Hydroplate Theory vs Catastrophic tectonics

[createdtoworship]

You're not reading the article. I'll keep posting photos to help you along.

You know, it's a free article. You can do this.

sir the paper is about ammonoides. So let me repeat: And your specimen in the peer review looks like a snail. So saying a snail shell is standing up is sort of relative. But a long nautiloid shell is like four times the width of the body, it would take much much more pressure to stand a nautiloid shell up, than it would to stand a ammonoide shell up logically speaking, just from an observation. So therefore, this work is non sequitur to discussion. They are two completely different animals, and when you look at a picture you can see this.

 

[Job 33:6]

The article is also discussing elongated gastropods such as in the below images E, G and I. The article opens the door to how various shells can be deposited vertically, It also is specific to the fragility of like shells and pressures in which they can survive.

If you want an article specific to nautilus though, ill
dig up more articles for you.

 

[createdtoworship]

The article is also discussing elongated gastropods such as in the below images E, G and I. The article opens the door to how various shells can be deposited vertically, It also is specific to the fragility of like shells and pressures in which they can survive.

If you want an article specific to nautilus though, ill
dig up more articles for you.

View attachment 277017

nautiloids are very spikey and long. Nothing there is even remotely like it.

 

[Job 33:6]

nautiloids are very spikey and long. Nothing there is even remotely like it.

I'll dig up more articles, just for you.

 

[Job 33:6]

Alright, I've dug up a few articles, some more or less interesting than others. Here is one that is specific to nautiloids (see below).

On the topic, as I mentioned earlier on our discussions, the world just isn't a computer simulation. We cannot expect that every single sea shell ought to point in a direction of current (though some patterns are apparently, and we also cannot expect all shells to become buried in a perfect parallel fashion to grade.

Just the same as in the prior article that largely discussed ammonites. They were in some cases narrow shellfish, and while most were ultimately buried in a horizontal fashion, others were not.

I would recommend reading the section on paleoecology, though I've also pasted an image discussing the vertical positions of shellfish of the study. Much like the prior article we looked at, stratigraphy and biostratigraphy indicates a shallow marine environment. There are corals and sponges for example. We don't find T Rex roaming through the subject bedding, we find animals specific to shallow marine environments. We find shales and mudstones. In some cases the environment is rich in calcite or it is carbonaceous, but we don't find stratigraphy indicative of a terrestrial setting.

And it's kind of the same theme paper after paper. Similar lithologies, similar shallow marine fossils, a lack of terrestrial fossils or features, often these papers are distinguishing between oxygen rich and oxygen poor marine environments. And they continually suggest the same details. The shellfish dies, orthoconic nautiloids float with their anterior side down. They sink to the bottom and fill with sediment.

Most fall to their side and orient with a current (if they're in such an environment), some orient perpendicular to current. Most remain horizontal and some dip at angles.

I think that, from the perspective of those who study cephalopods, there doesn't appear to be any concern about whether or not a shell at an angle would be a challenge for an old earth or uniformitarian view. And I would tend to agree, simply on the basis that the world isn't a computer simulation. We shouldn't necessarily expect all shells to be parallel to bedding, no more than we should expect any other fossil of any other species to always be parallel with bedding. Most? Sure. All? I would never guess as such.

These shellfish in particular, they're being jostled by currents. Just as shellfish are today. Go to any beach and you can watch shells tumbling, they're getting buried at all angles, they live in an environment that is in motion. And if you move away from the shoreline, those currents are still actively in motion, moving animals that live within them.

With that, I don't think there is any reason to believe that shellfish, should never be buried at an angle, be it an elongated ammonite, or a pencil shaped nautiloid. Especially if models indicate that nautiloids can also float and sink in a vertical position. It's simply a matter of the current not overtaking every single shell.

Here is an article discussing re working of fossils:
View attachment 277089

View attachment 277090
View attachment 277091
This second article is discussing horizontal orientation, but it gives suggestions for why shellfish also may not align with a current, which is also applicable to considerations related to the angle in which they're buried. It basically discusses ideas related to reworked fossils where there are currents shuffling shells around.

 

[Job 33:6]

 

[Job 33:6]

And lastly, Steve Austin's idea of a "mass kill" isn't actually published in any peer reviewed journal (at least not that I can find, though you're welcome to share).

But even further, he's still only looking at a relatively thin 6 foot thick bed of a massive 6,000 foot sequence of rock. A 6 foot bed that is isolated to the Midwest is no evidence of a global flood. It's too laterally and vertically limited for that. At best perhaps he could argue in favor of a local flood. But even further, there are only a few sea animals in this bed. Things that already live underwater. So it's pretty limited in it's implications.

But I've mentioned all of this earlier in our discussion as well. Steve Austin's scope of work is just too small to make anymeaningful conclusion.

 

[createdtoworship]

Alright, I've dug up a few articles, some more or less interesting than others. Here is one that is specific to nautiloids (see below).

On the topic, as I mentioned earlier on our discussions, the world just isn't a computer simulation. We cannot expect that every single sea shell ought to point in a direction of current (though some patterns are apparently, and we also cannot expect all shells to become buried in a perfect parallel fashion to grade.

Just the same as in the prior article that largely discussed ammonites. They were in some cases narrow shellfish, and while most were ultimately buried in a horizontal fashion, others were not.

View attachment 277086
View attachment 277087
View attachment 277088


I would recommend reading the section on paleoecology, though I've also pasted an image discussing the vertical positions of shellfish of the study. Much like the prior article we looked at, stratigraphy and biostratigraphy indicates a shallow marine environment. There are corals and sponges for example. We don't find T Rex roaming through the subject bedding, we find animals specific to shallow marine environments. We find shales and mudstones. In some cases the environment is rich in calcite or it is carbonaceous, but we don't find stratigraphy indicative of a terrestrial setting.

And it's kind of the same theme paper after paper. Similar lithologies, similar shallow marine fossils, a lack of terrestrial fossils or features, often these papers are distinguishing between oxygen rich and oxygen poor marine environments. And they continually suggest the same details. The shellfish dies, orthoconic nautiloids float with their anterior side down. They sink to the bottom and fill with sediment.

Most fall to their side and orient with a current (if they're in such an environment), some orient perpendicular to current. Most remain horizontal and some dip at angles.

I think that, from the perspective of those who study cephalopods, there doesn't appear to be any concern about whether or not a shell at an angle would be a challenge for an old earth or uniformitarian view. And I would tend to agree, simply on the basis that the world isn't a computer simulation. We shouldn't necessarily expect all shells to be parallel to bedding, no more than we should expect any other fossil of any other species to always be parallel with bedding. Most? Sure. All? I would never guess as such.

These shellfish in particular, they're being jostled by currents. Just as shellfish are today. Go to any beach and you can watch shells tumbling, they're getting buried at all angles, they live in an environment that is in motion. And if you move away from the shoreline, those currents are still actively in motion, moving animals that live within them.

With that, I don't think there is any reason to believe that shellfish, should never be buried at an angle, be it an elongated ammonite, or a pencil shaped nautiloid. Especially if models indicate that nautiloids can also float and sink in a vertical position. It's simply a matter of the current not overtaking every single shell.

Here is an article discussing re working of fossils:
View attachment 277089

View attachment 277090
View attachment 277091
This second article is discussing horizontal orientation, but it gives suggestions for why shellfish also may not align with a current, which is also applicable to considerations related to the angle in which they're buried. It basically discusses ideas related to reworked fossils where there are currents shuffling shells around.

were not talking about shellfish are we? I mean why waste your time on something we are literally not talking about at all.

 

[createdtoworship]

And lastly, Steve Austin's idea of a "mass kill" isn't actually published in any peer reviewed journal (at least not that I can find, though you're welcome to share).

But even further, he's still only looking at a relatively thin 6 foot thick bed of a massive 6,000 foot sequence of rock. A 6 foot bed that is isolated to the Midwest is no evidence of a global flood. It's too laterally and vertically limited for that. At best perhaps he could argue in favor of a local flood. But even further, there are only a few sea animals in this bed. Things that already live underwater. So it's pretty limited in it's implications.

But I've mentioned all of this earlier in our discussion as well. Steve Austin's scope of work is just too small to make anymeaningful conclusion.

It was published in the journal that I mentioned in the original post, it was an official resource for geologic papers.

 

[createdtoworship]

Alright, I've dug up a few articles, some more or less interesting than others. Here is one that is specific to nautiloids (see below).

On the topic, as I mentioned earlier on our discussions, the world just isn't a computer simulation. We cannot expect that every single sea shell ought to point in a direction of current (though some patterns are apparently, and we also cannot expect all shells to become buried in a perfect parallel fashion to grade.

Just the same as in the prior article that largely discussed ammonites. They were in some cases narrow shellfish, and while most were ultimately buried in a horizontal fashion, others were not.

View attachment 277086
View attachment 277087
View attachment 277088


I would recommend reading the section on paleoecology, though I've also pasted an image discussing the vertical positions of shellfish of the study. Much like the prior article we looked at, stratigraphy and biostratigraphy indicates a shallow marine environment. There are corals and sponges for example. We don't find T Rex roaming through the subject bedding, we find animals specific to shallow marine environments. We find shales and mudstones. In some cases the environment is rich in calcite or it is carbonaceous, but we don't find stratigraphy indicative of a terrestrial setting.

And it's kind of the same theme paper after paper. Similar lithologies, similar shallow marine fossils, a lack of terrestrial fossils or features, often these papers are distinguishing between oxygen rich and oxygen poor marine environments. And they continually suggest the same details. The shellfish dies, orthoconic nautiloids float with their anterior side down. They sink to the bottom and fill with sediment.

Most fall to their side and orient with a current (if they're in such an environment), some orient perpendicular to current. Most remain horizontal and some dip at angles.

I think that, from the perspective of those who study cephalopods, there doesn't appear to be any concern about whether or not a shell at an angle would be a challenge for an old earth or uniformitarian view. And I would tend to agree, simply on the basis that the world isn't a computer simulation. We shouldn't necessarily expect all shells to be parallel to bedding, no more than we should expect any other fossil of any other species to always be parallel with bedding. Most? Sure. All? I would never guess as such.

These shellfish in particular, they're being jostled by currents. Just as shellfish are today. Go to any beach and you can watch shells tumbling, they're getting buried at all angles, they live in an environment that is in motion. And if you move away from the shoreline, those currents are still actively in motion, moving animals that live within them.

With that, I don't think there is any reason to believe that shellfish, should never be buried at an angle, be it an elongated ammonite, or a pencil shaped nautiloid. Especially if models indicate that nautiloids can also float and sink in a vertical position. It's simply a matter of the current not overtaking every single shell.

Here is an article discussing re working of fossils:
View attachment 277089

View attachment 277090
View attachment 277091
This second article is discussing horizontal orientation, but it gives suggestions for why shellfish also may not align with a current, which is also applicable to considerations related to the angle in which they're buried. It basically discusses ideas related to reworked fossils where there are currents shuffling shells around.

again we are not talking about shellfish, or sponges or mudstones. All this is literally a fallacy to quote to support your theory. The fallacy is non sequitur. It does not follow that smaller narrower, or shorter organisms with a lower center of gravity being fossilized vertically would be similiar to an organism five times it's width. That is like comparing a maple bar donut that fell on the ground and stuck vertical, to a pencil that fell of a table and stood on end. One is miraculous almost, the other, just a sad loss of a donut. So I don't mind reading the section on paleocology, but I recommend cropping your images with paint program, so that you only post the parts you wish for me to read. I literally didn't read it, because I didn't see the word paleacology except in the headers. So again tell me which paragraph you wish for me to read.

 

[Job 33:6]

were not talking about shellfish are we? I mean why waste your time on something we are literally not talking about at all.

Cephalopods are shellfish. So yes we are.

But I understand, you want to very specifically speak about one type of shellfish, and perhaps nothing else.

 

[Job 33:6]

again we are not talking about shellfish, or sponges or mudstones. All this is literally a fallacy to quote to support your theory. The fallacy is non sequitur. It does not follow that smaller narrower, or shorter organisms with a lower center of gravity being fossilized vertically would be similiar to an organism five times it's width. That is like comparing a maple bar donut that fell on the ground and stuck vertical, to a pencil that fell of a table and stood on end. One is miraculous almost, the other, just a sad loss of a donut. So I don't mind reading the section on paleocology, but I recommend cropping your images with paint program, so that you only post the parts you wish for me to read. I literally didn't read it, because I didn't see the word paleacology except in the headers. So again tell me which paragraph you wish for me to read.

We have to talk about stratigraphy and biostratigraphy. It is important in understanding the depositional environment, and thus the story of these animals.

Because after all, that's what the discussion is all about. It's about how these animals lived and died.

That's why we see stratigraphy and biostratigraphy discussed in literally every single paper, including in Steve Austin's (at least the one I saw that doesn't appear to be published in a scientific journal).

 

[Job 33:6]

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

we know from labratory flume experiments, that catastophy can cause erosions like the grand canyon, over night.

look at mt saint helens, I believe there is a gully formed by a mud flow (that was a melted snow cap mixed with dirt) that formed a canyon so deep that it looks just like the grand canyon. MUD! not LAVA!

so thats something to think about, in fact Steve Austin has a peer review article about it it's called "little Grand Canyon."

steve austin has self acclaimedly, seen more nautiloids than everyone in the US combined. He has found multiple sites, and has perfected a technique to locate the layers in which they exist.....

I dont think it is peer reviewed but a basic debate between two geologists on nautiloids...

Trivializing Creationist Scholarship

a creationist source:

Millions of Grand Canyon nautiloid fossils prove rapid limestone formation | Young Earth .com Evidence Against Old Earth Arguments

Here is your original post to me, where is your peer reviewed article?

 

[Job 33:6]

Here is another:

It's basically the same thing article after article, for shellfish of various species, here in the article above "the disparity may be explained if the orthocone was colonized by brachiopods during it's life, then after death it sank to the seafloor where it rested obliquely. This apical bouyancy could have been caused by entrapment of bouyancy gases or gases produced by soft-part decay."

It's the same thing article after article.

 

[Job 33:6]

I also found a book that discusses how bryozoans grew on the internal mould of a cephalopod. Suggesting the passage of time of living organisms, post-mortem.

And I found the following article which describes small orthocones with geopetal structures perpendicular to geopetal structures of a host orthocone. Which also suggests a slow passage of time of burial (time needed for the host to fill in a stationary position and time needed for infilled orthocones to fill in a stationary position of a perpendicular direction).

We wouldn't expect either case to exist in a "mass kill".

 

[createdtoworship]

Cephalopods are shellfish. So yes we are.

But I understand, you want to very specifically speak about one type of shellfish, and perhaps nothing else.

to this date you have not provided a longer length to width ratio example, and perhaps cannot. So you must go with what you have which is other shell fish. Which we technically are not talking about. Again let me repeat. Using all these other shellfish as examples is like dropping a maple bar at your local donut shop and it landing upright. No biggy. but do that with a pencil, and now that is a big difference. So again all this is arbitrary. So if you have no further evidence to refute it I will go to the next topic.

 

[createdtoworship]

Here is your original post to me, where is your peer reviewed article?

again it was posted in an official geological resource paper, you can see below: I don't know if it was peer reviewed but it was published at a national geological society of america annual meeting for all geologists....

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]

I also found a book that discusses how bryozoans grew on the internal mould of a cephalopod. Suggesting the passage of time of living organisms, post-mortem.
View attachment 277100

And I found the following article which describes small orthocones with geopetal structures perpendicular to geopetal structures of a host orthocone. Which also suggests a slow passage of time of burial (time needed for the host to fill in a stationary position and time needed for infilled orthocones to fill in a stationary position of a perpendicular direction).

View attachment 277101

We wouldn't expect either case to exist in a "mass kill".

for now, please show a photograph of the animal you are referencing, that way I can look at it and see if it's comparable. I will not waste more of my precious time reading page after page of boring reading. you may like it as your job depends on it, but I surely find other things more fascinating. So if you wish to continue, please provide photo's of the animals the paper is referencing, if I find it comparable to a nautiloid, then we can go to the next step. But copy and pasting all your peer reviews one after another, is not working. I have read maybe four now and none of them apply. So I have given you fair chance to provide one and you haven't.

 

[createdtoworship]

to this date you have not provided a longer length to width ratio example, and perhaps cannot. So you must go with what you have which is other shell fish. Which we technically are not talking about. Again let me repeat. Using all these other shellfish as examples is like dropping a maple bar at your local donut shop and it landing upright. No biggy. but do that with a pencil, and now that is a big difference. So again all this is arbitrary. So if you have no further evidence to refute it I will go to the next topic.

see my last posts, I won't read any more peer reviews unless you give a picture of the animal in question first. That is fair, I have read four and dismissed four as non sequitur. I am done. That will vet your papers a bit. Also for now, here is a good read for you, showing a validation of the global flood.... Scientists now say the earth was originally covered in water. The Bible has said that for 4,000 years: Scientists say ancient Earth was completely covered in water

 

[Job 33:6]

And both of the above documents are in reference to oblique burial of orthoconic shells.

But I'm going to give you another idea to consider.

Think about how a cone is shaped. It has a point at one end and a wider circle at the other.

So we have corals, sponges, reworking currents in some locations.

One possibility is that the fossil sinks and the point gets stuck in the sand at an angle. Which I think is absolutely possible in instances of reworking.

But consider the other possibility as well, that a cone can most certainly rest with it's circle down. I can grab a cone from my garage that I use to add gas to my car, I can place it in water where it will slowly sink and it certainly could (although in lower probability) come to rest on its circular side. Someone could argue that the current ought to push them on their side and in most cases this is what happens. But there is also the possibility that a current may push a cone onto it's head.

I'll see what else I can dig up for you.