Fossil Organization?

[Arikay]

A quick question to creationists.

If most of the fossils were layed down during the global flood. How come we dont see Dinosaur fossils and Human, or Elephant, fossils together?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

10 bucks says someone brings up hydrological sorting.

 

[Jon]

How come we don't see Dinosaur fossils and Human, or Elephant, fossils together?

If there was a flood then all the fossils would get mixed around.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Today at 04:33 PM Jon said this in Post #3


If there was a flood then all the fossils would get mixed around.

Exactly.  We don't find fossils mixed together as we would expect if a global flood was responsible for laying them down.  Fossils are found in discrete strata, corresponding to the predictions one would make given evolution from common descent.  We find that fossils are laid down in a nested heierarchy over time, a strong confirmation of evolutionary predictions.

 

[Truth in Faith]

Yes, I'm curious what the answer is on this ... considering my recent affair with objectivity. Intuitively, I would suppose that all different creatures would get mixed up randomly. If there's any kind of order coming out of global chaos, that's pretty important. So are there any counter examples showing random mixtures in strata?

 

[seebs]

Not one that anyone's pointed out. You find dinosaurs in a given stratum, you won't find anything like modern mammals. You find underwater creatures, you probably won't find any land creatures. It's pretty consistent. This is one of the huge problems YEC models run into.

 

[Jase]

Archaeologists recently found a deposit of fossils in france of sea, land, and lake species all together.  Can evolutionists explain that one? 

About human and dinosaur fossils.  First of all, we don't find as many human fossils because most of them were likely destroyed.    http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c014.html

Now the better question would be, if modern human has existed for, what, millions of years? Where are all the fossils?  We don't find many old human fossils, and we should considering evolutionists claim human civilization has existed for a long, long time.

 

[troodon]

Today at 12:48 PM Jase said this in Post #7

Archaeologists recently found a deposit of fossils in france of sea, land, and lake species all together.  Can evolutionists explain that one? 

This is the second time I've heard you say this. Can you give us a source please?

 

[Arikay]

Well, Fossilization is generally a rare proccess. It is funny however, that creationists seem to ignore that old Cave drawing exist, that are older than 6000 years.

the interesting thing is that the question could be asked to the creationists. If there was a global flood that Fossilized Many Many things all at once. How come it didnt do the same to man?
Heh, shouldnt we even see man fossils sitting inside a dinosaur fossil? After being eaten by the scared dinosaur?

However, this has nothing to do with the original question.

If there was a global flood, how come ALL bones and fossils arent scattered everywhere?

Again, why arent there any Elephant or human bones found with dinosaur bones?

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Today at 03:48 PM Jase said this in Post #7

Now the better question would be, if modern human has existed for, what, millions of years? Where are all the fossils?  We don't find many old human fossils, and we should considering evolutionists claim human civilization has existed for a long, long time.

If you are referring to modern H. sapiens, you are incorrect about what you assume "evolutionsits claim" regarding the length of time during which it is evident anatomically modern humans have existed. It should also be noted that anatomically modern H. sapiens predate sedentary civilizations.

Edited for poor typing skills...

 

[Jase]

Today at 03:54 PM troodon said this in Post #8



This is the second time I've heard you say this. Can you give us a source please?

 http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3856.asp

 

[Jase]

Today at 04:04 PM Arikay said this in Post #9

Well, Fossilization is generally a rare proccess. It is funny however, that creationists seem to ignore that old Cave drawing exist, that are older than 6000 years.

the interesting thing is that the question could be asked to the creationists. If there was a global flood that Fossilized Many Many things all at once. How come it didnt do the same to man?
Heh, shouldnt we even see man fossils sitting inside a dinosaur fossil? After being eaten by the scared dinosaur?

However, this has nothing to do with the original question.

If there was a global flood, how come ALL bones and fossils arent scattered everywhere?

Again, why arent there any Elephant or human bones found with dinosaur bones?

Ah, i see - and let me guess - those old cave drawings all dated by radiometric dating of the rocks?

And didn't you answer your own question? "fossilization is a rare process".  If you read my link, not many human fossils survived the flood. 

And what do you mean by scattered everywhere?  I'm sure alot of fossils ended up in the oceans.  The world wasn't 7 distinct continents back then, it was likely a Pangea. 

Why aren't dinosaur fossils with human? I don't know, maybe because Dinosaurs didn't kill off enough humans?  You just said fossilization is rare. So of the humans that were killed by dinosaurs, what are the odds of them all being fossilized and us finding them?  The flood probably destroyed alot of the remains.

 

[Jase]

Today at 04:47 PM Mechanical Bliss said this in Post #10




If you are referring to modern H. sapiens, you are incorrect about what you assume "evolutionsits claim" regarding the length of time during which it is evident atomically modern humans have existed. It should also be noted that anatomically modern H. sapiens predate sedentary civilizations.

 Ok, so where are the fossils of those humans?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Today at 02:03 AM Jase said this in Post #11






 http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3856.asp

Here is a quote from the article

This sort of 'faunal mixing' is understandable to the creationist/catastrophists, for creatures from widely separated regions may be brought together by transportation during ultra-massive flooding.

Thanks to you and AiG for providing such a great falsification of the current creationist claim that animals are sorted in the fossil record because animals attributed to different time periods are actaully from different "biomes". Here we have animals supposedly brought together from wide regions by "ultra massive flooding". Are there any triassic fossils there? Any Jurrasic? How about Miocene, Eocene or Pleistocene fossils? Hundreds of thousands of fossils supposedly washed in from widely separated regions of an earth that supposedly had all the animals that ever lived, living on it and all we get are Carboniferous fossils.  How is it that only Carboniferous animals lived in the wide area, or only Carboniferous animal were caught up in this ultra massive catastrophe?  So toss out the biome fanatasy as an explanation of fossil sorting.

Thanks again

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Today at 09:10 PM Jase said this in Post #13


 Ok, so where are the fossils of those humans?

The earliest fossil evidence of H. sapiens is at about 150 thousand years before present or so, if I remember correctly, so those fossils are in the uppermost part of the archaeological record back to that time.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Why aren't dinosaur fossils with human? I don't know, maybe because Dinosaurs didn't kill off enough humans?  You just said fossilization is rare. So of the humans that were killed by dinosaurs, what are the odds of them all being fossilized and us finding them?  The flood probably destroyed alot of the remains.

It isn't just that dinosaur fossils aren't found with humans. Millions of dinosaur fossils are found all over the world but they are never found with Permian theraspid reptiles which are always below the triassic and never found with Eocene or later mammals.  The only mammals found from the Triassic through the Cretaceous are small noctural insectivores that were probably egg layering mammals. Huge number of Oligocene and Miocene mammals have been found but never with dinosaurs. 

http://www.earthlife.net/mammals/evolution.html

There are billions of fossils of Permian therapsid mammal like reptiles in the Karoo formation but no dinosaurs and no Eocene or later mammals are found with them. There are some early Triassic fossils found in the Karoo but always above the Permian fossils.

This is only one of a virtually endless array of "flood sorting" problems that can't be solved by YEC.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[troodon]

Today at 06:03 PM Jase said this in Post #11






 http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3856.asp

Man, I love Montceau-les-Mines! I just found out that some of the oldest known arachnid fossils are from here.

As Frumious Bandersnatch pointed out, it is very fascinating that AiG cites the flood as the reason all these different organisms were brought together. If the flood could do this, why are there no unexpected fossil finds here? AiG points out that the site contains "spiders, scorpions, millipedes and certain insects and reptiles". No advanced mammals? No birds? No dinosaurs? No anomalocaris? You don't find this or any of these coincidences puzzling?

PS: Sorry for plugging my thread but I can't believe that YECs accept that stuff with a shrug.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Today at 09:10 PM Jase said this in Post #12

Ah, i see - and let me guess - those old cave drawings all dated by radiometric dating of the rocks?

Of course not. There are a variety of dating methods. One of them is based on some art containing organic components in the pigment such that radiocarbon dating can be used. I believe another method is based upon amino acid decay. There are numerous dating methods both giving absolute ages (with ranges, of course) and relative ages based upon principles such as superposition. All you have to do is look it up in a book or on the internet. There are quite a few.

And what do you mean by scattered everywhere?  I'm sure alot of fossils ended up in the oceans.  The world wasn't 7 distinct continents back then, it was likely a Pangea. 

A mere ~4000 years ago all the continents were amassed as a supercontinental landmass? Impossible. This is falsified by all that evidence which substantiates plate tectonics theory such as K/Ar dating of basalts, measurements of magnetic anomalies of the seafloor, paleomagnetic studies of continental rocks which are dated, and biostratigraphic studies (among other lines of evidence). There is zero evidence that the positions of continents have moved much at all, relatively speaking, from where they are today in such a short time interval.

To conclude that such rapid tectonic movements happens ignores the heat generated by friction of the lithosphere with the asthenosphere (as well as with continents at subduction zones) which would quite literally boil the oceans if not cook the Earth. It also ignores radiometric dating techniques thereby implying that all the decay constants have somehow changed--all by different magnitudes because nuclides have different decay rates--and still end up correllating with each other. Your position is completely unsubstantiated and falsified, geologically speaking.

Why aren't dinosaur fossils with human? I don't know, maybe because Dinosaurs didn't kill off enough humans?  You just said fossilization is rare. So of the humans that were killed by dinosaurs, what are the odds of them all being fossilized and us finding them?  The flood probably destroyed alot of the remains.

...which is utter nonsense and pure, unsubstantiated speculation. There should be no such stratification of fauna and flora under your model. In fact, there should be little or no stratification of the geologic record itself under your model. There should be abundant examples of discontinuities, and yet we find none except where they should be expected: such as areas of overthrusting, consistent with modern geology.

 

[Arikay]

Ugh, notice, you still havent answered the question.

those old cave drawings all dated by radiometric dating of the rocks?

I really dont know how they were dated. However, radiometric dating is valid, so, um, yeah.

And didn't you answer your own question? "fossilization is a rare process".  If you read my link, not many human fossils survived the flood.

Yes, Fossilization is rare, because depending on how the fossil was fossilized, it needs to happen under certain circumstances.

Creationists claim the flood fits these circumstances, so, fossilization during the flood Should Not be Rare. Because they claim the flood made almost All the fossils.

The world wasn't 7 distinct continents back then, it was likely a Pangea

You do know that the quick uplift model of the flood is one of the worst flood models around, right?

The flood probably destroyed alot of the remains

You do realize that the flood supposably created almost All the fossils right?

Again, answer my question. If the flood created almost all the fossils, why dont we see elephants or humans next to dinosaurs?

Today at 06:10 PM Jase said this in Post #12



Ah, i see - and let me guess - those old cave drawings all dated by radiometric dating of the rocks?

And didn't you answer your own question? "fossilization is a rare process".  If you read my link, not many human fossils survived the flood. 

And what do you mean by scattered everywhere?  I'm sure alot of fossils ended up in the oceans.  The world wasn't 7 distinct continents back then, it was likely a Pangea. 

Why aren't dinosaur fossils with human? I don't know, maybe because Dinosaurs didn't kill off enough humans?  You just said fossilization is rare. So of the humans that were killed by dinosaurs, what are the odds of them all being fossilized and us finding them?  The flood probably destroyed alot of the remains.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

As Frumious Bandersnatch pointed out, it is very fascinating that AiG cites the flood as the reason all these different organisms were brought together. If the flood could do this, why are there no unexpected fossil finds here? AiG points out that the site contains "spiders, scorpions, millipedes and certain insects and reptiles". No advanced mammals? No birds? No dinosaurs? No anomalocaris? You don't find this or any of these target=_blank>coincidences puzzling?

You will find the same sort of explanation for billions of therapsids in the Karoo somewhere on the grossly misnamed True Origins archive. Since there are more fossils of animals than could have possibly lived together at one time the claim is that they were washed down into a basin. Funny that no animals past the early triassic got washed into this basin and the triassic animals somehow all got washed in after the Permian animals were buried. As you say, what a coincidence.

The Frumious Banersnatch