Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Is the actual geological cloumn explainable via hydrological sorting or not? That is the only question.
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.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.
No, just find that explains any of it.Why do you expect that one mechanism could explain the formation of the whole column?
At least part of them can be explained.
Why do you expect that one mechanism could explain the formation of the whole column?
Why could B not be an index fossil on your second example???? --> B --> ???, then B could be an index fossil.
A --> B --> C, then B would not be an index fossil.
Whales don't beach as a result of a massive worldwife flood because there would be no beach.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.
It doesn't work, that is what is wrong with it.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?
Why could B not be an index fossil on your second example?
It certainly should explain most of "the flood layer." Where is that, byw?
Juve, please explain what you mean by "index fossil".
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.
If B is an index fossil on the second case, then every species would become an index fossil.
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.
In fact, i think i'm losing the will to live!
I don't think you know what an index fossil is.
What is it?
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.
Please stop making completely inane things up. That's ridiculous!
Originally Posted by NailsII
So, you find different fossils directly above an older fossil?
in Christ, GB
Originally Posted by verysincere
Hardly.
.
Seems to me that what we observe in nature automatically disqualifies your statement as a unanimous blanket statement.
In Christ, GB
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?