Hydroplate Theory vs Catastrophic tectonics

[createdtoworship]

Here is one suggesting little to no collective orientation at all (in a particular locality), which is significant in that it is a reminder that some fossils could hypothetically deviate from a standard depending on what kind of current is hitting them or lack thereof, whether their shells hypothetically gets stuck on a rock or twig. We probably shouldn't expect the world of fossils to be one big perfectly aligned structured design. We aren't living in a computer, the world deviates from the norm in some cases, and we aren't talking about magnetic orientation frozen in cooled magma, we are talking about sea shells in an actively mobile sea.

Taphonomy and Paleobiological Implications of Middle Devonian (Eifelian) Nautiloid Concentrates, Alaska on JSTOR

Let's keep digging around...

I already addressed this I believe, two posts earlier.

 

[createdtoworship]

well if you think of a shollow marine environment such as a continental shelf in which the environment is described, There are currents and waves, Though water is also shallow.

Also given the dense nature of shellfish, they don't actually have to be buried particularly fast because shells actually last a really long time and animals don't typically eat shells.

The current doesn't have to be any higher than currents are today.

And actually along with these studies often there are ripple marks which are also relative to the size of the waves of their particular environment. Much like we see in modern-day Shallow Marine environments.

Ok if they are buried slowly like you said then surely flesh would decay and currents would most likEly since it's shallow and fast push the shell around in such a way that the gas would escape, after all in water gas is always trying to go up. So this sort of refutes what you said earlier.

 

[Job 33:6]

Ok if they are buried slowly like you said then surely flesh would decay and currents would most likEly since it's shallow and fast push the shell around in such a way that the gas would escape, after all in water gas is always trying to go up. So this sort of refutes what you said earlier.

I agree that flesh would decay. How does this refute anything?

Think of it this way. Have you ever been to the ocean? Have you ever seen or experienced or felt the shallow ocean current? Have you ever seen the current bring in sea shells without destroying them?

This is what we are talking about. And in some cases, not every single sea shell ends up in the direction of current. Most logically do, but of course, some get hung up or get stuck in certain ways.

There is no reason to expect any and every single conical shell to align with current. We aren't in a computer game or in a simulation. In the real world, there are things that deviate from a norm. Which is this 10% or 14% that we are looking at.

 

[createdtoworship]

I agree that flesh would decay. How does this refute anything?

Think of it this way. Have you ever been to the ocean? Have you ever seen or experienced or felt the shallow ocean current? Have you ever seen the current bring in sea shells without destroying them?

This is what we are talking about. And in some cases, not every single sea shell ends up in the direction of current. Most logically do, but of course, some get hung up or get stuck in certain ways.

There is no reason to expect any and every single conical shell to align with current. We aren't in a computer game or in a simulation. In the real world, there are things that deviate from a norm. Which is this 10% or 14% that we are looking at.

ok so after flesh decays you have no new source for gas in the shell, holding it upright in the burial process. Current, which is faster as you admit, would turn that shell and toss it, because no flesh to hold it down, and it would lose it's gas. So your papers are sort of refuting themselves. But anyways, you have not provided PhD's in geology, but I am only supposing. Because I asked for that, and you didn't reply.

 

[Job 33:6]

Also, you brought up rapid burial. But rapid burial is usually considered with association to things like laagerstaaten or terrestrial life.

Sea shells aren't really edible for most animals, so in large part, shells are exempt from predation. Sea shells don't really break down from bacterial decomposition because they're made of calcite. These are two major factors in fossilization that result in an infinite number of sea shell fossils, versus significantly less terrestrial soft bodied animals.

I'd also ask, have you ever been to a beach where you have seen shells buried by sand of a current?

 

[Job 33:6]

ok so after flesh decays you have no new source for gas in the shell, holding it upright in the burial process. Current, which is faster as you admit, would turn that shell and toss it, because no flesh to hold it down, and it would lose it's gas. So your papers are sort of refuting themselves. But anyways, you have not provided PhD's in geology, but I am only supposing. Because I asked for that, and you didn't reply.

You assume that the world ought to be like a computer simulation where 100% of sea shells ought to conform to the direction of current.

The world is obviously not so simple.

Can you not fathom the possibility that a conical shell that sank vertically and landed in sand, might have actually remained in it's vertical position?

We aren't talking about shells in a raging river. This is just a shallow marine environment. It's like when you walk into the ocean and the water is maybe 10-20 feet deep. The bottom is soft sand, these shells are shaped like pencils. So when they sink, they impact and pierce into the sand. And they stay in this position until they are later moved.

Some sink and get stuck at 45 degree angles. Some sink and stay vertical. The vast majority fall over.

But there just isn't reason to believe that all shells ought to conform with a single direction or angle. That's just not how reality works.

 

[createdtoworship]

Also, you brought up rapid burial. But rapid burial is usually considered with association to things like laagerstaaten or terrestrial life.

Sea shells aren't really edible for most animals, so in large part, shells are exempt from predation. Sea shells don't really break down from bacterial decomposition because they're made of calcite. These are two major factors in fossilization that result in an infinite number of sea shell fossils, versus significantly less terrestrial soft bodied animals.

I'd also ask, have you ever been to a beach where you have seen shells buried by sand of a current?

thats not how I understand fossilization. I believe chemicals I think it was lime if i am not mistaken is injected into soft tissue under exceptional pressures. But I think your right that sea shells don't have calcite, but that does not mean they can't be fossilized.

 

[createdtoworship]

You assume that the world ought to be like a computer simulation where 100% of sea shells ought to conform to the direction of current.

The world is obviously not so simple.

Can you not fathom the possibility that a conical shell that sank vertically and landed in sand, might have actually remained in it's vertical position?

We aren't talking about shells in a raging river. This is just a shallow marine environment. It's like when you walk into the ocean and the water is maybe 10-20 feet deep. The bottom is soft sand, these shells are shaped like pencils. So when they sink, they impact and pierce into the sand. And they stay in this position until they are later moved.

Some sink and get stuck at 45 degree angles. Some sink and stay vertical. The vast majority fall over.

But there just isn't reason to believe that all shells ought to conform with a single direction or angle. That's just not how reality works.

well lets start with PhD's in geology in a peer review literature. Because some of your papers are contradicting.

 

[Job 33:6]

thats not how I understand fossilization. I believe chemicals I think it was lime if i am not mistaken is injected into soft tissue under exceptional pressures. But I think your right that sea shells don't have calcite, but that does not mean they can't be fossilized.

Shells are made of calcite. Which is exactly why they are fossilized (more readily).

And that is how 99% of paleontologists understand fossilization.

 

[Job 33:6]

well lets start with PhD's in geology in a peer review literature. Because some of your papers are contradicting.

Did you look at the credentials of the authors?

No, they aren't contradicting.

The world isn't a computer simulation where everything must be a specific way.

There just isn't reason to believe that every single fossil ought to settle in alignment with a current. Should the majority? Logically yes, and they do. But to say that every single one ought to, is unreasonable.

 

[Job 33:6]

well lets start with PhD's in geology in a peer review literature. Because some of your papers are contradicting.

The article we are discussing is peer reviewed and has been written by a PhD. The guy is heavily credentialed in paleontology of sea invertebrates. Which is a lot more than we can say for Steve Austin and his study on 3 vertical nautiloids in an outcrop the size of my bathroom.

 

[Job 33:6]

Alright, I'm going to give you some time to read the paper. Read up on the author of the paper and look at his citations as well. And when you've finished, let me know what you find about his credentials, the credentials of his citations and what the paper says.

And if you have questions about language in the paper, let me know and I'll lend a hand with it's reading.

You're asking for a PhD and a peer reviewed article and that's exactly what I have given you. You asked for research describing how fossils can be preserved in a vertical direction and that is also what I have given you. This is purely pro bono that I am digging these up for you, the least you could do is put a little effort in to understand what the research says.

This otherwise tells me that you likely haven't actually read the paper, as you don't seem to be aware that it was written by a PhD and that it was published in a rather prestigious journal specific to paleontology.

 

[Job 33:6]

Ok so please tell me the qualifications of those that did the peer review, mine were PhD geology

Steve Austin's article is not published in a scientific peer reviewed journal. He wrote a book that was published by the creation institute. Regardless of what you believe about the topic, there is a big difference.

 

[Job 33:6]

@createdtoworship

Check out paragraph 4 of page 11 and tell me what you think.

Taphonomy of Ammonites from the Santonian-Lower Campanian Santa Marta Formation, Antarctica: Sedimentological Controls on Vertically Embedded Ammonites on JSTOR

 

[createdtoworship]

Shells are made of calcite. Which is exactly why they are fossilized (more readily).

And that is how 99% of paleontologists understand fossilization.

I Don't know why you brought up predation, I thought you were saying the shell could not fossilize due to catastropy for some reason. And to be honest I don't know how fossils can not fossilize, when the pressure needed to fossilize is tremendous for soft tissue. So to me if it's soft tissue it must have been buried fast.

 

[createdtoworship]

Did you look at the credentials of the authors?

No, they aren't contradicting.

The world isn't a computer simulation where everything must be a specific way.

There just isn't reason to believe that every single fossil ought to settle in alignment with a current. Should the majority? Logically yes, and they do. But to say that every single one ought to, is unreasonable.

do your homework please. If they are PhD in geology then we can proceed to use their works, however if it's merely a peer review in a geology type of journal, that is not good enough. So please check.

 

[createdtoworship]

Steve Austin's article is not published in a scientific peer reviewed journal. He wrote a book that was published by the creation institute. Regardless of what you believe about the topic, there is a big difference.

just because it's not peer reviewed by uniformitarians, does not mean it's not peer review. ICR for one is one particular institution that has their own peer review process. So again if you don't accept it, that is fine, nor do I have to accept yours, because of similiar bias. For instance you cannot say because it was peer reviewed by creationists, it's biased, but then not for me to go ahead and say, well yours is peer reviewed by evolutionists and similiarly biased. So at that point we must toss all peer review out entirely as one is biased toward uniformitarianism, and one against. Here is the journal the article was written in:

Steven A. Austin and Kurt P. Wise "Nautiloid Mass-Kill Event at a Hydrothermal Mound within the Redwall Limestone (Mississippian), Grand Canyon, Arizona":Geologic Society of American Abstracts with Programs, Vol.27, no. 6, 1995, p.A-369

from:Joel kontinen: Billions of Dead Nautiloids in the Grand Canyon: Evidence for a Rapid Burial

In 1995 two creationist PhD scientists, Steven Austin and Kurt Wise, found that there were at least 71 nautiloid fossils on the rock ledges of the Grand Canyon. Four years later Steven Austin examined the ledges more thoroughly and found hundreds of nautiloids in a few days. They were of all sizes, from small to very large, some over six feet long, suggesting that a large population of these sea creatures, both young and old animals, was buried simultaneously.[9] This discovery supports the biblical view that Noah’s flood “deluged and destroyed” the early Earth (Genesis 6-8; 2 Peter 3:6).

explain why 15% of the grand canyon deposit of nautiloids, are on their heads!


The nautiloids were trapped in a layer that is from seven to forty or fifty feet thick and at least 180 miles long. There are probably ten billion nautiloid fossils in the bed along with other sea creatures such as corals.[10] Using flow models,[11] Dr. Austin was able to deduce that an enormous and a very rapid sedimentary flow caught the nautiloids and fossilised them almost instantly. The standard explanation of a slowly moving sea could never have produced this phenomenon that Austin aptly calls a mass kill. [12]

[9] Ref. 7.
[10] Austin, Steven. 2003. Geologic Evidences for Very Rapid Strata Deposition in the Grand Canyon. Answers in Genesis DVD.
[11] Ref. 10.
[12] Refs 7 and 10.

here is another clip:

explain why 15% of the grand canyon deposit of nautiloids, are on their heads!

if they were buried gradually would they be lying down?

"15% of these nautiloids were killed and then fossilized standing on their heads. "-(Steve Austin is also the world's leading expert on nautiloid fossils and has worked in the canyon and presented his findings to the park's rangers at the invitation of National Park Service officials.)

quote from
Millions of Grand Canyon nautiloid fossils prove rapid limestone formation | Young Earth - Age of the Earth - Evidence Against Old Earth Arguments

 

[createdtoworship]

@createdtoworship

Check out paragraph 4 of page 11 and tell me what you think.

Taphonomy of Ammonites from the Santonian-Lower Campanian Santa Marta Formation, Antarctica: Sedimentological Controls on Vertically Embedded Ammonites on JSTOR

I don't read links, sorry. If you wish to quote something go ahead. But furthermore I would like to know what you think of the 10,000 duckbill dinasaurs buried in montana suddenly? Sound like evidence of catastrophism?

 

[Job 33:6]

I don't read links, sorry. If you wish to quote something go ahead. But furthermore I would like to know what you think of the 10,000 duckbill dinasaurs buried in montana suddenly? Sound like evidence of catastrophism?

Alright, when you're ready to have a real conversation, let me know. But I can't be bothered if you're not even willing to actually read.

How do you expect to understand anything in science if you aren't willing to look at scientific papers?

You will absolutely never understand science if you aren't willing to read science.

It's a free paper too, it's not even like it's bound to a subscription. It's also on Jstor, which is used by almost every academic sphere in the western world. It's not like a shady website, it's like ebsco host.

 

[createdtoworship]

Alright, when you're ready to have a real conversation, let me know. But I can't be bothered if you're not even willing to actually read.

How do you expect to understand anything in science if you aren't willing to look at scientific papers?

It's a free paper too, it's not even like it's bound to a subscription. It's also on Jstor, which is used by almost every academic sphere in the western world. It's not like a shady website, it's like ebsco host.

sir you have not even provide someone that has a PhD. Why on earth would I read anything you post? And again I am just posting stuff I find, if you find a refutation to it, I typically ask people to quote the peer review and post what was refuting my post. I actually take the time to quote any articles I source, so that you don't have to go there. So again....when you are willing to put in the effort, let me know. So far you can't answer the fossils of the grand canyon, or the duck bill dinasaurs in montana. Both appear to be catastrophies, and with no refutation then I will presume it's an undefeated argument.