Evolution - Rescuing out-of-place Fossils

[dad]

There is no evidence that you would ever accept.

Any will do. Just remember not to taint the living daylights out of it with your fanatical beliefs. Hey, people are fessing up here, how about you?


Care to admit that you believe that mankind is a result of worms having sex?

Don't equate your complete denial of reality to a lack of evidence.

Don't equate a pretense at reality with tainting all evidences with your little religion.

 

[dad]

dad, I have stated to you a number of times, as we look back in time through numerous methods we see the same physics.

Of course you do, cause you implant it. You cannot claim radioactivity existed unless you do more than claim it, and assume things were in a state of radioactive decay. So stop it.

It does not change. If it had changed, that change would be easily observable.

It did not change, 'it' IS the change. You can't detect that. It is bigger than your inward thinking circular logic conceived. You have a hamster cage and I have something bigger than all get out.

This is because each element is made up a specific way which is characteristic of its specific sub-atomic structure. If it had changed in the past, it would be a different element all together.

Nope. Provide the basis for your claim and an example ans we shall see.

Do you know how many isotopes of carbon there are and which are stable and which are and why?

There are as many as required in this present state. Did you think otherwise? Why?

 

[[serious]]

I have the evidence of your failure to prove the state you claim as part of science and the state upon which all the godless so called science claims rest. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

You have failed to disprove his evidence of proof of the state of science he tested proof claim science god.

I think I smoked the same stuff you are.

 

[dad]

You have failed to disprove his evidence of proof of the state of science he tested proof claim science god.
.

Disprove his evidence? I think I'll wait till we see it first. What you trying to blow our way??

 

[RickG]

Of course you do, cause you implant it. You cannot claim radioactivity existed unless you do more than claim it, and assume things were in a state of radioactive decay. So stop it.

Basic physics dad. All you need to is learn something about the sub-atomic structure of atoms and you would see how baseless your comment is.

It did not change, 'it' IS the change. You can't detect that. It is bigger than your inward thinking circular logic conceived. You have a hamster cage and I have something bigger than all get out.

Do you enjoy making stuff up and claiming it as fact with zero evidence? Seems like the 9th commandment says something about that kind of behavior.

Nope. Provide the basis for your claim and an example ans we shall see.

I did, here it is again: "This is because each element is made up a specific way which is characteristic of its specific sub-atomic structure. If it had changed in the past, it would be a different element all together. You know dad, protons, neutron, and electrons. Change any of that configuration around and you have a different element, and this is exactly what we see with unstable radionuclides. And your rebuttal is made up fantasy.

There are as many as required in this present state. Did you think otherwise? Why?

Again, you don't have a clue, just made up fantasy. Remember the 9th commandment.

 

[RickG]

Disprove his evidence? I think I'll wait till we see it first. What you trying to blow our way??

You are the one with no evidence dad. You live in a fantasy land. Maybe you need to open an amusement park. Whooops! You can't call it "fantasy land", Disney already has one.

 

[Loudmouth]

Any will do.

Any what? What would you expect to see if the past was the same as the present?

Care to admit that you believe that mankind is a result of worms having sex?
Don't equate a pretense at reality with tainting all evidences with your little religion.

I'm pretty sure that my parents are not worms. Care to start making sense?

 

[dad]

Basic physics dad. All you need to is learn something about the sub-atomic structure of atoms and you would see how baseless your comment is.

No, physics is present state physics. Failure to prove a same state past means no physics.

Do you enjoy making stuff up and claiming it as fact with zero evidence? Seems like the 9th commandment says something about that kind of behavior.

God made it up. I just agree. The stuff you make up is off base.

I did, here it is again: "This is because each element is made up a specific way which is characteristic of its specific sub-atomic structure. If it had changed in the past, it would be a different element all together. You know dad, protons, neutron, and electrons. Change any of that configuration around and you have a different element, and this is exactly what we see with unstable radionuclides. And your rebuttal is made up fantasy.

False. Get over it. Who says we change THAT configuration? What changed left that configuration. Is this a difficult concept to grasp?


If the forces changed then that would result in whatever existed to need to get in line accordingly.

 

[dad]

You are the one with no evidence dad.

No Rick, you are. You have religion.


You just haven't faced the fact it is fantasy yet. That must come, prepare for it.

 

[dad]

Any what? What would you expect to see if the past was the same as the present?

God saying something opposite of what He said! Plus you having proof of your claim it was that way!

I'm pretty sure that my parents are not worms. Care to start making sense?

Do you admit that your ancestors were flatworms?

 

[Astrophile]

The imaginary data point is what's indicating that the bird tracks must be younger then what they're currently dated at. At that point, there was no real data indicating that, but the researchers assumed it must be true because relatively modern birds shouldn't be in the Triassic as dictated by evolution theory.

This is why creationists accuse evolutionists of dating rocks by the fossils, because evolutionists are known for doing it. They already *know* what dates they're looking for before they even start analyzing the date data, and then opens up the world of subjective rationalizations in their analysis...

Is there any fossil evidence that the red beds of the Laguna Brava Formation are Triassic, or, more broadly, not Eocene? If Eocene and Triassic fossils occurred in the same formation palaeontologists would be in serious difficulties. Also, is there any fossil evidence besides the bird tracks for an Eocene age?

 

[dad]

Basic physics dad. All you need to is learn something about the sub-atomic structure of atoms and you would see how baseless your comment is.

That is foolish talk. The forces that govern atoms are what we are talking about. What we would need to learn is how it was not how it is.

Do you enjoy making stuff up and claiming it as fact with zero evidence? Seems like the 9th commandment says something about that kind of behavior.

Science may have zero evidence for what forces existed but that doesn't help you if you claim the present ones did! Get it?

Looking at Scripture about the future it is clear that things will simply work quite differently in basic ways. The past also.

I did, here it is again: "This is because each element is made up a specific way which is characteristic of its specific sub-atomic structure. If it had changed in the past, it would be a different element all together. You know dad, protons, neutron, and electrons. Change any of that configuration around and you have a different element, and this is exactly what we see with unstable radionuclides.

It would not be changing THAT if THAT was left here from something else changing. Your grasp of the issue is unstable.

Again, you don't have a clue, just made up fantasy. Remember the 9th commandment.

Admit you have no clue what forces existed or else be exposed when you are asked to prove your claim. End of story. You lose.

 

[Loudmouth]

Is there any fossil evidence that the red beds of the Laguna Brava Formation are Triassic, or, more broadly, not Eocene? If Eocene and Triassic fossils occurred in the same formation palaeontologists would be in serious difficulties. Also, is there any fossil evidence besides the bird tracks for an Eocene age?

"Bird-like tracks from northwest Argentina have been reported as being of Late Triassic age1. They were attributed to an unknown group of theropods showing some avian characters. However, we believe that these tracks are of Late Eocene age on the basis of a new weighted mean 206Pb/238U date (isotope dilution–thermal ionization mass spectrometry method) on zircons from a tuff bed in the sedimentary succession containing the fossil tracks. In consequence, the mentioned tracks are assigned to birds and its occurrence matches the known fossil record of Aves."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v495/n7441/full/nature11931.html

The previous paper that gave a Triassic age was based on geologic relationships between different formations. They got those relationships wrong.

The age of the stratigraphic unit was considered to be Late Triassic on the basis of known fossil wood remains and geochronological information from basalt lava flows thought to be interbedded in this unit1, 3, 4. Further geological studies revealed that the Santo Domingo Formation contains several thrust sheets of different ages, and that the trace-fossil-bearing horizons belong instead to the recently proposed Laguna Brava Formation, in a thrust sheet separate from the one that contains the dated basalt and fossil wood remains5.​

When they directly dated the rocks in the sediment bed containing the bird tracks, it turned out to be Eocene.

A 12-cm-thick crystal-rich ash-fall tuff within the thrust sheet with the bird-like footprints was sampled for this study for U–Pb zircon geochronology (supported by US National Science Foundation grant EAR 0931839 and ANPCyT PICT 13286 from Argentina). This tuff lies 38 m below the first layer with definite G. dominguensis and 124 m below the main horizon with hundreds of G. dominguensis6. There is no stratigraphic discontinuity between the tuff bed and the footprint-bearing levels. Zircon grains were separated from the tuff using conventional methods and were dated using high-precision chemical abrasion–isotope dilution–thermal ionization mass spectrometry (CA-ID-TIMS)7, 8. The tuff yielded abundant clear, long bipyramidal (150 μm and 250 μm) and sharply faceted zircons. The five youngest analyses from a total of nine form a coherent cluster with a weighted-mean 206Pb/238U date of 37.222 ± 0.018/0.024/0.047 million years (Myr) ago (internal uncertainties/with tracer calibration uncertainties/with decay constant uncertainties; mean square of weighted deviation = 1.6) (Fig. 1 and Table 1). emphasis mine​

 

[Astrophile]

"Bird-like tracks from northwest Argentina have been reported as being of Late Triassic age1. They were attributed to an unknown group of theropods showing some avian characters. However, we believe that these tracks are of Late Eocene age on the basis of a new weighted mean 206Pb/238U date (isotope dilution–thermal ionization mass spectrometry method) on zircons from a tuff bed in the sedimentary succession containing the fossil tracks. In consequence, the mentioned tracks are assigned to birds and its occurrence matches the known fossil record of Aves."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v495/n7441/full/nature11931.html

The previous paper that gave a Triassic age was based on geologic relationships between different formations. They got those relationships wrong.

The age of the stratigraphic unit was considered to be Late Triassic on the basis of known fossil wood remains and geochronological information from basalt lava flows thought to be interbedded in this unit1, 3, 4. Further geological studies revealed that the Santo Domingo Formation contains several thrust sheets of different ages, and that the trace-fossil-bearing horizons belong instead to the recently proposed Laguna Brava Formation, in a thrust sheet separate from the one that contains the dated basalt and fossil wood remains5.​

When they directly dated the rocks in the sediment bed containing the bird tracks, it turned out to be Eocene.

A 12-cm-thick crystal-rich ash-fall tuff within the thrust sheet with the bird-like footprints was sampled for this study for U–Pb zircon geochronology (supported by US National Science Foundation grant EAR 0931839 and ANPCyT PICT 13286 from Argentina). This tuff lies 38 m below the first layer with definite G. dominguensis and 124 m below the main horizon with hundreds of G. dominguensis6. There is no stratigraphic discontinuity between the tuff bed and the footprint-bearing levels. Zircon grains were separated from the tuff using conventional methods and were dated using high-precision chemical abrasion–isotope dilution–thermal ionization mass spectrometry (CA-ID-TIMS)7, 8. The tuff yielded abundant clear, long bipyramidal (150 μm and 250 μm) and sharply faceted zircons. The five youngest analyses from a total of nine form a coherent cluster with a weighted-mean 206Pb/238U date of 37.222 ± 0.018/0.024/0.047 million years (Myr) ago (internal uncertainties/with tracer calibration uncertainties/with decay constant uncertainties; mean square of weighted deviation = 1.6) (Fig. 1 and Table 1). emphasis mine​

Thank-you for your answer. However, I think that you have misunderstood the point of my questions. In the post that I was replying to, lifepsyop said that the researchers had assumed that fossil bird tracks would not be found in rocks as old as the Triassic, and that they had therefore re-dated the rocks to the Eocene in order to remove the anomaly. The point I was making is that if these rocks really are Triassic they ought to contain Triassic index fossils, or at least fossils that are characteristic of the Triassic system. Alternatively, if the rocks are Eocene, they ought to contain fossils characteristic of the Eocene series. What I was asking whether the rocks do in fact contain fossils (besides the bird tracks) that could establish their stratigraphic age.

 

[Loudmouth]

Thank-you for your answer. However, I think that you have misunderstood the point of my questions. In the post that I was replying to, lifepsyop said that the researchers had assumed that fossil bird tracks would not be found in rocks as old as the Triassic, and that they had therefore re-dated the rocks to the Eocene in order to remove the anomaly. The point I was making is that if these rocks really are Triassic they ought to contain Triassic index fossils, or at least fossils that are characteristic of the Triassic system. Alternatively, if the rocks are Eocene, they ought to contain fossils characteristic of the Eocene series. What I was asking whether the rocks do in fact contain fossils (besides the bird tracks) that could establish their stratigraphic age.

Yes and no. Index fossils were found, but that part of the formation was actually much older than previously though.

"The unit at the studied locality has produced remains of Rhexoxylon11, a wood morphogenus only reported from Middle to Late Triassic rocks of Gondwana14. Concurrently, an interbedded basalt flow located about 80 m above the track-bearing horizons yielded an 40Ar/39Ar plateau age of 212.5 +/- 7.0 Myr ago (step-heating analysis on albite crystal)12, which suggests a Norian–Rhaetian age for the basalt according to recent calibrations of the Triassic–Jurassic timescale15, 16, 17."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n6892/full/nature00818.html

That is from the original paper that had a Triassic age. The problem is they incorrectly linked the bird track layers with the basalt flow 80 m above it.

 

[Astrophile]

Yes and no. Index fossils were found, but that part of the formation was actually much older than previously though.

"The unit at the studied locality has produced remains of Rhexoxylon11, a wood morphogenus only reported from Middle to Late Triassic rocks of Gondwana14. Concurrently, an interbedded basalt flow located about 80 m above the track-bearing horizons yielded an 40Ar/39Ar plateau age of 212.5 +/- 7.0 Myr ago (step-heating analysis on albite crystal)12, which suggests a Norian–Rhaetian age for the basalt according to recent calibrations of the Triassic–Jurassic timescale15, 16, 17."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n6892/full/nature00818.html

That is from the original paper that had a Triassic age. The problem is they incorrectly linked the bird track layers with the basalt flow 80 m above it.

Thank-you. That answers my question.