The fossil record explained

[pitabread]

Now, the 'hypothesis' of a 6,000 years old earth has been falsified more than 100 times by all different types of dating techniques, each based on very different principles and thus methodologically spoken entirely independent of each other.

Just FYI, but 'dad' apparently believes that everything including basic physics operated completely differently in the past and therefore we can't know anything about anything.

No it doesn't make any sense. Just giving you a heads up before you go down the endless rabbit hole with him...

 

[Turkana]

It's important to examine how fossils formed because that's how science works. Is it possible to "reenact" a fossil formation through lab tests? Is this observable in nature? If not, then what special conditions are required to form a fossil in nature? From that we should be able to construct a theory shaped around the evidence gathered from understanding the formation of fossils?

It allows less room for confirmation biases and more regard for allowing the evidence to shape the theory rather than what you propose - which is the fact that fossils are there in the strata rock layers, and making up a theory on how they got there. That's pseudo-science?

Please anwer the points I made instead of this nonsense.

If you feel that the paleontological and geological evidence I brought in is false or full of confirmation biases, I love to hear it.

No it's not important how fossils are formed. They are there, sitting in the rocks. If they are formed by process X or by process Y or Z, it's all irrelevant.

AND NOW address my posts please instead of this dodging and evading.

 

[Turkana]

Just FYI, but 'dad' apparently believes that everything including basic physics operated completely differently in the past and therefore we can't know anything about anything.

No it doesn't make any sense. Just giving you a heads up before you go down the endless rabbit hole with him...

Then "Dad" must provide scientific evidence for processes running differently in the past than today.

"Dad" must also realize that we have those things called "physical laws" that are based on physical constants, you know, those pesky little things creationists are so fond of because they testify of a "fine tuned universe" that "therefore" must "be created by god".

It's always breathtaking how creatinists insist on the fine tuned universe on one hand but change natural processes at their whim on the other - not realizing you can't have both.

 

[Turkana]

Just FYI, but 'dad' apparently believes that everything including basic physics operated completely differently in the past and therefore we can't know anything about anything.

No it doesn't make any sense. Just giving you a heads up before you go down the endless rabbit hole with him...

BTW is there a way in this forum format to link to another user in a post not addressed to her/him in order to get him/her involved in the discussion? I'm new here so need some guidance...

 

[Sanoy]

When those land animals wandered to the newly formed land after the sea dried out, it didn't wipe away the marine fossils that already were sitting there underground. the other way round, when sea started to flood sunken land, it didn't affect the fossils of land animals and plants already sitting there.

So in the first case you will observe a layer tens up to hundreds of feet thick, swarmed with marine fossils, alternated by a layer with no marine life but land animals and plants. when a layer is sitting on top of another one, it's - by sheer logic - younger.

A lyer with solely marine fossils alternated by one with exclusively land life fossils simply implies that site once was a sea floor, supervened by a terrestrial environment.

Also you must realize that a layer tens or even hundreds of feet thick always represent a long time span. For instance, we know that one meter thickness of coal layer represents at least 10 meters of biomass. There are several means to estimate this. One way is the measure the carbon contents of the coal. We know that on average the carbon stock of biomass is about 50% (differing between spcies and young or outgrown plants).

So it takes a long time for forests or swamps to build up 1 meter of coal layer, let alone, for instance, 100 meter.

Yeah Geologically the bottom section is older, but I'm talking about the fossils in each layer which get dated to the layer and seen as beginning to exist in that layer. So if the land animals that later walked onto that plot of land existed even when the land was under water they will only show up in the geologically later section of land giving the impression of speciation even know they existed since the first section. (Just not in this piece of land) How do we know we're not just dealing with the fact that land animals and plants aren't going to be in a place that's underwater to lay down fossils.

 

[Turkana]

Here is a fundamental question of stratigraphy and sedimentation. It bothered me all the time, and I think it is a critical one to the concept of transitional fossil.

A limestone layer sit on top of a shale layer (conformably). As simple as that. Similar cases could be: shale on top of sandstone, sandstone on top of limestone, etc.

Please tell me what happened to make these two layers separated by a clear contact. Remind you this is not an unusual feature, but is an extremely common feature in stratigraphy. So please do not use the idea of punctuated equilibrium for the explanation. If you use the idea too many times, then you are becoming a creationist.

This is not relevant here except you just meant it to be an informative question.

But let's proceed to the "I think it is a critical one to the concept of transitional fossil" part of your post, which is the gist of it.

It is not critical and even totally irrelevant for the concept of transitional fossil. We have fossils sitting in different layers. And the fossil record of these layers are distinct. How the particular boundaries between these layers look like, separated by clearly contact or whatever, is completely irrelevant.

It also completely excapes met what puntuated equilibrium has to to with the boudaries between geological layers. You mifht as well had bring in the colour of the moon.

Red herring and complete nonsense as well.

 

[Turkana]

Yeah Geologically the bottom section is older, but I'm talking about the fossils in each layer which get dated to the layer and seen as beginning to exist in that layer. So if the land animals that later walked onto that plot of land existed even when the land was under water they will only show up in the geologically later section of land giving the impression of speciation even know they existed since the first section. (Just not in this piece of land) How do we know we're not just dealing with the fact that land animals and plants aren't going to be in a place that's underwater to lay down fossils.

I have no idea what you are getting at in this nonsensical post. The only thing that makes sense is your last question.

We have a geological layer of, say, limestone. It's 200 feet thick and swarmed with marine fossils, from bottom up to the top. Apparently this once was a sea floor. It might have been a lake but we can tell lakes floors (fresh water) apart from sea floors by different detection methods.

On top of that we have, say, a sandstone layer of 180 feet thick. It does not contain ANY marine fossil but only of typical land animals and some scarce plants. We also observe the profile of ancient sand dunes complete with fossilized raindroplets and footprints of land reptiles walking upstairs on those dunes and fossilized ripple marks from the wind - typical for desert sand dunes.

On top of that we have, say, a coal layer 90 feet thick. This was an ancient forest and we indeed also find fossils of land plants sitting there.

Intermezzo: do you have any idea how long it takes for a forest to produce 90 feet of coal? Well it's quite easy to estimate that: the total rate of carbon in plant biomass has fpound to be ~47.5%. But that's oven-dry, so all water content removed first. So you can measure the carbon content of a coal seam and estimate how much living biomass it represents (biomass includes the water). From that we know that an average coal seam of 1 foot thickness represents a total biomass of about 10 foot thickness. So 90 feet thick coal layers represent 900 feet thick living biomass.

Then we have erosion. The wind and rainwater rinse forest soils and take away many of the dead biomass laying rotting there (the natural erosion rate of forests can be some ~0.07 tonnes per hectare per year). But even leaving away this factor: it takes a long time before a forest accumulates a 900 feet worth of biomass.
​

On top of this coal layer dozens more in similar, alternating fashion.

Could you in the light of this observation explain me the sheer relevance of your question?

Or, better, cut the crap and start addressing the points I made.

 

[Turkana]

In your religion they might testify to that. In point of fact they don't do anything of the sort. They testify to your hopelessly wrong view of the fossil record and what it actually represents. They testify to you ignoring Creation in the fossil record. By the way you showed and demonstrated nothing so far but that you believe.


The issue outside of your religion is not what is happening or not and how slow or fast that may be. The issue is what happened long ago and in what nature it happened.


"It" depends on what you mean by it. Something happened. How we determine what that something was depends on the nature in place when it happened.


Give or take a bit.



Every single dating method used without exception is based on this nature and how it works..on atoms, light, tree growth etc etc. All the same exact principle manifested differently, depending on where your beliefs are foisted.



If you disagree that all instances are based on a a belief in a same state past nature, then list ANY that weren't! You can't. I guarantee it.
Your beliefs disagree with actual ages. So?
Not in any way is that remotely close to a shadow of the truth.

Merely having many layers does not in any way whatsoever mean that your religion is needed to explain them. Really.
Pre flood water.

So water covered an area that was formerly land. Whoopee do.

• 
  Point? What does land getting covered later with water have to do with neededing your particular belief set? Ah, I see. A complete strawman and canard. You think I use the flood year to explain all things! Ha. Ridiculous. Name the formation, and we can explain it without your religion. Easily.

Wrong. You didn't even clue in to what my position was. Instead you flail around attacking some flood geology strawman.
So you end your little tirade with a slur against the Scripture and how you reject it out of hand. Well I reject rejecting it. How's that?

And WHERE are the rebuttals on my original OP and posts?

Nowhere.

NEXT.

 

[Turkana]

Aman777 said: ↑ Didn't you know that we live in a Multiverse composed of 3 universes? The first world was totally destroyed in the flood. 2Pet3:6 The present world will be burned. 2Pet3:10
The THIRD Heaven of 2Cor12:2 is what God is currently filling with it's host, which includes ALL Christians, including the last one to be saved. Genesis 2:1 Amen?



Sure, but remember that Genesis is the best and only evidence of these events. Since the Spirit of Truth is the Author, He MUST tell the Truth Scripturally, Scientifically, Historically and in every other way.. ie. God told us more than 3k years ago that He created and brought forth from WATER, "every living creature that moveth". Gen 1:21

Science confirmed this 2 years ago.
Behold LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor of Life on Earth ...
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/.../behold-luca-last-universal-common-ancestor-life...

It was on the 5th Day/Age or 3.77 Billion years ago, in man's time. God's Truth is the Truth in every way if you understand Genesis One. Amen?

Cut the crap. WHERE do I find rebuttals on what I actually wrote in my OP and sebsequent opening posts?

Waiting and have seen nothing YET.

Please reread them and write proper and relevant posts.

Remember Genesis is the best and only evidence of these events?

You must be kidding.

SCIENTIFIC evidence I meant.

No bronze age mythology stories please.

NEXT please.

 

[juvenissun]

This is not relevant here except you just meant it to be an informative question.

But let's proceed to the "I think it is a critical one to the concept of transitional fossil" part of your post, which is the gist of it.

It is not critical and even totally irrelevant for the concept of transitional fossil. We have fossils sitting in different layers. And the fossil record of these layers are distinct. How the particular boundaries between these layers look like, separated by clearly contact or whatever, is completely irrelevant.

It also completely excapes met what puntuated equilibrium has to to with the boudaries between geological layers. You mifht as well had bring in the colour of the moon.

Red herring and complete nonsense as well.

Don't run away if you think you are the one who knows the nature of transitional fossil. Face the problem with courage! Otherwise, ALL you said in this thread would be hogwash.

Assume a sandstone layer laid direction on top of a limestone layer with a sharp contact (a very common situation). It means lives (fossils) preserved in the limestone directly faced a drastic environmental change across the lithological boundary. Question one here is: how much time is represented by the contact? Possibility one is, no time, it was continuous. Possibility two is that the boundary represents a mini-disconformity. In either case, there should be a consequence of fossil preservation which directly reflect the facies change across the boundary of these two layers. The nature of fossil changes across a conformable lithological boundary would show the nature of transitional fossil.

In most, if not in all, cases, what we see is either no change, or an abrupt change. So, what do you think is the nature of transitional boundary with possible fossil change on and over the boundary?

By the way, do you know anything about nanofossils? The change of nanofossils would be the best fossil type to consider this question. How did nanofossil change across sedimentary beds? They change abruptly, not gradually. If they changed gradually, some part in the oil industry would quickly collapse.

 

[dad]

I'm sorry that you don't even know what Day it is, dad. Jesus told us. 2Co 6:2 We live today at Genesis 1:27 and will not advance to the prophecy of Genesis 1:28-31 until AFTER Jesus returns to rule and reign for a thousand years. Amen?

I guess if I knew what a day was, I would realize it was millions of years, eh? By the way I do not live in any verse in Genesis. I live here and now. I do not live in the garden either. Maybe ease up on the pi in the sky.

 

[dad]

And WHERE are the rebuttals on my original OP and posts?

Nowhere.

NEXT.

I replied to something you posted to me. You were shown to be flailing wildly off target, and badmouthing the bible. Not impressive.

As for the OP we see this fro you.

"... fossils that are very difficult to classify are the hallmark of evolution."

I tend to agree....confusion and ignorance and godless leaping to conclusions is the hallmark of that religion.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Don't run away if you think you are the one who knows the nature of transitional fossil. Face the problem with courage! Otherwise, ALL you said in this thread would be hogwash.

Assume a sandstone layer laid direction on top of a limestone layer with a sharp contact (a very common situation). It means lives (fossils) preserved in the limestone directly faced a drastic environmental change across the lithological boundary. Question one here is: how much time is represented by the contact? Possibility one is, no time, it was continuous. Possibility two is that the boundary represents a mini-disconformity. In either case, there should be a consequence of fossil preservation which directly reflect the facies change across the boundary of these two layers. The nature of fossil changes across a conformable lithological boundary would show the nature of transitional fossil.

In most, if not in all, cases, what we see is either no change, or an abrupt change. So, what do you think is the nature of transitional boundary with possible fossil change on and over the boundary?

By the way, do you know anything about nanofossils? The change of nanofossils would be the best fossil type to consider this question. How did nanofossil change across sedimentary beds? They change abruptly, not gradually. If they changed gradually, some part in the oil industry would quickly collapse.

It seems that creatures were able to continue to evolve uninterrupted throughout incredibly destructive cataclysmic environmental events. Of course this ability has been conveniently lost, as during such events today.........they die.

 

[Sanoy]

I have no idea what you are getting at in this nonsensical post. The only thing that makes sense is your last question.

We have a geological layer of, say, limestone. It's 200 feet thick and swarmed with marine fossils, from bottom up to the top. Apparently this once was a sea floor. It might have been a lake but we can tell lakes floors (fresh water) apart from sea floors by different detection methods.

On top of that we have, say, a sandstone layer of 180 feet thick. It does not contain ANY marine fossil but only of typical land animals and some scarce plants. We also observe the profile of ancient sand dunes complete with fossilized raindroplets and footprints of land reptiles walking upstairs on those dunes and fossilized ripple marks from the wind - typical for desert sand dunes.

On top of that we have, say, a coal layer 90 feet thick. This was an ancient forest and we indeed also find fossils of land plants sitting there.

Intermezzo: do you have any idea how long it takes for a forest to produce 90 feet of coal? Well it's quite easy to estimate that: the total rate of carbon in plant biomass has fpound to be ~47.5%. But that's oven-dry, so all water content removed first. So you can measure the carbon content of a coal seam and estimate how much living biomass it represents (biomass includes the water). From that we know that an average coal seam of 1 foot thickness represents a total biomass of about 10 foot thickness. So 90 feet thick coal layers represent 900 feet thick living biomass.

Then we have erosion. The wind and rainwater rinse forest soils and take away many of the dead biomass laying rotting there (the natural erosion rate of forests can be some ~0.07 tonnes per hectare per year). But even leaving away this factor: it takes a long time before a forest accumulates a 900 feet worth of biomass.
​

On top of this coal layer dozens more in similar, alternating fashion.
Could you in the light of this observation explain me the sheer relevance of your question?

Or, better, cut the crap and start addressing the points I made.

"Cut the crap", "answer my points", what's your problem man. I am just asking a question, something you should be familiar with as a free thinker. NM, I'll ask someone else that cares about answering questions.

 

[pitabread]

It's always breathtaking how creatinists insist on the fine tuned universe on one hand but change natural processes at their whim on the other - not realizing you can't have both.

It's basically Last Thursdayism. A few posters here subscribe to such philosophies. Unfortunately being inherently untenable positions, there isn't much real debate to be had.

 

[Jimmy D]

It seems that creatures were able to continue to evolve uninterrupted throughout incredibly destructive cataclysmic environmental events. Of course this ability has been conveniently lost, as during such events today.........they die.

Which events and creatures are you referring to specifically?

 

[Aman777]

Remember Genesis is the best and only evidence of these events?

You must be kidding.

SCIENTIFIC evidence I meant.

No bronze age mythology stories please.

NEXT please.

Then please don't ask questions today's scientists know nothing of, such as the FIRST 3 Days/Ages (14 Billion years in man's time). Can I help it IF people who study Science are totally ignorant of the time BEFORE the Big Bang? Just admit the failure of scientists to be able to understand Genesis One. If they all are like you, they insist on posting only to fellow believers in the changeable theories of man. Eliminating God's Truth is what some call Godless Science. Amen?

 

[Aman777]

I guess if I knew what a day was, I would realize it was millions of years, eh? By the way I do not live in any verse in Genesis. I live here and now. I do not live in the garden either. Maybe ease up on the pi in the sky.

Reminds me of the Scoffers of the last days who don't know that Adam's world was totally destroyed in the flood. 2Pet3:3-7 They will be so ignorant that they don't know the difference between the world that THEN WAS and the world WHICH IS NOW. IOW, their Scriptural illiteracy is legend. God Bless you

 

[Jimmy D]

Reminds me of the Scoffers of the last days who don't know that Adam's world was totally destroyed in the flood. 2Pet3:3-7 They will be so ignorant that they don't know the difference between the world that THEN WAS and the world WHICH IS NOW. IOW, their Scriptural illiteracy is legend. God Bless you

The thread is about the fossil record, please take your rambling elsewhere. We are all familiar with your views.

 

[Aman777]

It's basically Last Thursdayism. A few posters here subscribe to such philosophies. Unfortunately being inherently untenable positions, there isn't much real debate to be had.

The debate suffocates because some of those who oppose God's Truth can be so nasty no one wants to post to them. The rest hide from debating actual Scripture and dismiss things written more than 3k years ago as MYTH even when they agree with recent scientific discoveries.