Punctuated Equilibrium

[RobertByers]

Really.

Remember the map in the University of Bristol palaeofiles? (If you don't, click here) The one that shows localities that span the P/Tr boundary. You know, layer 1 is Permian, and layer 2 right on top of it is Triassic.

There is a globally consistent change of fauna over this boundary. And a massive one, too, with something like 95% of marine species disappearing (that's far more destruction than at the K/T), though I don't remember the number for land-dwelling creatures.

I beg you, explain what the "different sorting actions" would be that give the appearance of another mass extinction of completely different creatures from the ones that disappeared over the K/T boundary, replaced by completely different creatures from those that replaced the Late Cretaceous dinosaurs and ammonites and pterosaurs and all that.

Please tell me how the P/Tr boundary is not a "real" line.

I don't know why I'm arguing with you any more. You seem to either (1) not understand what people write or (2) just ignore it.

I kind of hope it's (1). At least that's an excuse.

Why do you insist this line is a good point for your side.
I said repeatly that the line is just from the flood year.
Its just a different flowpath collection. Yes different creatures as it collected in different areas. You say yourself its heavily marine. Amen. the ones below the line were from the collections of the ocean and above perhaps later land deposits. Later means days or hours.
It makes sense.
Fossilization is a special case. its not normal processes.
Its clear that under the k-t line all was fossilized by a a sudden global event and segregation of things can be explained as from flow patterns and what is in the way.
Above the line is a clear difference which we live with today. so its the flood line.

 

[RobertByers]

Please explain how mammals dominate the world we live in today
The evidence suggests that mammals were incredibly scarce until the K/T boundary, but they still don't dominate nowadays - as previous posts have pointed out.

i mean the clean animals dominate. On land and in the sea.
So mammals ascendency is because they were clean and replaced the previous unclean fauna dominance. Mammals are dominant for large creatures. Above the line the story all admit is of the rise of mammals.

 

[RobertByers]

Sorry, but that doesn't follow. According to Flood Geology and YEC, all the animals in the fossil record and the animals living now were all alive together before the Flood. Therefore we should find all the animals mixed together in the fossil strata as they all drowned within days of each other and then were buried. But we don't find that at all. Instead we find different animals confined to specific strata. Elephants and iguanodon were approximately the same size and lived in the same types of environment. Why don't we find elephant fossils next to iguanodon fossils in the same strata? We should if YEC and Flood Geology is correct.



That goes against creationism.

Nope.
Your wrong about this.
Creationism and this creationist does not teach a chaotic flood like today. Rather we see great power in water, from the moving continents, collecting here, depositing there, freezing here, smashing there sediment and life.
No big/small hydralics. you must be new here.

The sorting is on a grand scale. Great fluid movements moving fast through different areas and followed by other flows from different areas.
The idea of slow deposition is unlikely and even strange.
Fossilizartion is clearly from being buried and pressurized all in short period.
Of coarse remember the bible makes claims and boundaries of which to overthrow you need actual evidence and not mere interpretation of data.

 

[Chalnoth]

i mean the clean animals dominate. On land and in the sea.
So mammals ascendency is because they were clean and replaced the previous unclean fauna dominance. Mammals are dominant for large creatures. Above the line the story all admit is of the rise of mammals.

So, beetles are "clean", then?

 

[Hespera]

Nope.
Your wrong about this.
Creationism and this creationist does not teach a chaotic flood like today. Rather we see great power in water, from the moving continents, collecting here, depositing there, freezing here, smashing there sediment and life.
No big/small hydralics. you must be new here.

The sorting is on a grand scale. Great fluid movements moving fast through different areas and followed by other flows from different areas.
The idea of slow deposition is unlikely and even strange.
Fossilizartion is clearly from being buried and pressurized all in short period.
Of coarse remember the bible makes claims and boundaries of which to overthrow you need actual evidence and not mere interpretation of data.

There seems to be some real misunderstanding about what a fossil is or what fossilization means. Anything buried is a "fossil" in the original sense of the word. Organism are bring buried today, were yesterday, will be tomorrow., there is nothing unusual about it. "Pressure" has noting in particular to do with it. Length of time doesnt have much either. The fossil evidence for the 20th century will be a very distinct marker in the fossil record of the future.

i wonder why fossilization is presented as being unusual and requiring speed and pressure. It is very readily demonstrated that this is not the case at all.


But never mind all of that. The key to the argument above seems to be these lines:

"this creationist does not teach a chaotic flood like today."
"The sorting is on a grand scale. Great fluid movements moving fast through different areas and followed by other flows from different areas."

This seems to mean that no matter what geologists find, no matter how much it contradicts the idea of one huge flood, one simply tweaks the action of flood water, supernaturally, until it can do anything and explain anything. Is that what it means?

 

[Naraoia]

Why do you insist this line is a good point for your side.

Because it is.

I said repeatly that the line is just from the flood year.

And I say repeatedly that (1) it's distinct from the K/T line, and (2) "clean" animals don't follow it.

Its just a different flowpath collection.

Waffle.

Yes different creatures as it collected in different areas.

Which were on both land and sea all over the world.

You say yourself its heavily marine.

No, I said I only remember the numbers for the marine extinction. That doesn't in any way imply that land creatures didn't suffer as much.

Amen. the ones below the line were from the collections of the ocean and above perhaps later land deposits. Later means days or hours.
It makes sense.

It does, until you start looking at the data.

Fossilization is a special case. its not normal processes.

It's both a special case and normal processes. It's like winning the lottery: there's nothing extraordinary about Bill playing lottery. There's also nothing extraordinary about six numbers being drawn in the lottery show. However, the probability that those six numbers are the same that Bill played is very low.

It's not the individual processes that are rare: it's the combination of perfectly normal circumstances that is.

Its clear that under the k-t line all was fossilized by a a sudden global event and segregation of things can be explained as from flow patterns and what is in the way.

If it's clear, why don't you explain it?

Above the line is a clear difference which we live with today. so its the flood line.

And Robert Byers is apparently completely incapable of understanding that there is more than one line, and more than one clear difference.

Not to mention that even if it were all the same event, that wouldn't show that the event was the biblical flood. Traces of a worldwide flood in the relevant strata would.