Challenge: Explain the fossil record without evolution

[Subduction Zone]

Six American fighter planes and two bombers that crash-landed in Greenland in World War II have been found 46 years later buried under 260 feet of ice, searchers said today. NY Times

So what? It rains more in a rain forest than it rains in a desert. They don't base the age of the ice on its thickness. I can see that you have been listening to liars and idiots. That was a Kent Hovind argument right there.

 

[-57]

So what? It rains more in a rain forest than it rains in a desert. They don't base the age of the ice on its thickness. I can see that you have been listening to liars and idiots. That was a Kent Hovind argument right there.

It just PROVES ice can layer quicker than you think.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It just PROVES ice can layer quicker than you think.

Once again, it is not the thickness that is used to date the ice so your post was pointless. I never made any claims about how much it snowed each year.

Ice cores are dated by counting annual layers. Those dates are verified by layers of volcanic ash that confirm the dating of the ice.

 

[lasthero]

It just PROVES ice can layer quicker than you think.

No one ever doubted that ice can form quickly under certain circumstances.

At any rate, Rick already has a topic on this case.

www.christianforums.com/threads/my-lost-squadron-challenge.7826110/

It would be best to go there if you want to talk about ice layers, instead of taking this topic further off topic.

 

[The Barbarian]

Further, aircraft on ice will by pressure melt the ice and sink into it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Further, aircraft on ice will by pressure melt the ice and sink into it.

To be fair it would not sink very deep at all from that. Where those planes crashed was on the slope of the ice sheet. In fact it was on the western slope. If you live on the west coast of a continent with mountains you can appreciate how a rising slope causes massive precipitation. I live in Washington state where the amount of annual precipitation can vary by a factor of 50 or more. We go from temperate rain forest, with an emphasis on the rain to deserts in this state.

 

[David4223]

MOD HAT ON

This is a reminder of the flaming rule.

Please ensure you are responding to the content of the post, and not the character of the poster themselves. Calling someone a 'liar' or a 'sinner' is a violation of the flaming rule.

Continued violations of the flaming rule may result in bans.

Thank you.


MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Loudmouth]

Floods...now you're catching on.

How would a flood be able to sort fossils so that they correlate with tiny differences of 40K and 40Ar in the igneous rocks above and below them?

 

[Hammster]

MOD HAT ON


I think this is the fourth mod hat in this thread. If y'all can't keep the flaming down, we will just close the thread. Then what will you have to talk about?


MOD HAT OFF

 

[Astrophile]

If the "depositions" took that long of a time to slowly deposit around the bones...the bones would have been scavenged or rotted away long before becoming buried..

I think that you are missing the point. First, the fact that bones and shells are found in Cenozoic (post-Cretaceous) sedimentary rocks shows that the bones lasted long enough to be buried, or, to put it the other way, that some Cenozoic sediments were deposited fast enough to bury bones before they decayed completely.

Second, the cumulative thickness (>30 km) of the Cenozoic rocks series (Paleocene to Pleistocene) shows that deposition of the sediments took a very long time. Measurements of sedimentation rates, and of rates of tectonic uplift and subsidence, show that >30 km of sedimentary rock cannot be deposited in a few thousand years, or even in a million years.

You can work it out. If the >30 km of Cenozoic sedimentary rocks were deposited in a million years, that comes to 3 cm per year, or 30 cm (1') in ten years. Bones probably do not decay much in ten years; Hamlet's gravedigger said that a man would last eight or nine years in the ground before rotting, and Yorick's skull had been in the earth for 23 years. If the Cenozoic sediments had all been deposited at that rate, they would contain many more fossils than they actually do.

The conclusion is that the thickness of the Cenozoic sediments shows that they were deposited over millions of years; the fact that some Cenozoic formations contain fossils shows either that the sedimentation rate was variable, or that bones and shells can survive at the surface for many years before decaying or being buried, or both.

 

[fargonic]

If the "depositions" took that long of a time to slowly deposit around the bones...the bones would have been scavenged or rotted away long before becoming buried..

You DO realize that we know many animal remains are lost precisely because they are not sequestered quickly enough from scavengers right?

As for the "rotted away" part, well that's a lot more complex than you are likely aware. Let's take coal (the area of my dissertation). Coal is formed in part precisely because some anaerobic bacteria get to munch on the organic material. The key is that the organics are sequestered from oxidative processes early on. If aerobic bacteria or oxygen can get to the plant materials the materials will oxidize away leaving nothing or very different material. (as an aside actually we can see evidence of fires in coal forming bogs! The wood and plant material is charred and oxidized and when it is turned into coal it is known as fusinite or fusain and has a very unique appearance with a very high reflectivity under the microscope!)

Now for bones we are talking inorganic material with organics shot through it. The inorganic material will not necessarily "rot away" (so even today you can find bones of animals that died in the forest). The bones are buried and permineralized in most cases (meaning they are replaced, very slowly, by minerals carried dissolved in ground water.

Think about how slowly groundwater moves through the earth. Now imagine that you have groundwater that has tiny amounts of silica or calcium carbonate dissolved in it that move through, dissolve the old bone material and replace it with new minerals. That takes time, no matter how you slice it.

Even if your wildest dreams of "rapid burial" were the norm for all fossils you'd still have to account for those that are permineralized.

You will have to know the following things:

1. What is the replacement mineral?
2. What is the chemistry of the groundwater?
3. What is the solubility of the replacement mineral in the given groundwater chemistry (pH, Eh, etc.)
4. What is the permeability and porosity of the rock through which the ground water had to pass?

If you know how much permineralization has occurred and you know how soluble that new mineral is in the groundwater, and you know how quickly the groundwater could move through the rock, you will have an estimate of the taphonomic processes.

 

[The Barbarian]

To be fair it would not sink very deep at all from that. Where those planes crashed was on the slope of the ice sheet. In fact it was on the western slope. If you live on the west coast of a continent with mountains you can appreciate how a rising slope causes massive precipitation. I live in Washington state where the amount of annual precipitation can vary by a factor of 50 or more. We go from temperate rain forest, with an emphasis on the rain to deserts in this state.

I was bemused to learn that Seattle is actually in the rain shadow of the Olympic Mountains, and would be much wetter, if it were not for the rain falling mostly on the western slopes. I was impressed by the forests on the Olympic Peninsula; like nothing I had ever seen before.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was bemused to learn that Seattle is actually in the rain shadow of the Olympic Mountains, and would be much wetter, if it were not for the rain falling mostly on the western slopes. I was impressed by the forests on the Olympic Peninsula; like nothing I had ever seen before.

It does not rain a lot in Seattle, but from November through May it seems to rain all of the time. It is amazing how miserable a rain that amounts to a half inch or less can be over a 24 hour period. The secret of the area is that once summer hits you probably will not see rain until the end of September. We have two seasons out here, dry and wet. The winter is not terribly cold and the summer is not terribly hot.

 

[Jimmy D]

I think that you are missing the point. First, the fact that bones and shells are found in Cenozoic (post-Cretaceous) sedimentary rocks shows that the bones lasted long enough to be buried, or, to put it the other way, that some Cenozoic sediments were deposited fast enough to bury bones before they decayed completely.

Second, the cumulative thickness (>30 km) of the Cenozoic rocks series (Paleocene to Pleistocene) shows that deposition of the sediments took a very long time. Measurements of sedimentation rates, and of rates of tectonic uplift and subsidence, show that >30 km of sedimentary rock cannot be deposited in a few thousand years, or even in a million years.

You can work it out. If the >30 km of Cenozoic sedimentary rocks were deposited in a million years, that comes to 3 cm per year, or 30 cm (1') in ten years. Bones probably do not decay much in ten years; Hamlet's gravedigger said that a man would last eight or nine years in the ground before rotting, and Yorick's skull had been in the earth for 23 years. If the Cenozoic sediments had all been deposited at that rate, they would contain many more fossils than they actually do.

The conclusion is that the thickness of the Cenozoic sediments shows that they were deposited over millions of years; the fact that some Cenozoic formations contain fossils shows either that the sedimentation rate was variable, or that bones and shells can survive at the surface for many years before decaying or being buried, or both.

You DO realize that we know many animal remains are lost precisely because they are not sequestered quickly enough from scavengers right?

As for the "rotted away" part, well that's a lot more complex than you are likely aware. Let's take coal (the area of my dissertation). Coal is formed in part precisely because some anaerobic bacteria get to munch on the organic material. The key is that the organics are sequestered from oxidative processes early on. If aerobic bacteria or oxygen can get to the plant materials the materials will oxidize away leaving nothing or very different material. (as an aside actually we can see evidence of fires in coal forming bogs! The wood and plant material is charred and oxidized and when it is turned into coal it is known as fusinite or fusain and has a very unique appearance with a very high reflectivity under the microscope!)

Now for bones we are talking inorganic material with organics shot through it. The inorganic material will not necessarily "rot away" (so even today you can find bones of animals that died in the forest). The bones are buried and permineralized in most cases (meaning they are replaced, very slowly, by minerals carried dissolved in ground water.

Think about how slowly groundwater moves through the earth. Now imagine that you have groundwater that has tiny amounts of silica or calcium carbonate dissolved in it that move through, dissolve the old bone material and replace it with new minerals. That takes time, no matter how you slice it.

Even if your wildest dreams of "rapid burial" were the norm for all fossils you'd still have to account for those that are permineralized.

You will have to know the following things:

1. What is the replacement mineral?
2. What is the chemistry of the groundwater?
3. What is the solubility of the replacement mineral in the given groundwater chemistry (pH, Eh, etc.)
4. What is the permeability and porosity of the rock through which the ground water had to pass?

If you know how much permineralization has occurred and you know how soluble that new mineral is in the groundwater, and you know how quickly the groundwater could move through the rock, you will have an estimate of the taphonomic processes.

I look forward to our creationists friends response to actual facts, no doubt they will involve the words "assumptions" and "worldview".

 

[Doveaman]

Magic is indeed beyond nature. But since we know that God does almost everything by natural means in this world, we don't have to consider magic in our investigations.

Magic is indeed beyond nature, but miracles are not since the existence of nature is a miracle in itself:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." -- (Gen 1:1-2).

Since the very existence of nature is by miracle, then miracles are very much a part of nature.

To ignore miracles, then, will often lead to wrong conclusions in your investigations of nature.

 

[Loudmouth]

Magic is indeed beyond nature, but miracles are not since the existence of nature is a miracle in itself.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." -- (Gen 1:1-2).

Since the very existence of nature is by miracle, then miracles are very much a part of nature.

To ignore miracles, then, will often lead to wrong conclusions in your investigations of nature.

Is there any phenomenon in nature where this doesn't apply?

The theory of gravity is wrong, because . . . . MIRACLES.

The germ theory of disease is wrong, because . . . MIRACLES.

Of course, your posts are probably the best evidence we have. The only reason you have to invoke miracles is because the evidence is so strongly on our side.

 

[-57]

How would a flood be able to sort fossils so that they correlate with tiny differences of 40K and 40Ar in the igneous rocks above and below them?

You forgot....I don't believe in the old earth dating techniques.

 

[-57]

I think that you are missing the point. First, the fact that bones and shells are found in Cenozoic (post-Cretaceous) sedimentary rocks shows that the bones lasted long enough to be buried, or, to put it the other way, that some Cenozoic sediments were deposited fast enough to bury bones before they decayed completely.

Second, the cumulative thickness (>30 km) of the Cenozoic rocks series (Paleocene to Pleistocene) shows that deposition of the sediments took a very long time. Measurements of sedimentation rates, and of rates of tectonic uplift and subsidence, show that >30 km of sedimentary rock cannot be deposited in a few thousand years, or even in a million years.

You can work it out. If the >30 km of Cenozoic sedimentary rocks were deposited in a million years, that comes to 3 cm per year, or 30 cm (1') in ten years. Bones probably do not decay much in ten years; Hamlet's gravedigger said that a man would last eight or nine years in the ground before rotting, and Yorick's skull had been in the earth for 23 years. If the Cenozoic sediments had all been deposited at that rate, they would contain many more fossils than they actually do.

The conclusion is that the thickness of the Cenozoic sediments shows that they were deposited over millions of years; the fact that some Cenozoic formations contain fossils shows either that the sedimentation rate was variable, or that bones and shells can survive at the surface for many years before decaying or being buried, or both.

The old earthers like to look at today...and assume it has always been depositing at the same rate. I believe they are in error.

 

[Hoghead1]

I don't know if scientists always assume it is the same today as yesterday. If they do, they have pretty solid reasons for so doing. I do know Setterfield argues that that c has been slowing down, is not constant. However, there is no indication that is true. C has been measure umpteen times and remains constant. We have to go on what we do know , not on what we don't. Hence, the safest assumption is that c has remained constant throughout time. The other issue here is what other measuring instruments you would want to use. Have creation-science people yet to devise more accurate measuring devices? I sure don't see that. If you do, tell me where and what these instruments are like.

 

[Loudmouth]

You forgot....I don't believe in the old earth dating techniques.

If you don't believe in the Earth moving about the Sun, does the Sun start moving about the Earth?

We are talking about reality. Reality doesn't care what you do or don't believe in.