Looking for all the missing links

[juvenissun]

Is the actual geological cloumn explainable via hydrological sorting or not? That is the only question.

At least part of them can be explained.

Why do you expect that one mechanism could explain the formation of the whole column?

 

[NailsII]

Here's the challenge. Show me one spot in the world where one can find ONLY Cambrian creatures on the first layer, then DIRECTLY above it find creatures belonging solely to Ordivician, then DIRECTLY above that show me the layer that has only Silurian creatures, then DIRECTLY above that I want to see only Devonian creatures, then DIRECTLY above that I want to see only Mississippian creatures, then DIRECTLY above that only Pennsylvian creatures, then DIRECTLY above that- only Permian creatures, then DIRECTLY above that- only Triassic creatures, then DIRECTLY above that- only Jurassic creatures, then DIRECTLY above that- only Cretaceous creatures, then DIRECTLY above that- only Tertiary creatures, then DIRECTLY above that- only Quaternary creatures. Then you might have a case. As it is, I doubt that you will ever produce a name of such a place because such a place does not exist. There is no REAL column with animals from every supposed time DIRECTLY above the supposed previous time, all the way through the whole thing. It doesn't exist.

I can show you a series of layers where only Jurassic creatures have been found, then directly on top layers where only Creaceous creatures have been found, and topped by layers where mammals and birds and marine reptiles have been found.
I live less than half a mile away, yet it is over a mile high.
Older layers are presumably underground, but I cannot confirm this directly unless i start digging tunnels.

Yet again though, a creationist asks for something that is, in all likelyhood, impossible.
You would need a mountain to cover over 600 million years, and one that has ample fossils (which is a rarity in itself, as fossilisation is a very rare event), has not suffered from extreme weathering (as rocks that are likely to hold fossils are oftern 'soft' and porous, sedimentary rocks) - oh and of course no major geological upheaval to change the direction of said layers.

I might as well ask you for Noah's ark, you are just as likely to find it - but with one major difference - we know the fossils are real.

Why do you expect that one mechanism could explain the formation of the whole column?

No, just find that explains any of it.
There is no theory which actually explains anything which involves one major, worldwide flood - because there is zero evidence for such an event.

BTW, evolutionary theory explains the distribution of fossils rather well....

 

[Split Rock]

At least part of them can be explained.

Why do you expect that one mechanism could explain the formation of the whole column?

It certainly should explain most of "the flood layer." Where is that, byw?

 

[NailsII]

??? --> B --> ???, then B could be an index fossil.
A --> B --> C, then B would not be an index fossil.

Why could B not be an index fossil on your second example?

Is that we find dead whale carcasses on the beach instead of on the ocean floor, and we find little fishies on the ocean floor instead of all on the beach? Because all the big stuff sinks to the bottom and the little stuff stays on top?

Seems to me that what we observe in nature automatically disqualifies your statement as a unanimous blanket statement.

Whales don't beach as a result of a massive worldwife flood because there would be no beach.
Your photos do not back up your argument.

Besides, how would a flood kill all the sea animals?
How would Noah save all the sea creatures?

OK, nobody dare to argue about the index fossil (and the transitional forms of index fossil) any more. Now, let me try to argue FOR the hydrological sorting. Ready?

If we have flood, then we will have sorting on sediments, which includes dead animals and fossil fragments. So what is wrong with that?

It doesn't work, that is what is wrong with it.
It is as bad as the 'run to the hills' argument.

 

[juvenissun]

Why could B not be an index fossil on your second example?

If B is an index fossil on the second case, then every species would become an index fossil.

 

[juvenissun]

It certainly should explain most of "the flood layer." Where is that, byw?

We can identify many turbidite layers and cyclic layers in strata. I think the fossils included in these layers should be pretty well "sorted".

 

[Tiberius]

Juve, please explain what you mean by "index fossil".

 

[juvenissun]

Juve, please explain what you mean by "index fossil".

To fit the OP, it is a fossil of no transitional form.

 

[USincognito]

To fit the OP, it is a fossil of no transitional form.

I think I see your problem. First off "it is a fossil of no transitional form" makes no sense. Second, that's not the definition of index fossil. Third, the OP asked for "missing links" so index fossils are off topic.

 

[juvenissun]

I think I see your problem. First off "it is a fossil of no transitional form" makes no sense. Second, that's not the definition of index fossil. Third, the OP asked for "missing links" so index fossils are off topic.

So, what is it according to you?

Judged from your three reasons, I don't think you can answer this question except quoting something from somewhere.

 

[RickG]

If B is an index fossil on the second case, then every species would become an index fossil.

I don't think you know what an index fossil is.

 

[RickG]

That'd be great if that was how fossil hunting worked. The thing is, fossil hunters find an archeopteryx in one layer and proclaim that layer to be from "X" age, then twenty miles away (if their lucky) find a trilobite in a layer (it could be the same layer, but they wouldn't know that for the miles that separate) and proclaim it to be from "Y" age because trilobites were found in it.

Please stop making completely inane things up. That's ridiculous!

 

[NailsII]

If B is an index fossil on the second case, then every species would become an index fossil.

I don't think you know what an index fossil is.

I don't think I do any more....

In fact, i think i'm losing the will to live!

 

[RickG]

In fact, i think i'm losing the will to live!

I'm not far behind. They have got to be making this stuff up as they go along. It is absolutely ridiculous how they think geology works.

 

[juvenissun]

I don't think you know what an index fossil is.

What is it?

 

[RickG]

What is it?

You previously made a comment about index fossils which is completely incorrect, at least the way you presented it.

Originally Posted by juvenissun

If B is an index fossil on the second case, then every species would become an index fossil.​

Thus, I would truly like to see what "your" definition of an index fossils is. Subsiquent to that I will be glad to render what constitutes an index fossil, as described in the mainstream scientific literature, which I suspect is going to be somewhat different.

 

[good brother]

Please stop making completely inane things up. That's ridiculous!

So, you find different fossils directly above an older fossil?

in Christ, GB

 

[verysincere]

Originally Posted by NailsII

In fact, i think i'm losing the will to live!
​

I'm not far behind. They have got to be making this stuff up as they go along. It is absolutely ridiculous how they think geology works.

I'm definitely in danger of losing my lunch.

And I don't get it. Good Brother obsesses over demands for my credentials, even though my posts only restate what is the consensus of scientists and scholars. But somehow he thinks his Youth Pastor experience (and lists of churches he's "preached at") makes him an authority qualified to DENY the consensus of scholars. So is this "upside down week" or something?

As an observer of this thread, I feel like it is akin to a patient teacher trying to explain elementary concepts to a classroom where the back row consists of slackers who deny everything the teacher says----just for the fun of it. They yell nonsense and shoot spit wads just to get attention and to amuse the other students who are simply bored by the whole thing.

The entire "creation science" industry reminds me of what would happen if the D-students of a science class were given classes of their own to teach.

.

 

[RickG]

So, you find different fossils directly above an older fossil?

in Christ, GB

No, you made a comment that indicated that geologist just make stuff up as they do their field work. I hope you really don't feel that way, because nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[verysincere]

Originally Posted by verysincere

The biggest single factor for how fast an object settles in a fluid is the size. The relevant physical law is Stoke's Law. The larger an object, the faster it falls. Thus for any given habitat, the largest animals should be on the bottom. Is that what paleontologists have discovered in the fossil record?

Hardly.
.


​

Is that we find dead whale carcasses on the beach instead of on the ocean floor, and we find little fishies on the ocean floor instead of all on the beach? Because all the big stuff sinks to the bottom and the little stuff stays on top?

Seems to me that what we observe in nature automatically disqualifies your statement as a unanimous blanket statement.

In Christ, GB

I should have predicted that doing him the favor of describing Stokes Law in very general terms would only lead to Good Brother thinking that he knew how to apply it----and thereby to "prove" that the scientists are all wrong.

For the benefit of OTHER readers, I'll mention that Stokes Law consists of several parts of which the following is just one. Notice that weight and buoyancy are both caused by gravity and must BOTH be considered----something Good Brother failed to do. (Perhaps he was absent the day they covered that in his youth pastoring class. After all, he made clear that his training and experience gives him "biblical authority" and therefore the ability to overrule the world's scientists on any and all matters.)


{I see that ChristianForums doesn't handle the display of the formula but you can easily find it online wherever Stokes Law is discussed.}

Terminal velocity and settling time

At terminal velocity – or settling velocity – the frictional force Fd on the sphere is balanced by the excess force Fg due to the difference of the weight of the sphere and its buoyancy, both caused by gravity:[2]

with ρp and ρf the mass density of the sphere and the fluid, respectively, and g the gravitational acceleration. Demanding force balance: Fd = Fg and solving for the velocity V gives the terminal velocity Vs. If terminal velocity is reached relatively quickly, an average settling time can be calculated by dividing the height the particle will fall by its terminal velocity.