Challenge: Explain the fossil record without evolution

[Loudmouth]

Keep in mind the recently flood deposited strata was still plastic and would erode easier than hard rock.

Soft strata would not be able to form vertical cliffs hundreds of feet high.

 

[-57]

Nope, we can tell by canyon walls in that the rock was extremely well consolidated. Soft sediments do not make stable slopes. You could ask the people in a neighborhood close to where I live:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Oso_mudslide

Instead of trusting dishonest creationist sites you should ask real scientists why they know that there was no flood. One could start with the fact that ice floats in my world.

No one ever said the walls were liquid mud....my post said they were not rock. There is plenty of evidence where sapping was involved.

 

[lasthero]

As to explaining the fossil record without using evolution....I have already present 2 methods of creating the fossil record.

The first was hydrololic sorting and the second was the position of animals relative to the sea. Now, you ATHEIST think the creationist believe there was only one method concerning the formation of the fossil record.....which make you atheist wrong once again.

1) Hydrolic sorting (presented above)
2) Zonation
a. Ecological
b. biogeographic
3) Chance
4) Selective preservation
5) Differential escape

First, you must understand the model. The single event was called the flood. This flooding event consisted of many smaller events over the time period of the flood. An anolgy would be the single event called the Olympics, which had other events happening over the time period of the olympics.

The great flood of Noah was not like a bathtub where it is filled up then the plug pulled at the end. The great flood of Noah started with local flooding and then grew to a world wide flood. During the growing period one of the events that would have occured is that trapped basins of water would break through their natural dikes emptying them and flooding other areas. This event would cause localize mudslides and flooding. Anything in it's path would be buried quickly or washed down stream where it would then have a chance to settle and form a layer. Later as the flood waters rise this type of sedimentation would not occur as often. Eventually the entire earth would be covered with water. During this period sedimentaton would have more than likely been at it's peak. As the waters receded the flowing currents would cut gorges in the still soft sediment and in other areas re-work the topography once more. As the waters continued to recede the land would once more be subjected to local flooding and events similar to what was described above would occur once more. Portions of what is described could happen many times in various areas of the earth. The above is by no means a complete flood scenerio but instead presents just one small possibility within the flood of Noah.

The problem with your idea of using different sorting methods all over the globe is that, if that were the case, we'd expect no cosistency across the globe. In certain areas some animals would be above others, in other areas they'd be below them, depending on what sorting method was going on at the time.

 

[-57]

Sorry, the "rapidly" part is wrong. So is the "widened".

How did the underfit Colorado river....create such a huge canyon? The answer....it didn't. It was formed rapidly.

 

[-57]

Soft strata would not be able to form vertical cliffs hundreds of feet high.

Do you have evidence for this? Sure, flowing mud can't.....but we know it wasn't like flowing mud that you suggest.

 

[Loudmouth]

As to explaining the fossil record without using evolution....I have already present 2 methods of creating the fossil record.

The first was hydrololic sorting and the second was the position of animals relative to the sea. Now, you ATHEIST think the creationist believe there was only one method concerning the formation of the fossil record.....which make you atheist wrong once again.

1) Hydrolic sorting (presented above)

You haven't shown how this would produce the order of fossils we see, except to assert it with no evidence. Why would we never find a buffalo fossil with a T. rex? Why don't we find any modern mammals with dinosaurs? Why don't we find burrowing mammals at the bottom of the terrestrial fossil record?

2) Zonation
a. Ecological
b. biogeographic

Why wouldn't we find bony fish in the earliest marine sediments? Bony fish are found throughout all marine ecosystems, so why are they completely absent from the Cambrian?

3) Chance
4) Selective preservation
5) Differential escape

None of which explain the fossil record. Did all grasses run away from the flood faster than birds, allowing them to be buried above the earliest birds?

First, you must understand the model. The single event was called the flood. This flooding event consisted of many smaller events over the time period of the flood. An anolgy would be the single event called the Olympics, which had other events happening over the time period of the olympics.

The great flood of Noah was not like a bathtub where it is filled up then the plug pulled at the end. The great flood of Noah started with local flooding and then grew to a world wide flood. During the growing period one of the events that would have occured is that trapped basins of water would break through their natural dikes emptying them and flooding other areas. This event would cause localize mudslides and flooding. Anything in it's path would be buried quickly or washed down stream where it would then have a chance to settle and form a layer. Later as the flood waters rise this type of sedimentation would not occur as often. Eventually the entire earth would be covered with water. During this period sedimentaton would have more than likely been at it's peak. As the waters receded the flowing currents would cut gorges in the still soft sediment and in other areas re-work the topography once more. As the waters continued to recede the land would once more be subjected to local flooding and events similar to what was described above would occur once more. Portions of what is described could happen many times in various areas of the earth. The above is by no means a complete flood scenerio but instead presents just one small possibility within the flood of Noah.

Floods don't sort animals and rocks so that specific species are always buried rocks with specific ratios of isotopes. In the fossil record, we never find dinosaur fossils above rocks that contain a ratios of 40K and 40Ar consistent with 65 million years of decay. Why?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No one ever said the walls were liquid mud....my post said they were not rock. There is plenty of evidence where sapping was involved.

Please, you really need to fix your reading comprehension problems. I did not say that they were liquid mud either. Unconsolidated sediments do not make vertical walls. Long before the slope becomes vertical wet sediments slump, sometimes disastrously.

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you have evidence for this? Sure, flowing mud can't.....but we know it wasn't like flowing mud that you suggest.

You need solid rock to form vertical cliffs hundreds of feet high. Soft rock will collapse under all that weight.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How did the underfit Colorado river....create such a huge canyon? The answer....it didn't. It was formed rapidly.

Wrong again. Millions of years of slow erosion and uplift.

You need to quit listening to the creationist sites. When you don't understand you need to ask real scientists.

 

[-57]

Floods don't sort animals and rocks so that specific species are always buried rocks with specific ratios of isotopes. In the fossil record, we never find dinosaur fossils above rocks that contain a ratios of 40K and 40Ar consistent with 65 million years of decay. Why?

Soft dino tissue has demonstrated that you are incorrect.

 

[-57]

Wrong again. Millions of years of slow erosion and uplift.

You need to quit listening to the creationist sites. When you don't understand you need to ask real scientists.

You can claim that...because it's all you got...yet still can't demonstrate the underfit river could create the canyon. This clearly indicates your science is messed up big time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Soft dino tissue has demonstrated that you are incorrect.

How do the not so soft "soft tissues" show that?

 

[-57]

How do the not so soft "soft tissues" show that?

I believe you already know that answer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can claim that...because it's all you got...yet still can't demonstrate the underfit river could create the canyon. This clearly indicates your science is messed up big time.

No, we can demonstrate that. What part do you not understand?

And please, no false accusations. Technically if you make an accusation, even against scientists that you do not know, that is technically a breaking of the Ninth Commandment.

Once more when you don't understand you need to ask questions politely.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe you already know that answer.

Sorry, I don't. It is understood how those tissues were preserved. Why do you think that they are a problem?

 

[-57]

Sorry, I don't. It is understood how those tissues were preserved. Why do you think that they are a problem?

It is not understood how the tissue could have survived.

 

[-57]

No, we can demonstrate that. What part do you not understand?

And please, no false accusations. Technically if you make an accusation, even against scientists that you do not know, that is technically a breaking of the Ninth Commandment.

Once more when you don't understand you need to ask questions politely.

Do tell me, where has it been demonstrated?

 

[Reasoning]

I believe you already know that answer.

Well I'm here too and I would love your elaboration, because I don't know that answer.

 

[Reasoning]

It is not understood how the tissue could have survived.

Could you please provide sources on how you came to that conclusion? Because you are wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is not understood how the tissue could have survived.

They did not "survive", but it is known how they were preserved. I am sure that others have linked the articles for you explaining how iron can act as a preservative. I could link them for you again.

Why do you keep making such obviously wrong statements?