Flood Geology? Really?

[laptoppop]

Wow - I could swear I answered this post. Oh well.

I'm definitely going to remember this post next time someone says that dinosaurs do not resemble birds.

Correct me if I'm wrong -- but don't both have hollow bones? That would affect their specific weight.

Of course, in terms of dinos and birds, we could talk about dragons <grin> nah.

For what its worth, none of the above mechanisms, either in combination or in isolation, describe the relative positioning of sea turtles. I have yet to see the above hydrological sorting mechanisms used to predict the biostratigraphic order of a given formation. If any YEC would like to give it a try, please let me know.

The problem of course is in discerning the many flood variables, like the temperature of the water, speed of the flow, dissolved solids at different points in time, etc. It would be very profitable for someone to take a formation and do this in a structured way. I've seen some research pointing in that direction, but there are a ton of variables to account for.

In terms of sea turtles -- Sea turtles have a number of different characteristics that would tend to make them be higher in the fossil record than you might expect at first glance. First, motility. Sea turtles are actually pretty strong swimmers, and they need to surface to breathe. Second, sea turtles can go on land. One of the theories is that there were large mats of vegetation, much like what was seen in the Mt St Helens area, but at a far larger scale. It would be very possible for a sea turtle to climb up on such a mat. Next, specific gravity. Sea turtles are made for swimming, and I believe they have a specific gravity similar to water, allowing them to go down and up. The thought of sea turtles resting on the bottom then getting covered in one minute is a fallacy. The rains, etc. continued for 40 days. The flood would have started out gentle and then gotten bigger and bigger.

It ends up being similar to dinosaur nests. I've read some research lately describing how the "nests" that are pointed to actually show signs of (1) burial/preservation, (2) being laid in haste, (3) being laid in mud or even low water. In other words -- sign of females discharging their egg weight in order to be able to go faster.

Nor do any of the above mechanisms explain why vertebrates are arranged in the fossil record according to subtle morphological progressions (in the development of the inner ear, for example, or in the pattern of skull bone sutures) that would not influence their settling in the water column.

Actually, this is a bit of a circular argument, because it depends on accepting worldwide dating of the various strata. AFAIK, one site does not show all of this unless it is combined with other sites in other locations. Am I mistaken on that?

 

[laptoppop]

Could you please link me to those pics, pop, or at least post them again? I would like to see the experiment you ran. You've mentioned it here a number of times.

I just spent half an hour looking for them -- I know they are here somewhere. If necessary I'll post them again. I've already spent way more time here than I should -- I should be working on a spreadsheet( yuuuuuch)

Nope. Just one that predicts a priori what we should be able to verify with ground truth. I would like to see a model that predicts biostratigraphy, for example.

I've tried to explain why this is so hard or very possibly not feasible at all.

Saurischian dinosaurs do indeed have hollow limb bones and reduced specific weight. But for some reason, they are found lower in section than the much denser, aquatic mammals. Which of your mechanisms account for this?

How about motility in a watery environment? Seems pretty obvious to me.

Alternatively, which of your mechanisms account for the fact that the densely-boned ornithischian dinosaurs occur in the same strata at the lightly built saurischian dinosaurs?

Again, motility or ecological zoneation.

Source? Are there any subaqueous procesesses that mimic, say, eolian cross bedding?

Sure. Check this out:
http://creationwiki.org/Coconino_sandstone_was_deposited_underwater
(found with a quick google search -- water eolian cross bedding)

 

[Mallon]

Correct me if I'm wrong -- but don't both have hollow bones? That would affect their specific weight.

Yes. Both saurischian dinosaurs (the group theorized to have lead to birds) and birds have hollow bones in common (among dozens of other features). Isn't that what I said?

In terms of sea turtles -- Sea turtles have a number of different characteristics that would tend to make them be higher in the fossil record than you might expect at first glance. First, motility. Sea turtles are actually pretty strong swimmers, and they need to surface to breathe.

Ah, but so do ichthyosaurs, and they appear lower in the fossil record than sea turtles. So scratch that idea!

Second, sea turtles can go on land.

But they are terribly slow on land compared to, say, a Velociraptor. So why are sea turtles found higher in the fossil record than Velociraptor?

One of the theories is that there were large mats of vegetation

Hypothesis, not a theory. The word "theory" implies that there is evidence for such. There is no evidence for floating vegetation mats. That's an ad hoc explanation perpetuated by AiG.

Sea turtles are made for swimming, and I believe they have a specific gravity similar to water, allowing them to go down and up.

Almost all vertebrates have a specific gravity equal to that of water. We are mostly water, after all.

The thought of sea turtles resting on the bottom then getting covered in one minute is a fallacy.

So what about all the other aquatic creatures? Did they just lay there and get covered in sediment?

It ends up being similar to dinosaur nests. I've read some research lately describing how the "nests" that are pointed to actually show signs of (1) burial/preservation, (2) being laid in haste, (3) being laid in mud or even low water. In other words -- sign of females discharging their egg weight in order to be able to go faster.

You have been misinformed, I am afraid. Dinosaur nests actually show quite the opposite. They are typically deposited in nest-like depressions, and often show some depositional structure (troodontid eggs are laid in parallel rows, for example). Hardly acts of desperation.

Actually, this is a bit of a circular argument, because it depends on accepting worldwide dating of the various strata. AFAIK, one site does not show all of this unless it is combined with other sites in other locations. Am I mistaken on that?

Yeah. The following paper describes subtle morphological 'progression' of pachypleurosaurs within a single formation:

O’Keefe, F. R. and P. M. Sander. 1999. Paleontological paradigms and inferences of phylogenetic pattern: a case study. Paleobiology 25: 518-533.

How about motility in a watery environment? Seems pretty obvious to me

What to you mean "obvious"? Are dinosaurs "obviously" less well-suited for semi-aquaticism than mammals? Again, this is ad hoc, not science.

Again, motility or ecological zoneation.

I don't think you quite get it, pop. Even if two groups of different densities lived in the same ecological zone or exhibited the same motility (as you are implying) they should still separate in the fossil column according to their different densities. That's what Morris' hypothesis predicts, and that's why it fails. The idea of hydrological sorting sounds good on the surface, but it utterly fails on closer inspection. Deferring to the complexity of interacting sorting mechanisms doesn't suddenly make it plausible again. Verified predictions does.

Sure. Check this out:

http://creationwiki.org/Coconino_san...ted_underwater
(found with a quick google search -- water eolian cross bedding)

This source doesn't explain what I asked you, though. I asked if there was an observable process that produces high-angled eolian cross bedding under water. Your source doesn't say (it just argues that the cross beds of the Coconino sandstone were deposited underwater).
(Incidentally, I always found the creation wiki a bit of a laugh because their responses to individual entries in the Talkorigins Index of Creationist Claims are refuted elsewhere in the same Index.)

 

[laptoppop]

We can continue to go around and around about this, with me claiming it is consistent with the dynamics of a global flood and you wanting me to limit the number of variables involved and come up with nice neat answers. Let's move on. Two quick things:

You have been misinformed, I am afraid. Dinosaur nests actually show quite the opposite. They are typically deposited in nest-like depressions, and often show some depositional structure (troodontid eggs are laid in parallel rows, for example). Hardly acts of desperation.

Check out http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_2/Dinotests.htm

Yeah. The following paper describes subtle morphological 'progression' of pachypleurosaurs within a single formation:

O’Keefe, F. R. and P. M. Sander. 1999. Paleontological paradigms and inferences of phylogenetic pattern: a case study. Paleobiology 25: 518-533

Isn't that different than what you originally claimed about the ear bones, for example?

What to you mean "obvious"? Are dinosaurs "obviously" less well-suited for semi-aquaticism than mammals? Again, this is ad hoc, not science.

I don't think you quite get it, pop. Even if two groups of different densities lived in the same ecological zone or exhibited the same motility (as you are implying) they should still separate in the fossil column according to their different densities. That's what Morris' hypothesis predicts, and that's why it fails. The idea of hydrological sorting sounds good on the surface, but it utterly fails on closer inspection. Deferring to the complexity of interacting sorting mechanisms doesn't suddenly make it plausible again. Verified predictions does.

Not going to go there -- your definition (and indeed, Morris' early work) for the dynamics of fossil deposition within flood conditions is way too simplistic.

This source doesn't explain what I asked you, though. I asked if there was an observable process that produces high-angled eolian cross bedding under water. Your source doesn't say (it just argues that the cross beds of the Coconino sandstone were deposited underwater)

The Coconino sandstone is a classic example of eolian cross bedding.

Follow some of the references in the article -- for example:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i1/flood.asp

.
(Incidentally, I always found the creation wiki a bit of a laugh because their responses to individual entries in the Talkorigins Index of Creationist Claims are refuted elsewhere in the same Index.)

Argumentum ad hominem

 

[Mallon]

Check out http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_2/Dinotests.htm

I checked that article out some years ago, and even wrote Walter to further probe his hypothesis. He hasn't even seen the nests he's critiquing, so his opinions carry very little weight with me. He certainly didn't sound nearly as confident of his ideas when he wrote to me personally.

Isn't that different than what you originally claimed about the ear bones, for example?

Yes, but then you specified that you don't subscribe to stratigraphic correlation and that you wanted progressions found specifically within a single formation. I'm providing you one.

The Coconino sandstone is a classic example of eolian cross bedding.

I agree. Your sources don't.

Argumentum ad hominem

Not quite. I'm attacking the poor research of the wiki writers, not the writers themselves. Either way, it was an aside.