Evolution False? Absolute proof inside.

[RickG]

Well of course the number and orientation does make it look like a Flood. So what is the number if not 1/cub m and what way are they sorted according to your sources?

What are my sources. Well, first there is nothing in the published scientific literature that supports the claim. However I do find this by the "National Center for Science Education":

Nautiloids

"Original research by a creationist in Grand Canyon first appears in MTC on page 26 where Austin (1994) reports actual new data. In some places in the Mississippian Redwall Limestone, fossils of orthocone, chambered nautiloids (marine mollusks differing from modern nautilus by having straight, rather than coiled, shells) are abundant. Austin measured the orientation of 12 examples of these nautiloids in a single outcrop and showed that 10 of them are aligned with their long axes within an arc spanning 90°. He concludes that this preferred orientation indicates that the nautiloids received their alignments when dead, as lime mud was moved by water currents. He concludes that this is consistent with the flood hypothesis rather than "the uniformitarian notion that fine-grained limestone beds of Grand Canyon usually accumulated... in a calm and placid sea" (Austin 1994:28)."

​

Link here: Bibliolatry in the Grand Canyon | NCSE

 

[USincognito]

Sure looks like a dig to me

The fact that you think "dig", instead of "archeaologist" was the operative word in my observation, just proves me point.

 

[USincognito]

US
Please explain to me why I dont know what I am talking about when I mentioned "Cambrian" and "dig " in the same sentence. The images above clearly show "digging" on what are Cambrian sites. What do you suppose they are digging for?
Please answer in detail

Are you trying to be ironic? Here. Let Rick help you...

Yup! Sure is. But wait. Those are paleontologist, not archeologists.

 

[TasManOfGod]

The fact that you think "dig", instead of "archeaologist" was the operative word in my observation, just proves me point.

there was nothing wrong with the context in which I used it . Anyway it seems like I annoy you so just put me on ignore like I am going to do to you.
Have a nice day

 

[TasManOfGod]

What are my sources. Well, first there is nothing in the published scientific literature that supports the claim. However I do find this by the "National Center for Science Education":

Nautiloids

"Original research by a creationist in Grand Canyon first appears in MTC on page 26 where Austin (1994) reports actual new data. In some places in the Mississippian Redwall Limestone, fossils of orthocone, chambered nautiloids (marine mollusks differing from modern nautilus by having straight, rather than coiled, shells) are abundant. Austin measured the orientation of 12 examples of these nautiloids in a single outcrop and showed that 10 of them are aligned with their long axes within an arc spanning 90°. He concludes that this preferred orientation indicates that the nautiloids received their alignments when dead, as lime mud was moved by water currents. He concludes that this is consistent with the flood hypothesis rather than "the uniformitarian notion that fine-grained limestone beds of Grand Canyon usually accumulated... in a calm and placid sea" (Austin 1994:28)."

​

Link here: Bibliolatry in the Grand Canyon | NCSE

A good illustration of the bias shown in the scientific community isn't it

 

[RickG]

A good illustration of the bias shown in the scientific community isn't it

The bias is with Austin, who embellished exponentially what he saw. If there is the slightest credebility in his claim, why does he not publish his findings in the scientific literature instead of a book sold only by creation science organizations. Oh wait, some geologists actually went to the site and didn't see what Austin claimed was there.

 

[createdtoworship]

There is nothing wrong with the Nautilus fossils other than their quantity and orientation being misrepresented.

explain why 15% of the grand canyon deposit of nautiloids, are on their heads!

if they were buried gradually would they be lying down?

"15% of these nautiloids were killed and then fossilized standing on their heads. "-(Steve Austin is also the world's leading expert on nautiloid fossils and has worked in the canyon and presented his findings to the park's rangers at the invitation of National Park Service officials.)

quote from
Millions of Grand Canyon nautiloid fossils prove rapid limestone formation | Young Earth - Age of the Earth - Evidence Against Old Earth Arguments

 

[createdtoworship]

I don't know where you got that statement but it does not relate to the fossilization process whatsoever. Please provide your source. BTW, just to let you know, if you are going the dunning/kruger route involving chemistry, you might want to know that I spent most of my working career as a research chemist, I can get quite technical on you real quick.



Paleontologist would be the proper word to use, not evolutionists, not to mention the process described above is rubbish.

Rubbish. Fossils are indeed rare. This is due to the environment in which they are buried in, not a lack of chemicals. In fact, the process you described is not fossilization, rather precipitation forming a calcareous coating. I think it was AiG that has an article doing this with a sponge.

Aren't you the one who said this thread is not about the flood? .

you have any peer reviews which state that?

BTW they must be peer reviewed with a phd in related field, must be in the area of study (fossilization), and must be from an accredited agency.

As for fossilization, the process involves the replacement or organic material, generally silicates, not NaHCO[sub]3[/sub], and it is not injected. It is a slow replacement process through dissolved minerals. As for shells, the are already composed of Na[sub]2[/sub]CO[sub]3[/sub] or Ca[sub]2[/sub]CO[sub]3 [/sub]or both.

only problem is scavengers, and bacteria would make short business of any soft tissue and hard tissue that wasn't literally injected with preserving chemicals under pressure.

Nevertheless, 10,000 duckbill dinosaurs in one site? Source please

Sorry, I rambled....

but thats exactly what is happening, there is information on abone bed of dinasaurs actually 10,000 in number or greater, and in a smaller dimension than I said, it's only 1/4 mile wide.
"largely oriented east to west, indicating moving water"

more info here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Xo...q=montana dinosaur graveyard duckbill&f=false
thankyou for your time.

 

[createdtoworship]

The bias is with Austin, who embellished exponentially what he saw. If there is the slightest credebility in his claim, why does he not publish his findings in the scientific literature instead of a book sold only by creation science organizations. Oh wait, some geologists actually went to the site and didn't see what Austin claimed was there.

he was asked by the national park service to publish his findings, and has since become the formost authority on naudiloid fossils.

here is one source, not sure if it was peer reviewed or not:

Steven A. Austin and Kurt P. Wise "Nautiloid Mass-Kill Event at a Hydrothermal Mound within the Redwall Limestone (Mississippian), Grand Canyon, Arizona":Geologic Society of American Abstracts with Programs, Vol.27, no. 6, 1995, p.A-369

 

[createdtoworship]

The fact that you think "dig", instead of "archeaologist" was the operative word in my observation, just proves me point.

btw, it's "MY POINT" NOT

"ME POINT"

(unless your a pirate)

 

[lasthero]

he was asked by the national park service to publish his findings, and has since become the formost authority on naudiloid fossils.

Really. The 'foremost authority'. According to whom?

And it's nautiloid, not naudiloid.

(Unless you're a moron.)

 

[createdtoworship]

Really. The 'foremost authority'. According to whom?

And it's nautiloid, not naudiloid.

(Unless you're a moron.)

I don't know the exact number etc. But He has found more than anyone else.

and you are on ignore from this point on, (again)

thanks for the comment.

 

[lasthero]

But He has found more than anyone else.

And you know this...how? Because he said so?

Also, how does finding a lot of something automatically make you an expert on it? Living in a forest full of trees doesn't make you an expert on trees.

 

[biggles53]

Ignoring is what you people do soooo well...

 

[bhsmte]

Ignoring is what you people do soooo well...

Ignoring, denial, all defense mechanisms that are quite rudimentary, but effective. That is, until reality causes so much inner turmoil, the defense mechanisms become the dominant part of your identity.

 

[biggles53]

Ignoring, denial, all defense mechanisms that are quite rudimentary, but effective. That is, until reality causes so much inner turmoil, the defense mechanisms become the dominant part of your identity.

A sure recipe for madness...!

 

[createdtoworship]

from:Joel kontinen: Billions of Dead Nautiloids in the Grand Canyon: Evidence for a Rapid Burial

In 1995 two creationist PhD scientists, Steven Austin and Kurt Wise, found that there were at least 71 nautiloid fossils on the rock ledges of the Grand Canyon. Four years later Steven Austin examined the ledges more thoroughly and found hundreds of nautiloids in a few days. They were of all sizes, from small to very large, some over six feet long, suggesting that a large population of these sea creatures, both young and old animals, was buried simultaneously.[9] This discovery supports the biblical view that Noah’s flood “deluged and destroyed” the early Earth (Genesis 6-8; 2 Peter 3:6).

explain why 15% of the grand canyon deposit of nautiloids, are on their heads!


The nautiloids were trapped in a layer that is from seven to forty or fifty feet thick and at least 180 miles long. There are probably ten billion nautiloid fossils in the bed along with other sea creatures such as corals.[10] Using flow models,[11] Dr. Austin was able to deduce that an enormous and a very rapid sedimentary flow caught the nautiloids and fossilised them almost instantly. The standard explanation of a slowly moving sea could never have produced this phenomenon that Austin aptly calls a mass kill. [12]

[9] Ref. 7.
[10] Austin, Steven. 2003. Geologic Evidences for Very Rapid Strata Deposition in the Grand Canyon. Answers in Genesis DVD.
[11] Ref. 10.
[12] Refs 7 and 10.

 

[46AND2]

there was nothing wrong with the context in which I used it . Anyway it seems like I annoy you so just put me on ignore like I am going to do to you.
Have a nice day

You still aren't getting it, even when explained to you. ARCHAELOGISTS don't dig in the Cambrian. ARCHAEOLOGISTS.

 

[USincognito]

there was nothing wrong with the context in which I used it . Anyway it seems like I annoy you so just put me on ignore like I am going to do to you.
Have a nice day

Again, you validate my assertion. You don't understand the difference between paleontologists and archeologists. That alone disqualifies you from being taken seriously in this conversation. You can continue to make assertions from a position of ignorance, or you can actually learn about this subject from people who understand it and, in some cases, work in fields related to it.

It appears you have chosen the former.

explain why 15% of the grand canyon deposit of nautiloids, are on their heads!

Is there any evidence of this beyond Austin claiming it?

(Steve Austin is also the world's leading expert on nautiloid fossils and has worked in the canyon and presented his findings to the park's rangers at the invitation of National Park Service officials.)

Youngearth.com is lying to you. Austin's primary educational work was in coal formations. Why do Creationist organizations think they can lie like this and why do so many Creationists repeat those lies without due diligence?

 

[USincognito]

but thats exactly what is happening, there is information on abone bed of dinasaurs actually 10,000 in number or greater, and in a smaller dimension than I said, it's only 1/4 mile wide.
"largely oriented east to west, indicating moving water"

more info here:

That's a book written by a Creationist. The actual paper is behind a pay wall.
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie