Fossil Record Observation

[FutureAndAHope]

I was on another thread and we were discussing the fossil record, and I could see that there was a pattern to the depositing of fossils. That less well developed animals were found at the bottom of the strata, and that as time progressed the animals became better developed. Now for an evolutionary perspective, this would be said to be the gradual evolutionary change between species. However being a strong believer in creation I could not accept blindly that this was evidence for evolution. So I had a bit of a think about it. And this is what I feel can explain this, but I have put it here so we can talk about it.

I believe in a global flood, I believe God as the bible said flooded the whole earth. Now what would we expect to see if this happened?

We would see water slowly rising over the earth and drowning animals and man as it went. I would imagine as flood waters generally are they would be filled with sediment. So what as a Creationist (but not a scientist) would I expect to see. I believe the following:

At the lower levels you would have a lot of marine life and sediment from the oceans as they begin to spew out from the seas. Then this is where the strata come into it. As the waters rise and become deeper the following would occur. At the very bottom you would expect to find large animals that either could not swim, or had trouble supporting their weight (such as dinosaurs), which we do see. Now we know that all modern animals can swim. So we would expect to see the swimmers at the top of the strata, which we do see. Humans are more capable climbers that most animals so would be able to scale cliffs, and other out crops, accounting for their late arrival in the strata. Back to the animals however, which could still swim. We would see the young, babies, and youth, cease to swim before the adults, so be deposited first before the adults, we do see this small primates are even found with dinosaurs. This would give the impression to an evolutionary observer of the gradual increase in size of primates, and other animals. Why the younger smaller ones are found lower down (earlier in the drowning process), than the youth, or adults.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why do we have basilosaurus (which was alive 30-40 million years ago), a precursor of the whale and larger than most dinosaurs, appear above a prehistoric armoured fish, the dunkleosteus (alive 380-360 million years ago) in the fossil record, and also above the allosaurus (alive 155-150 million years ago)?

This sort of suggestion that size, age, whatever somehow explains the fossil record with the Noahic Flood has been repeated ad nauseam by flood proponents, but it has never been supported by any scientific data or archaeological evidence.

 

[florida2]

I'm sorry, but I found the OP pretty hilarious. All it shows is that you know very little about the fossil record. Why would you get fossils of fish and other marine life if it was a flood? They aren't going to be bothered about a rise in sea level. Why do we find each species of marine creature only I certain layers - surely they would all be jumbled up? You also completely ignore dating methods used on the rocks.

There's also the fact that there is no evidence of a worldwide flood. If you want to discuss that I suggest you make another thread so this one can focus on the fossil record. Good luck, though - plenty of creationists have tried only to be shown up when actual geologists who know what they're talking about enter the discussion.

 

[HitchSlap]

I was on another thread and we were discussing the fossil record, and I could see that there was a pattern to the depositing of fossils. That less well developed animals were found at the bottom of the strata, and that as time progressed the animals became better developed. Now for an evolutionary perspective, this would be said to be the gradual evolutionary change between species. However being a strong believer in creation I could not accept blindly that this was evidence for evolution. So I had a bit of a think about it. And this is what I feel can explain this, but I have put it here so we can talk about it.

I believe in a global flood, I believe God as the bible said flooded the whole earth. Now what would we expect to see if this happened?

We would see water slowly rising over the earth and drowning animals and man as it went. I would imagine as flood waters generally are they would be filled with sediment. So what as a Creationist (but not a scientist) would I expect to see. I believe the following:

At the lower levels you would have a lot of marine life and sediment from the oceans as they begin to spew out from the seas. Then this is where the strata come into it. As the waters rise and become deeper the following would occur. At the very bottom you would expect to find large animals that either could not swim, or had trouble supporting their weight (such as dinosaurs), which we do see. Now we know that all modern animals can swim. So we would expect to see the swimmers at the top of the strata, which we do see. Humans are more capable climbers that most animals so would be able to scale cliffs, and other out crops, accounting for their late arrival in the strata. Back to the animals however, which could still swim. We would see the young, babies, and youth, cease to swim before the adults, so be deposited first before the adults, we do see this small primates are even found with dinosaurs. This would give the impression to an evolutionary observer of the gradual increase in size of primates, and other animals. Why the younger smaller ones are found lower down (earlier in the drowning process), than the youth, or adults.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Why do we have basilosaurus (which was alive 30-40 million years ago), a precursor of the whale and larger than most dinosaurs, appear above a prehistoric armoured fish, the dunkleosteus (alive 380-360 million years ago) in the fossil record, and also above the allosaurus (alive 155-150 million years ago)?

This sort of suggestion that size, age, whatever somehow explains the fossil record with the Noahic Flood has been repeated ad nauseam by flood proponents, but it has never been supported by any scientific data or archaeological evidence.

Ok I just did a quick look at your links. Now imagine the water rising, and shifting across the earth, at times it would be tidal, it would rise and fall. Here are my reasoning for your examples, but may vary from location to location: as the water became deeper, the allosaurus, would possibly drown first (obviously not a fish, so more prone to drowning). As the waters slowly rose marine animals like the basilosaurus, and dunklesteus (very large sea creatures) could swim into the shallow waters. Often at tidal points, water receeds, and could trap the dunkleosteus or basilosaurus, being a large animal it would be trapped earlier, than smaller ones, yet the basilosaurus could survive longer being a mammal. With marine life animals that breath air, regardless of their size they would survive longer, so the basilosaurus (a mammal) would survive longer, accounting for its higher position in the strata. In regard to their only being large sea mammals existing today this could be due the the fact that the water changed in salination (salt) so much during the flood that bigger fish died out not able to cope with the change in the consistency of the water, leaving only large air breathing mammals.

Let me know if I have misunderstood the anatomy of these sea creatures, or missed your point.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

I'm sorry, but I found the OP pretty hilarious. All it shows is that you know very little about the fossil record. Why would you get fossils of fish and other marine life if it was a flood? They aren't going to be bothered about a rise in sea level. Why do we find each species of marine creature only I certain layers - surely they would all be jumbled up?

As for fish, many species of fish and sea creatures that are found in early strata are found alive today, take a lung fish as an example, and there are many others. But this is my reasoning about fish. In the shallow waters, as tides roles and fell, the fish would sit on the surface, some species of fish would die first due to their low oxygen tolerance. Other species would survive longer, being more tolerant of oxygen. So continue to live. We don't know what the mix of the water was what percentage, fresh, or salt, but as the salination changed so to would the ability for certain species to live, less tollerant species would die over a time.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ok I just did a quick look at your links. Now imagine the water rising, and shifting across the earth, at times it would be tidal, it would rise and fall. Here are my reasoning for your examples, but may vary from location to location: as the water became deeper, the allosaurus, would possibly drown first (obviously not a fish, so more prone to drowning). As the waters slowly rose marine animals like the basilosaurus, and dunklesteus (very large sea creatures) could swim into the shallow waters. Often at tidal points, water receeds, and could trap the dunkleosteus or basilosaurus, being a large animal it would be trapped earlier, than smaller ones, yet the basilosaurus could survive longer being a mammal. With marine life animals that breath air, regardless of their size they would survive longer, so the basilosaurus (a mammal) would survive longer, accounting for its higher position in the strata. In regard to their only being large sea mammals existing today this could be due the the fact that the water became so desalinated during the flood that bigger salt water fish died out, leaving only large air breathing mammals.

Let me know if I have misunderstood the anatomy of these sea creatures, or missed your point.

You have completely missed my point.
In order, from top to bottom, this is what we find in the fossil record:
Basilosaurus
Allosaurus
Dunkleosteus.

The Basilosaurus was larger than the Allosaurus or Dunkleosteus, but is found higher than either.
The Allosaurus is a non-aquatic animal, which by your idea, means that it will be found higher than both the Basilosaurus or Dunkleosteus, when in actuality it is found between them.
The Dunkleosteus fits both of your ideas, but it is found lower in the fossil record than either Basilosaurus or Allosaurus.

Can you explain this with your idea of the how the Noahic Flood 'sorted' the fossil record?

 

[florida2]

As for fish, many species of fish and sea creatures that are found in early strata are found alive today, take a lung fish as an example, and there are many others. But this is my reasoning about fish. In the shallow waters, as tides roles and fell, the fish would sit on the surface, some species of fish would die first due to their low oxygen tolerance. Other species would survive longer, being more tolerant of oxygen. So continue to live. We don't know what the fix of the water was what percentage, fresh, or salt, but as the salination changed so to would the ability for certain species to live, less tollerant species would die over a time.

Seriously dude?

I get it - you don't want to accept any science to do with evolution, deep time or anything that goes against a literal reading of the Bible. Don't then try and make up increasingly outlandish explanations. If you are actually interested in learning, great. If not, goodbye. If it was as simple as your OP don't you think that scientists would have figured it out by now?

And there still isn't any evidence the flood ever happened.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

You have completely missed my point.
In order, from top to bottom, this is what we find in the fossil record:
Basilosaurus
Allosaurus
Dunkleosteus.

The Basilosaurus was larger than the Allosaurus or Dunkleosteus, but is found higher than either.

I could have this all wrong, but this is, is my reasoning. I am not expecting a rush of deep water to spew accross the earth. I expect a gradual rise. This means that the Basilosaurus, would not be on the land, before the Allosaurus, nor the Dunkleosteus. As it is too big, to swim into the shallow waters.

The Allosaurus is a non-aquatic animal, which by your idea, means that it will be found higher than both the Basilosaurus or Dunkleosteus, when in actuality it is found between them.

Not if the water was rising relatively slowly.

The Dunkleosteus fits both of your ideas, but it is found lower in the fossil record than either Basilosaurus or Allosaurus.

When we talk about a flood it is not all about size, it is about anatomy. It would be easy for the Dunkleosteus, to die before the Allosaurus, or visa virsa. Either could have died in shallow water first. The reason why a Dunkleosteus would die before a Basilosaurus is a Basilosaurus is a mamal (it breaths air). If you have ever seen fish die in a tidal move you will know they die due to exposure to air. Basilosaurus is a mamal so should breath air (if I undertood it anatomy), even if it did not the reason it appears is possibly due to the fact it could not enter the tidal area until latter.

Can you explain this with your idea of the how the Noahic Flood 'sorted' the fossil record?

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Seriously dude?

I get it - you don't want to accept any science to do with evolution, deep time or anything that goes against a literal reading of the Bible. Don't then try and make up increasingly outlandish explanations. If you are actually interested in learning, great. If not, goodbye. If it was as simple as your OP don't you think that scientists would have figured it out by now?

And there still isn't any evidence the flood ever happened.

Rather than cuss me out, tell me where my reasoning is wrong, i am open to learn, I want to refine my ideas....

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I could have this all wrong, but this is, is my reasoning. I am not expecting a rush of deep water to spew accross the earth. I expect a gradual rise. This means that the Basilosaurus, would not be on the land, before the Allosaurus, nor the Dunkleosteus. As it is too big, to swim into the shallow waters.



Not if the water was rising relatively slowly.



When we talk about a flood it is not all about size, it is about anatomy. It would be easy for the Dunkleosteus, to die before the Allosaurus, or visa virsa. Either could have died in shallow water first. The reason why a Dunkleosteus would die before a Basilosaurus is a Basilosaurus is a mamal (it breaths air). If you have ever seen fish die in a tidal move you will know they die due to exposure to air. Basilosaurus is a mamal so should breath air (if I undertood it anatomy), even if it did not the reason it appears is possibly due to the fact it could not enter the tidal area until latter.

But we don't see any of that in the fossil record! Allosaurus' breathed air, the same as Basilosaurus, so why aren't they in the same strata as the Basilosaurus.
Do you know why? Because there was no Noahic Flood. Case closed.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

But we don't see any of that in the fossil record! Allosaurus' breathed air, the same as Basilosaurus, so why aren't they in the same strata as the Basilosaurus.
Do you know why? Because there was no Noahic Flood. Case closed.

This is my opinion: Basilosaurus is a large fish, the water would have to be very deep for a Basilosaurus to swim in (remember it is a very large fish). The Allosaurus a land dweller, swallowed up by the flood, would have drowned first before the Basilosaurus. Sure they both breath air, but the Basilosaurus size is what is important.

 

[Shemjaza]

This is my opinion: Basilosaurus is a large fish, the water would have to be very deep for a Basilosaurus to swim in (remember it is a very large fish). The Allosaurus a land dweller, swallowed up by the flood, would have drowned first before the Basilosaurus. Sure they both breath air, but the Basilosaurus size is what is important.

But other large aquatic air breathing animals aren't found in the same levels.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

But other large aquatic air breathing animals aren't found in the same levels.

We do however see a tendancy for the largest marine animals to be found earlier ... as examples ... http://listverse.com/2013/01/12/10-terrifying-prehistoric-sea-monsters/

How I would explain your question is this ... we generally see bigger, larger sea creatures at lower levels (massive ones like in the link above). Think of a tidal flow of water, it goes up allowing a fish to swim in, it then drops for a time (a tide) allowing the smaller versions to swim out, but beaching the larger ones. This would allow our current day whales to swim back out, but beach the gigantic Jurassic ones. The larger the fish the more likely it would be found at a lower level due to this principal. Eventually as waters rose to become deep enough for all whale to swim, we would no longer see gigantic fish in the record, as they would be swimming above the water. However what we could see, and I say this has potentially happened, is that the larger living whales and gigantic fish could have died out over progressive centuries (but not found in the sediment deposited by the flood because it was after that event) due to the massive change in the marine echo system, the salination, and other factors, that effected the food chain.

 

[Shemjaza]

We do however see a tendancy for the largest marine animals to be found earlier ... as examples ... http://listverse.com/2013/01/12/10-terrifying-prehistoric-sea-monsters/

How I would explain your question is this ... we generally see bigger, larger sea creatures at lower levels (massive ones like in the link above). Think of a tidal flow of water, it goes up allowing a fish to swim in, it then drops for a time (a tide) allowing the smaller versions to swim out, but beaching the larger ones. This would allow our current day whales to swim back out, but beach the gigantic Jurassic ones. The larger the fish the more likely it would be found at a lower level due to this principal. Eventually as waters rose to become deep enough for all whale to swim, we would no longer see gigantic fish in the record, as they would be swimming above the water. However what we could see, and I say this has potentially happened, is that the larger living whales and gigantic fish could have died out over progressive centuries (but not found in the sediment deposited by the flood because it was after that event) due to the massive change in the marine echo system, the salination, and other factors, that effected the food chain.

But modern whales are larger then the ancient monsters...

 

[FutureAndAHope]

But modern whales are larger then the ancient monsters...

But the fact is what modern whales are mammals, they breath air. They are not going to get stuck for long, remember the water is rising.

Really I need to go away and study the fossil layers and see how things really happened, but so far observations fit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If there was a worldwide flood, you would think that there would be a mark. But from the way that certain strata have eroded we can tell that it was not from a flood and would have taken millions of years to form. This is a picture of a favorite of mine. No flood advocate can explain the simple erosion patter that we see here, but geologists have no trouble at all:

 

[FutureAndAHope]

I believe rock geology can be explain. Why? when flood waters are draining away after the flood the sediments are still quite soft, they are at this point not rocks. They could easily be eroded as water flowed away to lower ground.

For the other readers back to fish for a second, evolutionary text books state:

The Mesozoic Era began about 250 million years ago in the wake of the Permian-Triassic event, the largest mass extinction in Earth's history, and ended about 66 million years ago with the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event, another mass extinction that killed off non-avian dinosaurs, as well as other plant and animal species. It is often referred to as the Age of Reptiles because reptiles were the dominant vertebrates of the time.

What do we see from that:

Firstly small fish are in the fossil record in abundance. [why the flood waters are rising, small fish get trapped in the tidal ebb and flow], second the dinosaurs go extinct [the larger animals are dying off due to rising flood waters] but not the Dino birds (avian's) [why? they can fly, for a while, or move quicker to higher ground]. At the same time the large sea creature go extinct, the air breathing ones latter [air breathing animals can stay on the surface longer (at low tide) they remain alive, but their larger non air breathing cousins perish]. Then we have the gradual change from small animals to the larger ones we see today. Explained by the drowning of infant animals, before their stronger parents. Note ALL modern day animals [at the top of the fossil record] can swim. Humans: why are there no human babies in the lower level, their parents would have carried them to higher ground, humans are more resourceful than animals. We also see sharks as one of the last fossil types, why? They were probably eating remains of other animals, as the flood waters receded.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe rock geology can be explain. Why? when flood waters are draining away after the flood the sediments are still quite soft, they are at this point not rocks. They could easily be eroded as water flowed away to lower ground.

For the other readers back to fish for a second, evolutionary text books state:

The Mesozoic Era began about 250 million years ago in the wake of the Permian-Triassic event, the largest mass extinction in Earth's history, and ended about 66 million years ago with the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event, another mass extinction that killed off non-avian dinosaurs, as well as other plant and animal species. It is often referred to as the Age of Reptiles because reptiles were the dominant vertebrates of the time.

What do we see from that:

Firstly small fish are in the fossil record in abundance. [why the flood waters are rising, small fish get trapped in the tidal ebb and flow], second the dinosaurs go extinct [the larger animals are dying off due to rising flood waters] but not the Dino birds (avian's) [why? they can fly, for a while, or move quicker to higher ground]. At the same time the large sea creature go extinct, the air breathing ones latter [air breathing animals can stay on the surface longer (at low tide) they remain alive, but their larger non air breathing cousins perish]. Then we have the gradual change from small animals to the larger ones we see today. Explained by the drowning of infant animals, before their stronger parents. Note ALL modern day animals [at the top of the fossil record] can swim. Humans: why are there no human babies in the lower level, their parents would have carried them to higher ground, humans are more resourceful than animals. We also see sharks as one of the last fossil types, why? They were probably eating remains of other animals, as the flood waters receded.

You seem to be mixing up nonsense and real science.

And if this was a weak attempt to explain the formation I posted it utterly fails. Do you wish to discuss it? Even you can understand why that formation shows that it was eroded over a long period of time, most of it before man was here so definitely not a food product. It could not have been eroded quickly.

 

[Shemjaza]

But the fact is what modern whales are mammals, they breath air. They are not going to get stuck for long, remember the water is rising.

Really I need to go away and study the fossil layers and see how things really happened, but so far observations fit.

With the exception of the Megalodon, all the monsters from your link were also air breathers... and smaller then some modern wales and larger then others.