And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan." Genesis 10:25 KJV

That refers to the land being divided between people, it refers to ownership of land being assigned, not to a cataclysm more intense than anything the Earth has seen since it was all molten 4.5 billion years ago.

 

[troodon]

Fossils Are Found at All Levelshttp://www.icr.org/article/catastrophic-plate-tectonics-flood-model/

Yeah, that isn't about assemblages but about distribution, and it can't even be said to cover that topic.

 

[Fascinated With God]

.

 

[Fascinated With God]

This is a farce. The referenced article is: http://static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Catastrophic-Plate-Tectonics-A-Global-Flood-Model.pdf

The supposed reference with several PhD authors, designed to impress, has no numbered references, all the references are just listed at the end without being linked to the text in any specific way that can be checked on. I would have to do an enormous amount of research to just try and find which reference was being referred to where before I could get to the point where I could begin to work on the real meat of an argument, showing how the reference is being used erroneously. What a hack job, it is quack science.

 

[SkyWriting]

This is a farce. The referenced article is: http://static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Catastrophic-Plate-Tectonics-A-Global-Flood-Model.pdf
The supposed reference with several PhD authors, designed to impress, has no numbered references, all the references are just listed at the end without being linked to the text in any specific way that can be checked on. I would have to do an enormous amount of research to just try and find which reference was being referred to where before I could get to the point where I could begin to work on the real meat of an argument, showing how the reference is being used erroneously. What a hack job, it is quack science.

Dude. The question was

how do you YEC folks explain this

And don't talk all "sciency" and "authority" and complain about research. If you don't enjoy the research, get out of the kitchen.
So...I did all the research for you (I breath research) and it took about 30 seconds. None of the referenced materials are from mainstream science peer review publishing's. (I skimmed)

 

[SkyWriting]

Yeah, that isn't about assemblages but about distribution, and it can't even be said to cover that topic.

That's as deep as they go. After I left my crazy liberal church beginnings
I absorbed everything YEC's published for a while. But they made a mistake.
They taught me to read what the plain and simple message was in scripture.
And because the plain and simple reading of Genesis shows a mature
Adam placed in a mature Garden environment, then the earth was
not "young" when it was Created.

And I don't listen to any Bishops views anyway.

 

[juvenissun]

Most children playing with a globe notice that the east coast of South America lines up remarkably with the west coast of Africa. Geologists first noticed 100 years ago that the two coast lines not only look similar, but also have matching rock formations as well as matching fossil deposits of the plants Glossopteris and Gangamopteris.

So how do you YEC folks explain this away?

.

Not too much different from everyone else.
What is the problem?

 

[juvenissun]

Why don't we see any more drastic continent shifts?

Many things only happened once.

 

[juvenissun]

Well if I were to put on my devil's advocate YEC hat, I would make the following points.

Shape of the continents isn't very strong evidence for much of anything. It was intriguing and compelled scientists to ask whether there was a cause for it, but it could well be just a coincidence. Italy does look like a boot, afterall.

Common fossil flora and fauna, including Lystrosaurus which was another one of the genera used as early evidence for continental drift, could come from pre-flood distributions. Obviously God originally seeded the earth with life and he may well have seeded both hemispheres with common organisms.

Similar geologic formations is trickier. I suppose that for igneous provinces a YEC may say that they were made by God as bedrock for the earth's surface. The surface of the earth had to have some kind of a rocky top, afterall.

For sedimentary formations one of the main tools we use for correlation is fossil assemblages, and YECs conveniently never, ever talk about fossil assemblages. I mean never. I've tried to bring it up to YECs on this site and all you get is silence. Apparently they won't even acknowledge their existence, like if I completely ignored a son-in-law that I didn't like. So they'd probably just say that you can draw similarities between sedimentary formations all over the world that "evolutionists" don't believe are connected, and that's the case here.

How about this:

Fossil sequence were made when Adam and Eve lived happily in the Garden?

 

[juvenissun]

That's as deep as they go. After I left my crazy liberal church beginnings
I absorbed everything YEC's published for a while. But they made a mistake.
They taught me to read what the plain and simple message was in scripture.
And because the plain and simple reading of Genesis shows a mature
Adam placed in a mature Garden environment, then the earth was
not "young" when it was Created.

And I don't listen to any Bishops views anyway.

Be sure you realize that the Garden is not equal to the earth.

 

[troodon]

How about this:
Fossil sequence were made when Adam and Eve lived happily in the Garden?

I'm assuming you're suggesting that while Adam and Eve were in the Garden all organisms known from the fossil record coexisted on earth in something closely-resembling their present form. If I'm guessing incorrectly then I have to ask you to be more specific.

If this is true then why are the assemblages so distinct from one another? To give one small example, we find dozens of capitosaur skulls in the Moenkopi Formation but none in the Chinle Formation which overlies it, instead we find completely different amphibians (metoposaurs). At the same time we find dozens of phytosaur skulls in the Chinle but none in the Moenkopi. These two formations directly overlie each other and represent a similar environment, yet they have absolutely no faunal overlap. I could go on for pages and pages of examples like this.

 

[SkyWriting]

Be sure you realize that the Garden is not equal to the earth.

I believe it was located outside of the passage of time. I don't have much else to go on. Garden of Eden

 

[SkyWriting]

I'm assuming you're suggesting that while Adam and Eve were in the Garden all organisms known from the fossil record coexisted on earth in something closely-resembling their present form.

Death entered the earth through Adam, suggesting that time didn't pass or exist in the Garden. If the earth experienced long ages, it wouldn't be under Adams feet. If it happened, it happened before Adam was around to experience it. Just as when Jesus heals a sighted man, no man gets to watch God grow eyes to fit a persons head and pop them in. God's Creative timing is his own choosing and fits to no timepiece.

 

[juvenissun]

I believe it was located outside of the passage of time. I don't have much else to go on. Garden of Eden

That would be good enough.
If so, why should a creationist be surprised to see the big fossil record?

 

[juvenissun]

I'm assuming you're suggesting that while Adam and Eve were in the Garden all organisms known from the fossil record coexisted on earth in something closely-resembling their present form. If I'm guessing incorrectly then I have to ask you to be more specific.

If this is true then why are the assemblages so distinct from one another? To give one small example, we find dozens of capitosaur skulls in the Moenkopi Formation but none in the Chinle Formation which overlies it, instead we find completely different amphibians (metoposaurs). At the same time we find dozens of phytosaur skulls in the Chinle but none in the Moenkopi. These two formations directly overlie each other and represent a similar environment, yet they have absolutely no faunal overlap. I could go on for pages and pages of examples like this.

I am sorry that my paleontology is so bad that I could not make any comment on your examples. However, your examples do not give an argument to the problem.

God creates all kinds of animals on Day 5 and Day 6. How about that most of the fossil records were made during the last two Days of creation?

 

[juvenissun]

Death entered the earth through Adam, suggesting that time didn't pass or exist in the Garden. If the earth experienced long ages, it wouldn't be under Adams feet. If it happened, it happened before Adam was around to experience it. Just as when Jesus heals a sighted man, no man gets to watch God grow eyes to fit a persons head and pop them in. God's Creative timing is his own choosing and fits to no timepiece.

To be clear, it should be:

Death (of human) entered the earth through Adam, ...

 

[troodon]

I am sorry that my paleontology is so bad that I could not make any comment on your examples. However, your examples do not give an argument to the problem.

The fossil record is very orderly, and the fossil assemblage we find in one layer is typically only found in that one layer, never above it, and never blow it. I'll show you some abstract examples in which letters correspond to fossil genera that are found in each unit. Blue letters mean it's a marine environment.

--------------
T, U, V
--------------
S
--------------
M, N, O, P, Q, R
--------------
K, L
--------------
I, J
--------------
no fossils
--------------
no fossils
--------------
D, E, F, G, H
--------------
A, B, C
--------------
no fossils
--------------

That's loosely based on the stratigraphy in Dinosaur National Monument, where I've interned and I know the rocks fairly well. You never see any letter outside of the only layer in which it's found. Even though organisms D and M lived in very similar environments they don't coexist. Heck, the layer with D has lots of large amphibians but only 1 type of (small) dinosaur. The layer with M has no large amphibians but tons (literally) of huge dinosaurs.

It seems to me under your model the fossils should be distributed more like this:

--------------
A, K, J, M
--------------
A, B, C, G, H
--------------
D, E, G, M, N, P, Q
--------------

Where fossils don't only appear in one unit, but rather can be found in any given unit and be associated with any other fossil genus who lives in a similar environment. But we don't, and I don't see how one can explain this without faunal turn-over?

 

[juvenissun]

The fossil record is very orderly, and the fossil assemblage we find in one layer is typically only found in that one layer, never above it, and never blow it. I'll show you some abstract examples in which letters correspond to fossil genera that are found in each unit. Blue letters mean it's a marine environment.

--------------
T, U, V
--------------
S
--------------
M, N, O, P, Q, R
--------------
K, L
--------------
I, J
--------------
no fossils
--------------
no fossils
--------------
D, E, F, G, H
--------------
A, B, C
--------------
no fossils
--------------

That's loosely based on the stratigraphy in Dinosaur National Monument, where I've interned and I know the rocks fairly well. You never see any letter outside of the only layer in which it's found. Even though organisms D and M lived in very similar environments they don't coexist. Heck, the layer with D has lots of large amphibians but only 1 type of (small) dinosaur. The layer with M has no large amphibians but tons (literally) of huge dinosaurs.

It seems to me under your model the fossils should be distributed more like this:

--------------
A, K, J, M
--------------
A, B, C, G, H
--------------
D, E, G, M, N, P, Q
--------------

Where fossils don't only appear in one unit, but rather can be found in any given unit and be associated with any other fossil genus who lives in a similar environment. But we don't, and I don't see how one can explain this without faunal turn-over?

It seems you are excited about stratigraphy. That is good. I don't have a single model about stratigraphy (or fossil assemblage), I don't like the study.

However, I am lost on what you argued about. Are you trying to support evolution by stratigraphic argument? That is a very indirect approach.

(what else should I say? about plate tectonics? )

 

[Daniel Gregg]

Brown's theory explains it: http://creationscience.com

Most children playing with a globe notice that the east coast of South America lines up remarkably with the west coast of Africa. Geologists first noticed 100 years ago that the two coast lines not only look similar, but also have matching rock formations as well as matching fossil deposits of the plants Glossopteris and Gangamopteris.

So how do you YEC folks explain this away?









.