Looking for all the missing links

[juvenissun]

A good index fossil should have a wide-spread distribution, yes. Maybe not global. And yes, if it is widespread that would make its extinction less likely. That is why there are so few index fossils species, relative to the total number of fossil species.


Why? We are talking about species here, not genera or higher taxa.

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

Yes, A, B, and C are species.

 

[verysincere]

You do have a point, though I'm sure you don't realize it. What we don't find is indeed very telling as well. We don't find true chimeras in the fossil record. We don't find mammals with feathers, or fish with fur. We don't find anything that evolution wouldn't be able to explain. Yet the creator could have given birds fir or frogs a placenta. And evolutionists would be dumbfounded. Strange indeed we never find these....

Yes, I find it fascinating (and feel embarrassed for them) when my Christian brethren say things like "You call it common descent but the evidence can just as easily be interpreted as COMMON DESIGN."

Obviously, if they knew anything about EITHER "common descent" or "common design", they would understand that they have VERY DIFFERENT characteristics. And they have no interest in LEARNING the differences.

Of course, you've tried to point out such issues but it won't make any difference. The Book of Proverbs describes quite well the obstacles you are dealing with.

Indeed, when I saw the "hydrological sorting" post, I realized that it was futile. (Just plain sad.) Let's see them apply that to the 15,000 layers of the Haymond Formation! Yes, the alternating layers of the sandstone and shale were formed in the single year of the flood AND each layer was riddled with its own animal burrows confined to that layer. Clearly those borrowing animals had scuba gear!

(Answers in Genesis is just as silent on this Haymond Formation topic as they are on RING SPECIES. And unless AiG, ICR, or Creation.com publish a script for it, we can't expect a relevant cut-and-paste here. So don't hold your breath. However, I'm kind of surprised that some YECs haven't yet gotten the memo that many of the "creation science" leaders quietly dropped the hydrological sorting argument when empirical evidence, and basic physics, got in the way.)


.

 

[good brother]

Uhh... no.

http://www.geology.ohio-state.edu/~vonfrese/gs100/lect32/xfig32_06.jpg

Wow, you showed me a drawing, I showed you actual photographs of what we find in nature. Hmm, I wonder which is more convincing?

In Christ, GB

 

[Split Rock]

Wow, you showed me a drawing, I showed you actual photographs of what we find in nature. Hmm, I wonder which is more convincing?

In Christ, GB

Your photos are obviously FRAUDS!!!!11111

LOL

All you showed was a bunch of fossils. Show me fossil bunnies with trilobites and dinosaurs, all together in "The Flood Layer."

 

[SkyWriting]

* "Floating vegetation mats" (I must admit that this a relatively new effort to explain why/how some species seem to have survived the global flood and ended up in the "wrong place" in the fossil record. "Creation science" hadn't thought of this one back in the 60's and 70's when I was.....<snip>

Me blah, I blah, Everything is bout me... blah.


Why would they have to think it up? It only requires observation.

Expansion rate and geometry of floating vegetation mats on the margins of thermokarst lakes, northern Seward Peninsula, Alaska, USA | Permafrost Laboratory

Geometry of Floating Vegetation Mats on the Margins of a Thermokarst Lake, Northern Seward Peninsula, AK | State of the Arctic 2010

JSTOR: Castanea, Vol. 48, No. 2 (Jun., 1983), pp. 73-78

JSTOR: The Southwestern Naturalist, Vol. 41, No. 4 (Dec., 1996), pp. 462-464

 

[verysincere]

For those who are interested in the evidence and actual science, Stokes Law addresses the "creation science" claims about "hydrological sorting" explaining geologic layers and fossil locations:


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.

Geologist Glen Morton (a Young Earth Creationist writer in creation science journals years ago) who changed his mind about a "young earth" once his employer moved him out into the field in his oil exploration job, wrote the following:

"There are a lot of very small dinosaurs found in the Morrison formation, with the giants, both of which are below the Niobrara which contains the 20 foot long fish and micrometer sized chalk particles. Large, teleost fish are found well above the layers in which fish are first found."

Obviously, one can find a huge volume of evidence which contradicts the "hydrological sorting" hypothesis of Morris & Whitcomb. (Morris died a few years ago but Whitcomb is still promoting such nonsense on the speaking circuit. Of course, neither did any serious field work to actually observe the observe and do the scientific research.)

As to Good Brothers "experiment", it speaks for itself. I suggest he submit it to a geology journal and see how they respond.

.

 

[juvenissun]

Your photos are obviously FRAUDS!!!!11111

LOL

All you showed was a bunch of fossils. Show me fossil bunnies with trilobites and dinosaurs, all together in "The Flood Layer."

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?

 

[good brother]

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

 

[good brother]

Your photos are obviously FRAUDS!!!!11111

LOL

All you showed was a bunch of fossils. Show me fossil bunnies with trilobites and dinosaurs, all together in "The Flood Layer."

Of course another thing to contemplate is the number of fossils we DON'T have. Ever notice how quickly an evolutionist will scream out to a creationist who is asking for more transitions a response something along these lines, "How many examples do you want? Don't you know not everything fossilizes? Why, even if I were to show you (the creationist in this scenario) every single transition, you wouldn't believe it because you are so blinded by your belief in that old book." Those evolutionists are often the very same ones who demand we creationists bring forth evidence for a Cambrian rabbit. And after all that talk about how few of fossils they have to prove evolution. It's rather ironic.

In Christ, GB

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Of course another thing to contemplate is the number of fossils we DON'T have. Ever notice how quickly an evolutionist will scream out to a creationist who is asking for more transitions a response something along these lines, "How many examples do you want? Don't you know not everything fossilizes? Why, even if I were to show you (the creationist in this scenario) every single transition, you wouldn't believe it because you are so blinded by your belief in that old book." Those evolutionists are often the very same ones who demand we creationists bring forth evidence for a Cambrian rabbit. And after all that talk about how few of fossils they have to prove evolution. It's rather ironic.

In Christ, GB

But, we need some sort of idea exactly how many transitional fossils is "enough". Transitional fossils are still being found, and for anything that fossilises rather well, there seem to be an abundance of intermediate forms between major groups.

E.g. see here for fish to tetrapods: List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Looking at each form to the next form, there is very little gap. Why is there any need for more transitional fossils?

I don't know of anyone claiming that "few fossils" prove evolution. There seem to be huge numbers of fossils around. And more are being found all the time: Fossil of early terrestrial amphibian discovered

 

[Split Rock]

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?

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

 

[Split Rock]

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

What are you talking about? We are discussing the geological column, not dead things you can find on the beach! Try to stay with us....

Of course another thing to contemplate is the number of fossils we DON'T have. Ever notice how quickly an evolutionist will scream out to a creationist who is asking for more transitions a response something along these lines, "How many examples do you want? Don't you know not everything fossilizes? Why, even if I were to show you (the creationist in this scenario) every single transition, you wouldn't believe it because you are so blinded by your belief in that old book." Those evolutionists are often the very same ones who demand we creationists bring forth evidence for a Cambrian rabbit. And after all that talk about how few of fossils they have to prove evolution. It's rather ironic.

In Christ, GB

Now you're just repeating a post you made earlier. Is that ironic too?

 

[good brother]

What are you talking about? We are discussing the geological column, not dead things you can find on the beach! Try to stay with us....

Verysincere said that heavy things should sink to the bottom, and lighter things towards the top. I was simply pointing out that we have whale carcasses on the beach instead of all at the bottom of the ocean floor. That is in direct opposition to what he said we should find. Try to stay with the line of thought.

Now you're just repeating a post you made earlier. Is that ironic too?

Once you all figure it out, I might move on.

In Christ, GB

 

[USincognito]

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?

Examples, or is this just you making more stuff up?

Before you reply and make a fool of yourself yet again, Google "Whale fall", and then get back to us.

 

[USincognito]

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

SR, I'm just waiting for one of these backyard experiments to include similarly shaped, sized and weighted rocks labeled "Ichthysaur" and "Dolphin" to wind up in totally separate strata. Oh, and "Dimetrodon" and "Ground Sloth" and "Trilobite" and "Lobster" and "Stegosaur" and "Mammoth" and "Archaeopteryx" and "Crow" and "Velociraptor" and "Kangaroo" and "Pteranosaur" and "Flying Fox", etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Just label the rocks and other junk in your "experiment" and have the results of shaking up a jar or whatever full of sand reproduce the same results as the fossil record thereby demonstraing "hydrological sorting" or whatever the Creationist ad hoc grasping at air biscuits excuse of the day is.

 

[good brother]

Examples, or is this just you making more stuff up?

Before you reply and make a fool of yourself yet again, Google "Whale fall", and then get back to us.

Is this a sufficient number of examples?

Before you reply and make a fool of yourself yet again, Google "dead whales on beach", and then get back to us.

Thanks.

In Christ, GB

 

[USincognito]

{snip}Is this a sufficient number of examples?

Before you reply and make a fool of yourself yet again, Google "dead whales on beach", and then get back to us.

Oh Golly Gee! You got me! I made the mistake of not noting that you made this a suckers bet by including one word...

Verysincere said that heavy things should sink to the bottom, and lighter things towards the top. I was simply pointing out that we have whale carcasses on the beach instead of all at the bottom of the ocean floor. That is in direct opposition to what he said we should find. Try to stay with the line of thought.

So. If we have pictures of whales washed up on shore, whale fall, little fish on the shore, little fish fall, etc... what does that do to your claim then.

Remember GB, context matters... You can't claim one thing in one post and ignore it in another.

 

[good brother]

SR, I'm just waiting for one of these backyard experiments to include similarly shaped, sized and weighted rocks labeled "Ichthysaur" and "Dolphin" to wind up in totally separate strata. Oh, and "Dimetrodon" and "Ground Sloth" and "Trilobite" and "Lobster" and "Stegosaur" and "Mammoth" and "Archaeopteryx" and "Crow" and "Velociraptor" and "Kangaroo" and "Pteranosaur" and "Flying Fox", etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Just label the rocks and other junk in your "experiment" and have the results of shaking up a jar or whatever full of sand reproduce the same results as the fossil record thereby demonstraing "hydrological sorting" or whatever the Creationist ad hoc grasping at air biscuits excuse of the day is.

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.

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.


In Christ, GB

 

[good brother]

Oh Golly Gee! You got me! I made the mistake of not noting that you made this a suckers bet by including one word...

Let us not forget that you asked for examples and I provided them.

So. If we have pictures of whales washed up on shore, whale fall, little fish on the shore, little fish fall, etc... what does that do to your claim then.

If both instances occur, it would mean that verysincere's claim is null and void at best.

In Christ, GB

 

[Jro]

Is this a sufficient number of examples?

Before you reply and make a fool of yourself yet again, Google "dead whales on beach", and then get back to us.

Thanks.

In Christ, GB

One of these things is not like the other.