Fossil Fish

[dlamberth]

No. It requires looking at reality, and what we actually know, not just believe.

With this coming from you dad, my irony meter just went off the board. You have very consistently and faithfully ignored what we actually know for what you believe.




.

 

[Dislike]

Wait, you guys still respond to dad? I figured you'd just ignore him by now.

?

 

[dad]

You didn't answer the question.

In any case, the calendar was set by christians - no surprise - some centuries after the events and it was off by about 4 years right from the start. So much for historical accuracy.

They did as well as they could to set it to the year of our Lord, not bad, really. As for believers of any sex, from the old testament, my opinion is that they all went to heaven. A resurection. We who died 'in Christ', or believers since His life on earth here will be raised at the last trump, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye. Could I be any clearer here?

Denying for the sake of preserving a worldview is not the same thing as looking at reality and much more akin to expressing belief, especially when the dominant element of your reality seems to be a single book of dubious origin and even more dubious value in illuminating reality.

So you don't like the book of books, fine. Better evidence your contrary positions, if you must raise them, though.

What merged universe?

What only same as the present, physical only one?

What went on "down there" that no longer goes on?

There was a lot of water, for one thing. Things were not decaying, for another.

It would be truly magical if the "fountains of the deep" opened up and the helium didn't escape.

Depends on a few things. -How many fountains opened up, compared to the big world. -If the fountains opened up when the helium was otherwise employed, still in a merged universe or not.

As far as helium forming uranium, that's pure fantasy.

It now works does it not the other way round? If there was no decay process then maybe the 'escalator' was going up, instead of down, so to speak? Then there are fundamental changes in the fabric of the universe that may have been different as well. Take an electon. or some other things with either a positive or negative charge. Why is it that way? Was it possible that some things, had charges that were different? Atomic, and molecular changes so fundamental, that many changes we could hardly fanthom may have occured! Helium contains two electrons. Its nucleus consists of two protons and also two neutrons, particles similar to the proton but with no electric charge. Add an electic charge here, or take away an electron there, or a neutron, and hec, where did that helium go, or come from?
Basing everything on the present leaves a lot to be desired!

The weight of the evidence doesn't constitute absolute proof but is very heavy indeed.

heavy with assumptions and weighted with being present only based. Why not give God the benefit of the doubt, and see how else the evidences may fit?

I suppose the laws of physics will be rewritten as well.

They come with the territory of physical only, and are fine and dandy for the only territory they can apply-the present. Poor little PO laws of course would in no way apply to a merged universe where the spiritual is present, and together with the physical.

Precisely my point. The reason there is no technetium around is because the universe is far older than any technetium, as all its isotopes decay more or less rapidly, but with half-lives reaching only to 4 or so million years.

It is not found naturally here either, but made in reactors, no? So the question is, what is the difference between the natural world, and the conditions in the reactor? I would guess that some things not found in nature, may indicate that they were not used in the former process to the same extent if at all, as things that are found there. True, the decay now would produce it, but maybe it was not used in the former process? Thats why it may not be found in nature! I'd have to mull that one over, as it is pretty new to me, and my head is wanting to mellow out tonight, not heat up thinking about life's mysteries.

Why is it, then, that Jesus promised to return within the lifetime of his apostles?

Common misconception. He gave certain signs that would precede His return that had to happen first. Even in the bible the question was addressed, as some, you know tend to get wild about things. They were told, basically relax. The day of His return would not come, until first some things happened. Chiefly, it talked about the man of sin (antichrist) coming before He returned. This never happened yet.

 

[Jet Black]

A very interesting website! I was aware of the changes that occurred from the "Middle Cretaceous age" until the present, but I was not aware of the projected hypothesis for development before then.

However, the fossil fish was discovered, it appears, in Kansas. Althought I am not 100% certain, it looks like the fish in question fits into the "Middle or Late Cretaceous" era.....

How did this fossil, of a deep-sea fish, come to be in Kansas?

Much of Kansas was under an inland sea during the cretaceous. Here is the rough geology of the US during the cretaceous:

It's worth noticing here that the cretaceous was a very geologically active period for the US.

 

[dad]

Much of Kansas was under an inland sea during the cretaceous. Here is the rough geology of the US during the cretaceous:

It's worth noticing here that the cretaceous was a very geologically active period for the US.

Maybe not, but this sure reminds me of the flood receeding.

 

[dlamberth]

Maybe not, but this sure reminds me of the flood receeding.

If so, than the flood receding back took roughly 100 million years because that's about how long the Western Interior Seaway existed.

Creatures like the Plesiosaur and Mosasaur pictured below lived in the Western Interior Seaway as well as an abundant of other types of sea life that lived no where else on earth.



.

 

[Ledifni]

Also, and this may be the strongest point, when a fish dies it floats, not sinks, and would not be slowly buried, but what with other fish feeding off of it, currents and such, the body would not remain in one piece for a neat fossil. The sum of these objections is this; These remains were fossilized quickly, not during millions of years, but by a world-wide flood.

I'm curious -- why do you think a fish would fossilize more quickly in a world-wide flood than in an ordinary body of water?

 

[dad]

If so, than the flood receding back took roughly 100 million years because that's about how long the Western Interior Seaway existed.

Creatures like the Plesiosaur and Mosasaur pictured below lived in the Western Interior Seaway as well as an abundant of other types of sea life that lived no where else on earth.

http://www.oceansofkansas.com/mosa-sty.html

Aside from assumptions of evolution, how would these water creatures in a time near when the world was covered indicate it must not have been near flood time? Ridiculous.

 

[dlamberth]

http://www.oceansofkansas.com/mosa-sty.html

Aside from assumptions of evolution, how would these water creatures in a time near when the world was covered indicate it must not have been near flood time? Ridiculous.

I'm having a very hard time figuring out just what your saying here. But if I'm understanding you correctly, what we had in the interior of America was a 100 million year long flood. And with that, you are exactly correct.


.

 

[RightWingGirl]

Much of Kansas was under an inland sea during the cretaceous. Here is the rough geology of the US during the cretaceous:



It's worth noticing here that the cretaceous was a very geologically active period for the US.

Ah, I see. And what evidence is there that this happened? Or was this thought up as an explanation of the fossilized sea-life?

 

[dlamberth]

Ah, I see. And what evidence is there that this happened? Or was this thought up as an explanation of the fossilized sea-life?

There are ton's of evidence. Besides lots of sandstone there, here are some links:
http://3dparks.wr.usgs.gov/capitol2/html/3d053.html
http://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/G102/102meso2.htm
http://www.nps.gov/chcu/geology.htm
http://gorp.away.com/gorp/resource/us_nhp/nm/geo_cc.htm
http://serc.carleton.edu/research_education/cretaceous/earthsurface.html
http://www.cretaceousfossils.com/formations/main_page.htm
http://geology.nku.edu/geology/research.htm


.

 

[dad]

I'm having a very hard time figuring out just what your saying here. But if I'm understanding you correctly, what we had in the interior of America was a 100 million year long flood. And with that, you are exactly correct.


.

I am saying it was not 100 million years ago. I am saying the creatures you raised as being there seem to ne water creatures. I am saying why could it not be near the time of the flood as the waters were receeding?
I am saying what your assumptions of the old ages based on, besides the presumption that the creatures evolved, and decay based dating?
So far it looks like the time of the receeding flood, if the map was accurate.

 

[HairlessSimian]

They did as well as they could to set it to the year of our Lord, not bad, really. As for believers of any sex, from the old testament, my opinion is that they all went to heaven. A resurection. We who died 'in Christ', or believers since His life on earth here will be raised at the last trump, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye. Could I be any clearer here?

So, all relatives of the patriarchs and matriarchs who believed went to heaven, according to you, correct? SO who are all the skeletons lying around from that time?

What only same as the present, physical only one?

Hardly intelligible answer. I repeat the question: what merged universe?

There was a lot of water, for one thing. Things were not decaying, for another.

Depends on a few things. -How many fountains opened up, compared to the big world. -If the fountains opened up when the helium was otherwise employed, still in a merged universe or not.
It now works does it not the other way round? If there was no decay process then maybe the 'escalator' was going up, instead of down, so to speak? Then there are fundamental changes in the fabric of the universe that may have been different as well. Take an electon. or some other things with either a positive or negative charge. Why is it that way? Was it possible that some things, had charges that were different? Atomic, and molecular changes so fundamental, that many changes we could hardly fanthom may have occured! Helium contains two electrons. Its nucleus consists of two protons and also two neutrons, particles similar to the proton but with no electric charge. Add an electic charge here, or take away an electron there, or a neutron, and hec, where did that helium go, or come from?
Basing everything on the present leaves a lot to be desired!

This is pure speculation. Fiction. Fable. Fantasy. Unsupported. Unreasonable. How do you know there was a lot of water?

Basing knowledge of the past on the present is using evidence. One thing the present tells us is you can't fool around with helium nuclei and still call it helium! And you can't make uranium from helium.

heavy with assumptions and weighted with being present only based. Why not give God the benefit of the doubt, and see how else the evidences may fit?

Because it hasn't served you very well.
Because god is as real as Spiderman and the Tooth Fairy.
Because Spiderman and the Tooth Fairy actually do good.

It is not found naturally here either, but made in reactors, no? So the question is, what is the difference between the natural world, and the conditions in the reactor? I would guess that some things not found in nature, may indicate that they were not used in the former process to the same extent if at all, as things that are found there. True, the decay now would produce it, but maybe it was not used in the former process? Thats why it may not be found in nature! I'd have to mull that one over, as it is pretty new to me, and my head is wanting to mellow out tonight, not heat up thinking about life's mysteries.

The thing is that technetium is an intermediate in the nucleosynthesis of heavier elements. The heavier elements are there, but not the technetium. What happened to it? What wasn't used in further nucleosynthesis decayed.

Common misconception. He gave certain signs that would precede His return that had to happen first. Even in the bible the question was addressed, as some, you know tend to get wild about things. They were told, basically relax. The day of His return would not come, until first some things happened. Chiefly, it talked about the man of sin (antichrist) coming before He returned. This never happened yet.

"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:30-34

 

[dlamberth]

I am saying it was not 100 million years ago. I am saying the creatures you raised as being there seem to ne water creatures. I am saying why could it not be near the time of the flood as the waters were receeding?

because this was not a world wide flood. The depth of the water is measurable. It was localized to central North America and lasted about 100 million years. You can "could of" all you want, "but could of's" are not facts.

 

[dad]

because this was not a world wide flood. The depth of the water is measurable. It was localized to central North America and lasted about 100 million years. You can "could of" all you want, "but could of's" are not facts.

How do we know it was localized? How do we know that the depth of water was not from a time of the receeding flood? And where do you get the 100 million years? You sound quite sure of yourself.

 

[dad]

So, all relatives of the patriarchs and matriarchs who believed went to heaven, according to you, correct? SO who are all the skeletons lying around from that time?

If I am correct about the old testament saints raising from the dead, Those who were not believers would not have been ressurected at this time.

Hardly intelligible answer. I repeat the question: what merged universe?

Let me be clearer, the one heaven must exist in. Now, as I said, , --what physical only future and past?

This is pure speculation. Fiction. Fable. Fantasy. Unsupported. Unreasonable. How do you know there was a lot of water?

If you don't want to admit the bible, then stick to science. What reason do you have to claim there awas no water down there?

Basing knowledge of the past on the present is using evidence.

Basing knowledge of the past only on the present would be evidence if you could evidence it was a physical only past. You can't.

One thing the present tells us is you can't fool around with helium nuclei and still call it helium! And you can't make uranium from helium.

Of course not, which should tell you things were quite different in the past.

Because it hasn't served you very well.
Because god is as real as Spiderman and the Tooth Fairy.
Because Spiderman and the Tooth Fairy actually do good.

Staggering. Irelevant, as well.

The thing is that technetium is an intermediate in the nucleosynthesis of heavier elements. The heavier elements are there, but not the technetium. What happened to it? What wasn't used in further nucleosynthesis decayed.

The tech is not naturally present in nature, so how could it have been part of a former process? Sure we can nuke the bejeepers out of it, or whatever they do in a reactor, and it will be produced. But the decay factor is not in doubt here, so what would it matter? Things decay to other things, in this present decaying universe, this is not news.

"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:30-34

And this generation, that has seen these things begin to come to pass or be fulfilled (read matt 24 to see the signs in question-earthquakes all over the place, nation against nation, pestilence, gospel preached in all the world, etc etc.) will see the completion of all these things, it will happen so quickly. This is what this means. Thats us. Back then, the gospel was not preached hardly in all the middle east even. Also, as I pointed out, one episle cleared it all up for the poor nrvous muddlers back then, by saying the antichrist world leader MUST first come.

 

[Jet Black]

Ah, I see. And what evidence is there that this happened? Or was this thought up as an explanation of the fossilized sea-life?

well what is actually being said, is that the rocks we find there were formed underwater, because you can find in these rocks things that are only found underwater and you do not find things that can only be found on land". For example, it might interest you to know that the world's largest coral reef is not actually off the coast of Australia, but is actually in Texas (spitting distance from kansas), and this coral reef existed in the Cretaceous. Now while you might argue that fish were carried around by a flood and desposited elsewhere, it is jolly difficult to transport a giant barrier reef that is long enough to stretch all the way from western texas to florida in one lump and deposit it under texas. bear in mind that coral reefs take quite a while to grow as well, and these corals are laid on older rocks. So if your claim goes along the lines of say, the mid-late cretaceous fossils including the one you mentioned were laid down in the flood, this means that things like that early cretaceous coral must be pre flood, cos there is no way that coral is going to grow in well under a year in the middle of a global deluge with thousands of feet of sediment pouring down on it.

This means then that if the Coral is pre flood, then anything underneath that coral reef must be from even earlier than the flood. The problem with that is this: Underneath this huge coral reef we have the texan salt pans, all that salt has to be deposited somehow but first of all you can't deposit salt of that volume underwater, and secondly we don't have any water anymore, because there is no global flood until much later. Underneath the coral and the salt, we have permian sponge reefs, under those we have more marine rocks, and underneath the Cretaceous coral reefs, Jurassic salt pans, Permian Sponge Reefs, but we're not finished yet, because underneath all of that we have Odovorcian Limestone - which as you know is made of the shells of billions and countless billions of tiny marine organisms. below that are some more marine rocks, and that is as far back as the exposed rocks go in Texas. All of that stuff I just listed remember, is underneath a number of features that take along time to form and require very special conditions (sponge and coral reefs are very finicky about where they grow), and so cannot realistically be explained by a one year flood (you can try I suppose)

 

[RightWingGirl]

well what is actually being said, is that the rocks we find there were formed underwater, because you can find in these rocks things that are only found underwater and you do not find things that can only be found on land".

The rocks being formed underwater are proof that they were formed underwater. While it is true that this could have been from a large lake during the Cretaceous period, is there any indication a flood did not form them? Why is it said a lake, instead of a flood, formed them?

Perhaps I could better put the question thus; If you were not already positive that there was no flood, what would rule out that possibility?

For example, it might interest you to know that the world's largest coral reef is not actually off the coast of Australia, but is actually in Texas (spitting distance from kansas), and this coral reef existed in the Cretaceous. Now while you might argue that fish were carried around by a flood and desposited elsewhere, it is jolly difficult to transport a giant barrier reef that is long enough to stretch all the way from western texas to florida in one lump and deposit it under texas. bear in mind that coral reefs take quite a while to grow as well, and these corals are laid on older rocks. So if your claim goes along the lines of say, the mid-late cretaceous fossils including the one you mentioned were laid down in the flood, this means that things like that early cretaceous coral must be pre flood, cos there is no way that coral is going to grow in well under a year in the middle of a global deluge with thousands of feet of sediment pouring down on it.

First, how is this reef dated to the Cretaceous period?



Second, why do you think this had to have formed during the flood? (in the creationist world view.)



Third, how long it takes to form a coral reef is a highly debated subject.



http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i1/coral_reef.asp

This means then that if the Coral is pre flood, then anything underneath that coral reef must be from even earlier than the flood. The problem with that is this: Underneath this huge coral reef we have the texan salt pans, all that salt has to be deposited somehow but first of all you can't deposit salt of that volume underwater, and secondly we don't have any water anymore, because there is no global flood until much later. Underneath the coral and the salt, we have permian sponge reefs, under those we have more marine rocks, and underneath the Cretaceous coral reefs, Jurassic salt pans, Permian Sponge Reefs, but we're not finished yet, because underneath all of that we have Odovorcian Limestone - which as you know is made of the shells of billions and countless billions of tiny marine organisms. below that are some more marine rocks, and that is as far back as the exposed rocks go in Texas. All of that stuff I just listed remember, is underneath a number of features that take along time to form and require very special conditions (sponge and coral reefs are very finicky about where they grow), and so cannot realistically be explained by a one year flood (you can try I suppose)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i1/coral_reef.asp

 

[RightWingGirl]

For the Texas reef, see; http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i1/catastrophic.asp

Sceptics often throw this ‘reef’ interpretation at Bible-believing geologists. They argue that it would have taken many thousands of years for the marine organisms to build such huge reefs, so this could not have occurred during the year of the Biblical Flood.

However, when we examine these so-called ‘reefs’, we discover that they did not grow in place. For example, the limestone hosting the Carlsbad Caverns is composed largely of loose, unbound sediments and fossils.1 With sufficient volumes of water, the material could have been washed into its present location quickly.

Another alleged ‘reef’ exposed in Thornton Quarry, near Chicago, does not match any of the characteristics of a modern reef. The ‘core’ shows no growth structures and is the wrong shape, the angle of the ‘reef’ is too steep, reef binding organisms are absent, a solid foundation rock is absent, and the reef is riddled with fossil tar, indicating rapid deposition, not slow growth.2

Investigations of assumed ‘reefs’ in Australia3 and Europe4 also reveal that they did not grow in situ but were transported and dumped in place.

When properly investigated, alleged fossil ‘reefs’ do not present a time problem for the Biblical Flood because they are not ‘reefs’. They are mounds of marine debris, rapidly transported into place. Rather than a problem, these ‘reef’ debris are actually evidence for the Flood.

 

[dad]

well what is actually being said, is that the rocks we find there were formed underwater, because you can find in these rocks things that are only found underwater and you do not find things that can only be found on land". For example, it might interest you to know that the world's largest coral reef is not actually off the coast of Australia, but is actually in Texas (spitting distance from kansas), and this coral reef existed in the Cretaceous. Now while you might argue that fish were carried around by a flood and desposited elsewhere, it is jolly difficult to transport a giant barrier reef that is long enough to stretch all the way from western texas to florida in one lump and deposit it under texas. bear in mind that coral reefs take quite a while to grow as well, and these corals are laid on older rocks. So if your claim goes along the lines of say, the mid-late cretaceous fossils including the one you mentioned were laid down in the flood, this means that things like that early cretaceous coral must be pre flood, cos there is no way that coral is going to grow in well under a year in the middle of a global deluge with thousands of feet of sediment pouring down on it.

This means then that if the Coral is pre flood, then anything underneath that coral reef must be from even earlier than the flood. The problem with that is this: Underneath this huge coral reef we have the texan salt pans, all that salt has to be deposited somehow but first of all you can't deposit salt of that volume underwater, and secondly we don't have any water anymore, because there is no global flood until much later. Underneath the coral and the salt, we have permian sponge reefs, under those we have more marine rocks, and underneath the Cretaceous coral reefs, Jurassic salt pans, Permian Sponge Reefs, but we're not finished yet, because underneath all of that we have Odovorcian Limestone - which as you know is made of the shells of billions and countless billions of tiny marine organisms. below that are some more marine rocks, and that is as far back as the exposed rocks go in Texas. All of that stuff I just listed remember, is underneath a number of features that take along time to form and require very special conditions (sponge and coral reefs are very finicky about where they grow), and so cannot realistically be explained by a one year flood (you can try I suppose)

I have more and more leaned to pre flood as the time for most of theses things. In this case, it would seem to fit nicely. The question of the salt may be a tricky one for creationists here, but not for me. Being in the pre flood, pre slpit, a range of posssiblities exist. SAlt, sulfer, and argo are all close to each other on the periodic scale. This means that only a few electrons, and such seperate the materials. The possibilities are legion.
-Even such mundane examples of an electron changing as this. ...
"
The news article says that the bacteria use iron to turn liquid toxic wastes into harmless solids. Achenbach and Coates explain further how the bacteria do this: The microbes turn iron dissolved in wastewater, or ferrous <fair-us> iron, into a solid form called ferric <fair-ick> iron through a chemical reaction called oxidation <ox-ih-day-shun>. This involves stripping an electron away from each atom of ferrous iron so that it no longer can dissolve in water and it becomes solid. The microbes use the electrons they grab as energy to power their cellular activities. Meanwhile, the newly formed ferric iron acts kind of like a magnet&#8212;it latches onto atoms of toxic compounds, other metals and radioactive substances. When the solid iron is collected out of the soil or water, the harmful substances are removed with it.

And how do the bacteria make salt and oxygen during this process? The researchers explain: First, the microbes turn the waste product perchlorate <per-klor-ate> (ClO4-) into chlorite <klor-ite> (ClO2-). The chlorite is then broken down into chloride (Cl-) and oxygen (O2). Chloride is one of the two components of table salt, a.k.a. sodium chloride."
http://www.microbe.org/news/perchlorate_microbe.asp
Just an example of a little electron change and what it can do! I don't think that all the salt in texas might be explained this way, with bacteria, but what do I know? The thing that really gets the bacteria working fast is
carbon. Now I wonder if there was a lot of that around?
". But the reason it's not happening at a faster pace all over is that the right carbon sources are often lacking, Achenbach and Coates explain. Carbon sources are like food for the bacteria. By adding acetate <ass-ih-tate> or other cheap carbon sources to soil or water targeted for cleanup, the researchers were able to kick the bacteria's natural toxic waste degrading abilities into high gear. "