Fossil Fish

[OC1]

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

Here's a link (a bit technical) with some information on the Permian Reefs that AIG seems to have left out:

http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/staff/scholle/guadalupe.html

From the link:

The entire depositional spectrum from far-back-reef to deep basin can be observed in outcrops of the Guadalupe Mountains and adjacent areas, with little or no structural deformation and very slight vegetation or soil cover. The reef complex of this region is dissected by a series of deep canyons cut approximately at right angles to the regional facies strike. These canyons, especially McKittrick Canyon, provide exceptional cross-sectional views of the lateral and vertical relations of depositional environments through time.

Overall, the high biological diversity of this environment (see Table 2 and diagram below); the abundance of framework calcareous sponges, bryozoans, and hydrocorallines; the ubiquitous presence of encrusting organisms (Tubiphytes, Archaeolithoporella, Girvanella, and others); the remarkably high productivity of organisms generating vast masses of reef and fore-reef skeletal debris); the distinct internal faunal zonation (see second diagram below); the presence of abundant inorganic, radial-fibrous, originally aragonitic cements; and the large-scale fragmentation and disruption of fabrics by wave and current activity are all features of the Permian reef complex which are highly analogous to modern reefs.

The work of Newell et al. (1953), Babcock (1977), and Babcock and Yurewicz (1989) has established the existence of consistent faunal zonation within the Capitan reef (Fig. 14) and has demonstrated that much of the fauna is still in living position, at least in the few areas of exceptional exposure which were studied.

The Permian depositional and diagenetic patterns described here can be matched quite closely in some modern settings.

If you read the link (with it's extensive list of references published by geologists who have spent time actually looking at the rocks) you will see that the stratigraphy, sedimentology, paleobiology, etc. match up closely with what we see in modern reefs.

So geologists have good evidence that this is a reef complex, including the adjacent landward and seaward sediments. They have used comparisons to modern reefs to devise a depositional model that explains these sediments pretty well, and they are using this depositional model to find oil.

How many oil companies are using a "flood model" to find oil in the Permian Basin (or anywhere else)?

And what exactly is the alternative "flood model" that explains this sedimentary sequence? For that flood model to be taken seriously, it needs to explain how the complex stratigraphy came to be, why the fossil distribution matches what we see in modern reefs, etc.

Just saying "some stuff is broken up; therefore, the flood did it" won't cut it.

Edit: Oops. On re-reading fossilgirls link, it seems that AIG was refering to the Cretaceous Reefs in Texas, not the Permian Reef. No matter; the Permian Reefs still cannot be explained as being the result of "the flood".

 

[HairlessSimian]

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. ...

That would be because you don't really know what you're saying.
Salt, sulfur and argon are close to one another in the Periodic Table? Salt is not a chemical element but two elements, sodium & chlorine.
And it takes more than a change in electrons to change elements.

"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—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. "

This example is nothing special. In fact, it's totally banal. Every cell in every living thing does oxidation and reduction.
Nice googling. You found a site for high-schoolers. You use high-school-level science to make your points.

 

[OC1]

I know I'm going to regret this, but I can't help myself.

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.

Dad, it's the number of protons that define an element. A single element can easily exist with different numbers of electrons (as ions).

Moving protons around is a bit trickier, and requires either radiactive decay, or nuclear fusion or fission. All these processes require, or generate, an awful lot of energy, and that energy has to come from somewhere, or go somewhere.

I know these facts don't matter in your world, but I just thought I'd mention it.

 

[Valkhorn]

Dad, it's the number of protons that define an element. A single element can easily exist with different numbers of electrons (as ions).

Moving protons around is a bit trickier, and requires either radiactive decay, or nuclear fusion or fission. All these processes require, or generate, an awful lot of energy, and that energy has to come from somewhere, or go somewhere.

I know these facts don't matter in your world, but I just thought I'd mention it.

*giggles*

Have some reputation.

 

[dad]

That would be because you don't really know what you're saying.
Salt, sulfur and argon are close to one another in the Periodic Table? Salt is not a chemical element but two elements, sodium & chlorine.
And it takes more than a change in electrons to change elements.

Ha. Right. I was looking at the chart, and meant chlorine, argon, and sulpher, of course were close to each other. As for changing elements, we know now it takes a lot. Of course we are not talking about now, so so what?
If we look at Argon, it is now produced by decay from the next element up on the periodic scale -K, or Potassium. But the point is, in the pre split world, things didn't work that way.

This example is nothing special. In fact, it's totally banal. Every cell in every living thing does oxidation and reduction.
Nice googling. You found a site for high-schoolers. You use high-school-level science to make your points.

Don't want to get too complicated, now do we? The point was that an atomic or molecular change of a fairly small order could make big changes. Producing salt, for example.

 

[dlamberth]

um. But the point is, in the pre split world, things didn't work that way.
.

I'm still a waiting for evidence that such a thing existed....

.

 

[dad]

I know I'm going to regret this, but I can't help myself.

Dad, it's the number of protons that define an element. A single element can easily exist with different numbers of electrons (as ions).

Moving protons around is a bit trickier, and requires either radiactive decay, or nuclear fusion or fission. All these processes require, or generate, an awful lot of energy, and that energy has to come from somewhere, or go somewhere.

I know these facts don't matter in your world, but I just thought I'd mention it.

It is a bit trickier. Now, yes. Then, in all liklihood, no. An element, by the way, doesn't have to change into another element for a change to take place. Al little electron swapping sometimes adds a little spice or salt to life! And, salt was the object in question.

"Thus chlorine and sodium are a perfect match for each other. One needs an electron and the other wants to lose an electron. When this transfer takes place, sodium loses an electron and becomes positively charged (the number of protons in an element never changes, so after losing an electron sodium will have one more positively charged proton than it does negatively charged electrons). And since chlorine gains an electron it becomes negatively charged. In this way both atoms now become ions. The opposite charges on the Na+ and Cl- ions will cause them to attract each other and form an ionic bond. Thus Na and Cl react to form the compound NaCl (the chemical formula of a compound is written using the atomic symbols joined together). To view a simulation of this reaction, click below:

When the chlorine atom gets close enough to the sodium atom, it strips away the sodium's electron and the two ions formed attract each other because of their opposite charges" http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~acarpi/NSC/5-bonds.htm
​

 

[HairlessSimian]

Ha. Right. I was looking at the chart, and meant chlorine, argon, and sulpher, of course were close to each other. As for changing elements, we know now it takes a lot. Of course we are not talking about now, so so what?
If we look at Argon, it is now produced by decay from the next element up on the periodic scale -K, or Potassium. But the point is, in the pre split world, things didn't work that way.

You have no evidence to suggest this, nor any counter-model. You have a book of unreliable authenticity and no scientific credibility and Google.

Don't want to get too complicated, now do we? The point was that an atomic or molecular change of a fairly small order could make big changes. Producing salt, for example.

But the excerpt you quoted had nothing to do with making big changes of the kind that you claim were happening in "pre-split" times, as you seemingly purport. It had to do with very ordinary things explained at a grade-ten-or-so level. If nothing else, this demonstrates that you are out of your depth when it comes to science. So stop pretending that you understand.

 

[HairlessSimian]

It is a bit trickier. Now, yes. Then, in all liklihood, no. An element, by the way, doesn't have to change into another element for a change to take place. Al little electron swapping sometimes adds a little spice or salt to life! And, salt was the object in question.

"Thus chlorine and sodium are a perfect match for each other. One needs an electron and the other wants to lose an electron. When this transfer takes place, sodium loses an electron and becomes positively charged (the number of protons in an element never changes, so after losing an electron sodium will have one more positively charged proton than it does negatively charged electrons). And since chlorine gains an electron it becomes negatively charged. In this way both atoms now become ions. The opposite charges on the Na+ and Cl- ions will cause them to attract each other and form an ionic bond. Thus Na and Cl react to form the compound NaCl (the chemical formula of a compound is written using the atomic symbols joined together). To view a simulation of this reaction, click below:

When the chlorine atom gets close enough to the sodium atom, it strips away the sodium's electron and the two ions formed attract each other because of their opposite charges" http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~acarpi/NSC/5-bonds.htm
​

This is so silly. Because dad can Google, he thinks he's got a handle on this stuff.

 

[dad]

You have no evidence to suggest this, nor any counter-model. You have a book of unreliable authenticity and no scientific credibility and Google.

As far as evidence goes, you have nothing to suggest otherwise, why pretend? There is a lot of salt there, I lean to the opinion it was pre flood.

But the excerpt you quoted had nothing to do with making big changes of the kind that you claim were happening in "pre-split" times, as you seemingly purport. It had to do with very ordinary things explained at a grade-ten-or-so level. If nothing else, this demonstrates that you are out of your depth when it comes to science. So stop pretending that you understand.

What I understand is science is out of it's depth if you try to apply it beyond where it can apply. It is not omniapplicable. It is merely a study of the natural universe! Having chlorine bond to sodium or whatnot, and make salt of course is not something exclusive to a different universe, as we know. It is an example of swapping some electrons. Pretending it was meant to be more, is cheap. Like your disdain of uncomplicated knowledge.

 

[dlamberth]

.... I lean to the opinion it was pre flood. .

Ye gotta show some evidence that the world wide Biblical flood happened first. Otherwise, your opinion is based upon imagination.



.

 

[dad]

Ye gotta show some evidence that the world wide Biblical flood happened first. Otherwise, your opinion is based upon imagination.



.

Jet mentioned that there was an area that seems it could not have been flood deposited. I tried to agree, and say it looks pre flood to me. I try to address the most difficult part of the equation as I saw it, the salt layers. The rest is easy in the merged world. It seems I may have something on the salt issue, because it has not been met and challenged. As far as some big was there a flood or not prove it business, that is not a reasonable stance in a thread like this. Get out of stalking mode, and into addressing issues. Get your eyes off me, on realize it isn't personal, it's about ideas. Make a case don't be a case.

 

[dlamberth]

Jet mentioned that there was an area that seems it could not have been flood deposited. I tried to agree, and say it looks pre flood to me. I try to address the most difficult part of the equation as I saw it, the salt layers. The rest is easy in the merged world. It seems I may have something on the salt issue, because it has not been met and challenged. As far as some big was there a flood or not prove it business, that is not a reasonable stance in a thread like this. Get out of stalking mode, and into addressing issues. Get your eyes off me, on realize it isn't personal, it's about ideas. Make a case don't be a case.

I'm just waiting for you show some evidence, any evidence, in your Split/Merge Theology.

As of yet, you have not done so. Before you can say that something is pre flood, we need some sort of proof that the flood even happened. Because we do not have that, everything you hide behind a flood, not unlike what you do when you invoke Split/Merge Theology, did not happen.


.

 

[dad]

I'm just waiting for you show some evidence, any evidence, in your Split/Merge Theology.

As of yet, you have not done so. Before you can say that something is pre flood, we need some sort of proof that the flood even happened. Because we do not have that, everything you hide behind a flood, not unlike what you do when you invoke Split/Merge Theology, did not happen.


.

Some people seem so hung up on the merge stuff. It would have been in effect when the salt was produced, however, if it was pre flood! Whether you think your millions of imaginary years is some better explanation, we don't doubt. You beliefs are becoming well known.
Meanwhile, back at the ancient body of water that looked somewhat like a receeding worldwide flood, and had water creatures in it-- so far the assumption of evolution, and some salt seem to be the points at hand. Have you any points on this, or do you just wish to rant about your beliefs here, you can't substansiate anyhow? Let's not get obsessive/compulsive here. This is a civilized debate!

 

[HairlessSimian]

Am I the only one here who realizes that a world-wide flood was an impossibility on many grounds? Like the fact that a global flood would have wiped out all terrestrial vegetation and salted the soil to prevent re-growth?
If there was no global flood, then there was no "pre-flood".

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Am I the only one here who realizes that a world-wide flood was an impossibility on many grounds? Like the fact that a global flood would have wiped out all terrestrial vegetation and salted the soil to prevent re-growth?
If there was no global flood, then there was no "pre-flood".

Almost everyone here realizes that the idea that the flood Noah was global is falsified by a wide variety of observations. The only exceptions are the YECs. Though many flood falsifications do come from geology we have discussed many other Falsifications of the Worldwide Flood on numerous threads. Mechanical Bliss put together a nice archive of flood and young earth falsifications. One of my favorite non geological falsifications of the flood comes from biogeography. The contorsions that YECs go through to try to answer that one are sometime very amusing.

I started a thread on massive salt deposits more than two years ago. The extensive salt deposits in central Michigan are surrounded by Silurian Reefs.

In the central part of the basin 2300 feet of alternating salt, shale, and limestone beds have been penetrated in the Salina, with 1600 feet of rock salt.

The salt deposits look exactly like those forming in modern evaporation basins and would have taken a long time to form. Salt is soluble to about 35% in water and sea water is only about 3.5% salt to begin with. In post 71 on page 8 of my thread on salt I show that it must have taken at least tens of thousands of years for these salt deposits to form so there is not time to form them pre or post flood and they couldn't have formed during the "flood year" even if the water was boiling.

YEC try to get around deposits that couldn't have formed during the flood by saying they are either pre or post flood. However you can easily find deposits that some YEC leaders will say are preflood, other will say are flood and others will call post flood. Why can't YEC
flood geologists" agree as to exactly what layers are flood deposits? The obvious answer is that there was no geologically recent global flood.

F.B.

 

[dlamberth]

.
Meanwhile, back at the ancient body of water that looked somewhat like a receeding worldwide flood, and had water creatures in it-- so far the assumption of evolution, and some salt seem to be the points at hand. Have you any points on this, or do you just wish to rant about your beliefs here,

Your ideas that the body of water called the Cretaceous Inland Seaway is a receding world wide biblical flood is falsifiable simply because the Inland Seaway lasted almost 100 Million years.

Much of the geology in the region is the result of being in a shallow sea for 100 million years


.

 

[bertie]

Way up north in canada,and in russia,there are deposits of animal bones.these bone deposits run meteres in depth.They consist of gravel pit quantities of mixed shattered bones.There are parts of all kinds of different ones, all jumbled together.most smashed to fragments.As if a giant tsunami had washed everything into a corner and receded leaving these huge deposits of carcasses all smashed to flinders.I have heard arguments that these deposits are evidence of the flood.This is old news so dont get excited,but there is some convincing evidence in parts of the world of some kind of flood.I wonder if anyone else has any more info on this.The deposits exist of that i can guarantee you.The rest remains a mystery to science.

 

[OC1]

Bertie-

I know nothing of these deposits you're speaking of.

But evidence of a flood or sunami at some place is not evidence for the biblical global flood.

We have local floods and sunamis today, and we had them in the past. But there is no evidence that any of these were global in extent.

 

[MartinM]

Way up north in canada,and in russia,there are deposits of animal bones.these bone deposits run meteres in depth.They consist of gravel pit quantities of mixed shattered bones.There are parts of all kinds of different ones, all jumbled together.most smashed to fragments.

If these deposits really had all different kinds of creature mixed up, that'd be interesting. But I'm willing to bet that this isn't the case. No bunnies mixed in with ancient dinosaurs, or anything like that.