Fossil Fish

[Valkhorn]

The supernontinents have broken and reformed several times so far.

That's true. As to the anony-ments, well we just don't know.

 

[dad]

That's true. As to the anony-ments, well we just don't know.

Interesting claim, always fun to scratch the surface, and see what these things are based on.
The big three reasons we know that the continents have broken off and reformed several times, would be,.....? (I didn't know the evos also had reformists, and a reformation)
1)

2)

3)

 

[Valkhorn]

The big three reasons we know that the continents have broken off and reformed several times, would be,.....? (I didn't know the evos also had reformists, and a reformation)

Translation:

"I am 'dad' and I do knot know anything about geology - but I do feel free to debunk it anyways"

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/EarthSC102Notes/102PTEarthHist.htm

That link should help you, that is if you actually read it.

From current plate boundaries and fault lines, with how the continents are moving, as well as matching columns of sedimentation from different places we can piece together a pretty good picture of how the world was. A lot of research goes into this, scientists don't just randomly guess, you know.

Dad is in way over his head, plate tectonics and geological studies of this nature are very complex, and since he doesn't really know much about even the most basic geology I'm afraid he simply will not understand what he's arguing against.

It's a big problem that someone who doesn't want to learn anything or listen to anyone with any opposing viewpoint or someone who doesn't even want to learn basic science and geology is trying to debunk something so well supported as continental drift and plate tectonics from a historical perspective.

 

[Caphi]

Hey, do the experiment if you are of little faith. I can tell you right now, generally, no angels are required there.

No magic physics-changing spirit realms are required anywhere, if you just say that maybe that book over there might be, some of it, just a little allegory. It's not asking that much out of you, dad.

 

[dad]

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/EarthSC102Notes/102PTEarthHist.htm

That link should help you, that is if you actually read it.

Looked at it, and found it very weak on all but storytelling, not much in the way of underlying evidence and reasons.

From current plate boundaries and fault lines, with how the continents are moving,

Right, so we take a minimal maybe residual movement, and assume it always moved at that speed, and come up with old ages. Ridiculous.

as well as matching columns of sedimentation from different places we can piece together a pretty good picture of how the world was.

I think you are saying here, that it did seperate, because we can see some matching columns of sedimentation. I say it seperated as well, so this is a simple piece of evidence to be interpreted, not any indication of old ages.

A lot of research goes into this, scientists don't just randomly guess, you know.

A lot of assumption and belief as well, you know. As for results of research, feel free to give it a mench.

Dad is in way over his head, plate tectonics and geological studies of this nature are very complex, and since he doesn't really know much about even the most basic geology I'm afraid he simply will not understand what he's arguing against.

Well, if it were true, that would make me in good company with the geologists you speak of, who don't really know a lot of things, and of what they think they do know, they know even less!
You might be surprised.

It's a big problem that someone who doesn't want to learn anything or listen to anyone with any opposing viewpoint or someone who doesn't even want to learn basic science and geology is trying to debunk something so well supported as continental drift and plate tectonics from a historical perspective.

It's a problem talking to someone who thinks that is what I'm trying to do! I have no problem with a little drift, etc. But all you have to teach is belief in the present processes always being here, and how it, then must have shaken down, as a result. You forgot one little thing, you have no evidence it was always present only, physical only at work. None at all. It's a house built on the sand. The foundation of all you argue is under attack.

 

[dad]

No magic physics-changing spirit realms are required anywhere, if you just say that maybe that book over there might be, some of it, just a little allegory. It's not asking that much out of you, dad.

They are not required in the present, which is all you know, and if they do operate here, which they do, it is beyond your detection abilities as well. I have to wonder if anyone was ever so squarely in, and only in the box than you.

 

[Guywiththehead]

They are not required in the present, which is all you know, and if they do operate here, which they do, it is beyond your detection abilities as well. I have to wonder if anyone was ever so squarely in, and only in the box than you.

It is beyond our detection abilities to prove that magnetism is real and isn't angels pushing things around.

 

[Caphi]

They are not required in the present, which is all you know, and if they do operate here, which they do, it is beyond your detection abilities as well.

Beyond detection? Why don't you try holding that up in a court of law. Do it. Stab someone and attempt to argue that undetectable spirits magically placed your fingerprints on the knife.

I have to wonder if anyone was ever so squarely in, and only in the box than you.

You are. You have to perform exquisite mental gymnastics so that you can ignore all evidence that doesn't agree with you, while I am free to go where the evidence leads me. The only kink in that, for you anyway, is that you have no evidence at all for your claims.

 

[dad]

It is beyond our detection abilities to prove that magnetism is real and isn't angels pushing things around.

No, it isn't, really, not within reason, if that's where one wants to be. Why would someone totally unspiritual want to over spiritualize everything?

 

[Jet Black]

Translation:

"I am 'dad' and I do knot know anything about geology - but I do feel free to debunk it anyways"

no no, you have too many words, it should be this:

Translation:

"I am 'dad' and I do knot know anything - but I do feel free to debunk it anyways"

I really wish people would stop interacting with him and fouling up all the decent threads.

 

[Grengor]

I have him on ignore, but I can't help myself when someone else comments on him.

 

[Jet Black]

I have him on ignore, but I can't help myself when someone else comments on him.

I do too, but it is still annoying when I have to search through pages of pointless dad-related waffle to find what I was looking for.

 

[RightWingGirl]

During these floods (for lack of a better term) that at various times covered the greater part of the world, were a fair amount of the fossils we see laid down? Obviously it was during these "floods" that the fossils of sea life were made, and water can be an excellent agent for making fossils.

 

[Dr.GH]

During these floods (for lack of a better term) that at various times covered the greater part of the world, were a fair amount of the fossils we see laid down? Obviously it was during these "floods" that the fossils of sea life were made, and water can be an excellent agent for making fossils.

No. Most all, if not all marine fossils are from marine basin sediments, not floods.

I have studied one interesting fossil, it was the ulna (an arm bone) from a small Califronia Grey Whale. It was recovered from the Newport Mesa, in the town of Costa Mesa, California. This deposit is a Pleistocene (Ice Age) shallow marine sandstone about 100,000 years old. (This was a poorly calibrated "ballpark" date, BTW, and could have been off by +20,000 or -80,000 years- ie 80,000 to 180,000 years old).

The bone itself was not fully mineralized which was neat. But, even better was the mix of material cemented onto the bone. There were hundreds of coarse sand grains which were a mix of angular and rounded grains. Plus, there were many shells that came from different habitats. For example, there were examples of the genus Chione which live on mudflats, Ostrea lurdia which live in mixed fresh and salty water (mixohaline), as well as Tivela, Donax, and Macoma which live in the sandy surf zone.

In short, this was a whale bone that had been deposited into a marine trench by a flood that had carried a mix of river (coarse) and beach (rounded) sand and the shells of clams and snails (I forgot to list the snails- oh well) from several habitats.

You see floods do happen, and we do know how to recognize flood deposited sediement. We also know when there was no flood.

 

[Jet Black]

I replied to this in PM, but I will put it here for others to read too

well evidently the aquatic sediments and fossils would have been laid down when there was water covering the rock (or whatever it was at the time) that they were on. Otherwise there would be no way to get the fish and so on there, barring some predator dragging them up onto land, but then we would be able to tell. Bear in mind though that many if not most fossils are not deposited in aquatic environments, and many sediments show significant evidence of wet environments that have become very dried out. an example of this is when a river dries out and leaves the characteristic cracking at the riverbed. well often when the river refills again a new layer of silt is laid over the cracked layer, preserving the cracks and multiple layers of these cracks/relaying can be observed. Also we have trace fossils of things like insect footprints (which could not be laid underwater) and raindrops as well as many other trace fossils. AIG have tried to answer some of the trace fossils in articles like this:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i1/flood.asp

however there are massive inconsistencies with reality, because many of the layers and features cannot be laid in an aquatic environment.

http://www.christianforums.com/t50735

 

[dad]

...
however there are massive inconsistencies with reality, because many of the layers and features cannot be laid in an aquatic environment...

How about the top two layers of the grand canyon-above coconino? Could they have been?

 

[RightWingGirl]

well evidently the aquatic sediments and fossils would have been laid down when there was water covering the rock (or whatever it was at the time) that they were on. Otherwise there would be no way to get the fish and so on there, barring some predator dragging them up onto land, but then we would be able to tell.

Alright, thanks! BTW, if there was a world wide flood, would this phenomena have occured, viz. many fossils of sea life far inland?

Bear in mind though that many if not most fossils are not deposited in aquatic environments, and many sediments show significant evidence of wet environments that have become very dried out. an example of this is when a river dries out and leaves the characteristic cracking at the riverbed. well often when the river refills again a new layer of silt is laid over the cracked layer, preserving the cracks and multiple layers of these cracks/relaying can be observed. Also we have trace fossils of things like insect footprints (which could not be laid underwater) and raindrops as well as many other trace fossils. AIG have tried to answer some of the trace fossils in articles like this:

As for imprints of insect footprints and the like, as far as I can see this argues only that the layer directly above was laid in a very short amount of time, as would be seen in a world-wide flood.

In the evolutionist model, how long did it take for most of the fossil layers to form?

 

[Grengor]

You mean the geologists model, right? Evolution/=Geology

 

[OC1]

Alright, thanks! BTW, if there was a world wide flood, would this phenomena have occured, viz. many fossils of sea life far inland?

No. Water flows downhill. A giant flood would erode stuff from the continents, and deposit stuff in the oceans. How would a flood wash millions of tons of sediment and all the associated sea life up off of the ocean floor and deposit it hundreds of feet higher hundreds of miles away?

As for imprints of insect footprints and the like, as far as I can see this argues only that the layer directly above was laid in a very short amount of time, as would be seen in a world-wide flood.

Well, if the sediment above and below the footprints was laid by the flood, how could the footprints be made? Were dinosaurs, insects, lizards, birds, and Lucy hiking across the mud under a thousand feet of water?

And rapid burial of footprints is not necessary to preserve them. In fact, it's very difficult to preserve footprints for even a short time in moving water. (Ever walked in the surf at the beach?) Many fossilized footprints were formed in mud, which then dried out and hardened before being buried later. The evidence for this is the presence of mudcracks (formed when mud dries) in the same layers.

Also, in many formations there are footprints in many different layers, separated by many feet of sediments. How could a single world-wide flood do that?

In the evolutionist model, how long did it take for most of the fossil layers to form?

There is no "evolutionist model" regarding the formation of "fossil layers". Rocks and stuff like that is in the provenance of geology, not biology.

But to answer your question, according to geologists, the first fossils date from about 3.5 billion years ago, and fossil layers have been deposited pretty much continuously since then (though not always in the same places).

As for the time for an individual "fossil layer" to form, the time required ranges from seconds (in a flood plain during a flood) to years (in the deep ocean, where sedimentation rates are very slow).

 

[Jet Black]

Alright, thanks! BTW, if there was a world wide flood, would this phenomena have occured, viz. many fossils of sea life far inland?

Possibly, but then they would be mixed up with all the terrestrial organisms. One can tell alot more from the fossil record than just what an organism was, you can see alot about it'S environment and so on from the types of silts it is laid down in, and the things around it.

As for imprints of insect footprints and the like, as far as I can see this argues only that the layer directly above was laid in a very short amount of time, as would be seen in a world-wide flood.

no. The layer above may have been laid rapidly. The fact of the matter here is that these insects and organisms could not have been underwater when they left their trails. Now we often find, vertically above some of these trace fossils, other trace fossils that could not have been deposited underwater either.

In the evolutionist model, how long did it take for most of the fossil layers to form?

varies with the location and layer.