The great flood and fossils

[Job 33:6]

As I said before most stuff before the flood was eaten or reused by the life around and could not have become a fossil. It took a major catastrophe to create the fossil record.

This just isnt adding up. So dinosaurs did live before the flood, but for some reason, only show up in mesozoic rock. Why not in paleozoic?

 

[mindlight]

But this doesnt explain the plant succession. Why the appearance of vascular plants prior to seeded plants, and why not until later, are the flowering plants present?

Answers in Genesis has a good overview of this question

The Origin of Plants

Basically marine plants are lower that the land based flowering kind cause they were the first to succumb to the flood waters. But these layers are not evidence of evolution because they are all mixed up and many of those in the lower layers are still around. The article says it better.

 

[mindlight]

Mammalian fossils pre date a number of reptiles in the fossil succession. Mammal fossils pre date the cretaceous, which was in the age of reptiles. Were these mammals not warm blooded enough?

The fossil sequence can seem quite random hence the OP. But this article gave a summary of different creationists approaches to why the fossil succession ended up the way it did:

"
Creationists, including myself,1 have provided a variety of alternative explanations for fossil succession. These include such mechanisms as the sorting of organisms during the Flood, differential escape of organisms during the same, ecological zonation of life-forms in the antediluvian world (such that different life-forms in different strata reflect the serial burial of ecological life-zones during the Flood), and TABs (Tectonically-Associated Biological Provinces—wherein different life forms occur in successive horizons of rock as a reflection of successive crustal downwarp of different life-bearing biogeographic communities).

All of these mechanisms do away with the notion that horizons of fossils demand successive passages of time during which the organisms lived. In other words, they allow for there to have been only one set of mutually-contemporaneous living things on a young earth, instead of a repetitive replacement of living things over vast periods of time. Most of the earth’s sedimentary record is viewed as being deposited by the Noachian Deluge, and not over successive depositional events in analogues of modern sedimentary environments on an evolving earth."

The fossil record - creation.com

 

[Job 33:6]

Answers in Genesis has a good overview of this question

The Origin of Plants

Basically marine plants are lower that the land based flowering kind cause they were the first to succumb to the flood waters. But these layers are not evidence of evolution because they are all mixed up and many of those in the lower layers are still around. The article says it better.

Seeded plants pre date flowering plants, yet seeded plants are not all aquatic. vascular plants are not all aquatic either, yet they predate seeded plants.

Your explanation is insufficient to explain why this is the case.

If it were really as simple as aquatic plants coming first, then aquatic vascular plants would all predate terrestrial vascular plants, but this isn't the case.

 

[Job 33:6]

The fossil sequence can seem quite random hence the OP. But this article gave a summary of different creationists approaches to why the fossil succession ended up the way it did:

"
Creationists, including myself,1 have provided a variety of alternative explanations for fossil succession. These include such mechanisms as the sorting of organisms during the Flood, differential escape of organisms during the same, ecological zonation of life-forms in the antediluvian world (such that different life-forms in different strata reflect the serial burial of ecological life-zones during the Flood), and TABs (Tectonically-Associated Biological Provinces—wherein different life forms occur in successive horizons of rock as a reflection of successive crustal downwarp of different life-bearing biogeographic communities).

All of these mechanisms do away with the notion that horizons of fossils demand successive passages of time during which the organisms lived. In other words, they allow for there to have been only one set of mutually-contemporaneous living things on a young earth, instead of a repetitive replacement of living things over vast periods of time. Most of the earth’s sedimentary record is viewed as being deposited by the Noachian Deluge, and not over successive depositional events in analogues of modern sedimentary environments on an evolving earth."

The fossil record - creation.com

Your answers are insufficient. You suggested that cold blooded animals had a harder time escaping the flood. When told that warm blooded animals fossilized earlier than cold blooded, you have no response.

Are you suggesting that mega sloths simply out ran birds to escape the flood waters? But then ultimately could not run fast enough and were fossilized?

 

[mindlight]

Ocean currents are not erosive in the sense that they erode away dense metamorphosed rock such as...quartzite. Certainly not in a year at least.

The point is that, something should be evident in the earth to support your statement that the oceans of the deep are what metamorphosed local rocks. But when asked about it, there is nothing to say.

Superheated waters travelling at hundreds of miles an hour loaded with grit meeting still hot metamorphic rocks disturbed, uplifted and tossed around by major convective processes in Earth’s mantle. Any thing is possible in such circumstances and in a short space of time. I am sure there is some kind of study on rapid erosion of metamorphic rocks out there.

 

[mindlight]

Your answers are insufficient. You suggested that cold blooded animals had a harder time escaping the flood. When told that warm blooded animals fossilized earlier than cold blooded, you have no response.

Are you suggesting that mega sloths simply out ran birds to escape the flood waters? But then ultimately could not run fast enough and were fossilized?

Did you read the quote there were 3-4 ways around your issue in there.

 

[mindlight]

Seeded plants pre date flowering plants, yet seeded plants are not all aquatic. vascular plants are not all aquatic either, yet they predate seeded plants.

Your explanation is insufficient to explain why this is the case.

If it were really as simple as aquatic plants coming first, then aquatic vascular plants would all predate terrestrial vascular plants, but this isn't the case.

Yes the article gave a better answer - read it if you want an answer to the dilemma you posed.

 

[Job 33:6]

I guess ill move on from the conversation.

Superheated waters travelling at hundreds of miles an hour loaded with grit meeting still hot metamorphosed rocks disturbed, uplifted and tossed around by major convective processes in Earth’s mantle. Any thing is possible in such circumstances and in a short space of time. I am sure there is some kind of study on rapid erosion of metamorphosed rocks out there.

This isn't some hollywood movie where 1000 degree acid waters were flying around at hundreds of miles per hour. If there were really 1000 degree acid waters blasting away mountains, it is quite amazing soft bodied fossils can be found at all, or any fossils for than matter. There just isnt evidence for this physics defying, chemistry defying, geology defying claim. And this idea that mountains are just being annihilated, but Noah's wooden boat was fine, just doesn't add up.

If this were really what the flood were like, the rock succession itself would not exist as it does.

 

[Job 33:6]

Alright im moving on. I cant be bothered to continue here. You can't just copy and paste nonsense without directly responding to my commentary, and expect the conversation to continue. You can't just make stuff up, then when asked about evidence, propose some radical idea about mountains being washed away by 1000 degree water, which isnt even possible as it would evaporate. Entire mountains are being blown to pieces and the earth is a smoldering 100 degree ball of chaos, and yet somehow, some way, flowering plants were perfectly fine through the entire experience, but then all of a sudden toward the end their petals began to give in to the utter chaos as they were buried later in time than seeded terrestrial plants.

 

[Job 33:6]

Lets be honest, you have to admit that this just doesn't make any sense. Entire mountains eroded away, but flowering plants were holding on to dear life, and somehow managed to outlast all animals of the mesozoic and paleozoic preceding them? I mean come on...none of this makes any sense.

 

[mindlight]

I guess ill move on from the conversation.



This isn't some hollywood movie where 1000 degree acid waters were flying around at hundreds of miles per hour. If there were really 1000 degree acid waters blasting away mountains, it is quite amazing soft bodied fossils can be found at all, or any fossils for than matter. There just isnt evidence for this physics defying, chemistry defying, geology defying claim. And this idea that mountains are just being annihilated, but Noah's wooden boat was fine, just doesn't add up.

If this were really what the flood were like, the rock succession itself would not exist as it does.

Since it is an unanalogous and supernatural event we have no way of knowing. But your question was to do with explaining variable erosion patterns in metamorphic rocks and yes there are ways that can happen, and yes it is not impossible to rule out these were features of the flood.

 

[Job 33:6]

The fossil sequence can seem quite random hence the OP. But this article gave a summary of different creationists approaches to why the fossil succession ended up the way it did:

"
Creationists, including myself,1 have provided a variety of alternative explanations for fossil succession. These include such mechanisms as the sorting of organisms during the Flood, differential escape of organisms during the same, ecological zonation of life-forms in the antediluvian world (such that different life-forms in different strata reflect the serial burial of ecological life-zones during the Flood), and TABs (Tectonically-Associated Biological Provinces—wherein different life forms occur in successive horizons of rock as a reflection of successive crustal downwarp of different life-bearing biogeographic communities).

All of these mechanisms do away with the notion that horizons of fossils demand successive passages of time during which the organisms lived. In other words, they allow for there to have been only one set of mutually-contemporaneous living things on a young earth, instead of a repetitive replacement of living things over vast periods of time. Most of the earth’s sedimentary record is viewed as being deposited by the Noachian Deluge, and not over successive depositional events in analogues of modern sedimentary environments on an evolving earth."

The fossil record - creation.com

I'll respond more specifically to this since you had asked about it.

Differential escape. This isnt sufficient. Again regarding plants, they arent escaping in any varying rate. They are just sitting there in the ground. And there is no real explanation for why cenozoic animals would out escape mesozoic animals, that would further out escape paleozoic animals. And there is no correlating evidence between continental subsidence or downwarping and the faunal succession. Its as if the first paragraph is someone just making stuff up.

Beyond that, there is no real ecological "zoning" in the faunal succession. Not at large. Even if we proposed that waters gradually flooded one location before or after another, it really doesn't make any sense as to why the order would be as it is.

Uniformitarianism is simple. The reason flowering plants come after vascular plants, is because the flowering plants descended from the vascular plants. Its simple, its straight forward. It doesn't required wild and crazy speculation to explain.

 

[mindlight]

Lets be honest, you have to admit that this just doesn't make any sense. Entire mountains eroded away, but flowering plants were holding on to dear life, and somehow managed to outlast all animals of the mesozoic and paleozoic preceding them? I mean come on...none of this makes any sense.

As a explanation it is not the exhaustive, detailed answer you are used to viewing in glossy diagrams in geology text books. It is messy and according to the materialistic naturalistic methodology employed by many modern scientists unsubstantiated. But it actually sounds more honest to me than evolution which cannot be demonstrated and despite its claims remains unsubstantiated also regarding its sweeping vision of the fossil record. The fundamental difference though is the presence of God in the Creationist account. The same God who walked amongst us as Christ, turning water into wine, feeding the 5000 and walking on water is capable of the flood.

 

[Job 33:6]

Since it is an unanalogous and supernatural event we have no way of knowing. .

Do you think that plate tectonics is...unrealistic? You know that the motion of the continents has been measured. The himilayas grow each day in height. Do you ever wonder why elephants are in India, but also in africa and nowhere else? Its because India was attached to africa prior to pushing up into the himilayas.

But how could it be so, if a global flood is what caused the continents to bounce around? The elephants would die. Unless Noah deliberately put the elephants back in India, let them multiply, then scooped them up on his boat again and sailed to africa and dropped them back off.

Here is the simple alternative. Elephants lived on a larger continent that included india and africa combined. The indian sub continent drifted through the ocean at a calm and slow rate that took many many years, at a rate that we observe it moving today actually. The elephants survived because the environment hasnt been wild and crazy, and now they are on two continents, separated from one another.

 

[Job 33:6]

See above^ No super hot waters, no wild and crazy acid explosions, no mountains being annihilated. No flowering plants sprouting legs and outrunning vascular plants, no giant sloths out running theropods.

Just slow, calm, casual motion of continents, casually living elephants, exactly as we see today.

 

[Job 33:6]

Here is a cool tid bit as well. google the rate at which the continental plates move (about the rate our finger nails grow, 5 cm per year). Open up google earth, and measure the distance between the mid oceanic ridge and the eastern united states (3-4 hundred million cm), and take a wild guess as to how long at the current rate it would take for the continents, africa and the north america, to move as far away from eachother as they are today.

Then, just google the ages of rock along the coast of north america and africa.

You will find that the distance between north america and the mid oceanic ridge (some 400 million cm, divided by the rate at which continents move, 5cm per year, gives you 80 million years.

The same amount of time given by other independent dating methods.

This is like...not asking for much here, it could not be more simple and clear.

 

[mindlight]

All of that assumes a uniformitarian principle and requires and assumes a very long time for these things to happen. If I agree with all the facts you raise but just place them in a vastly accelerated and far messier catastrophist model we have a world in which the flood is the only explanation for the graveyards in the rocks beneath our feet.

You have no secured audit trail of the evidence, you have no eye witnesses to the events you describe, there are no repeatable experiments you can perform to demonstrate the correctness of abiogenetic, macroevolutionary history. You preach the evolutionary story with an unsubstantiated certainty on the basis of what is a reductive, materialist, naturalistic methodology. A methodology that cannot demonstrate the truth of its sermon to us all. That said thanks for an interesting conversation.

 

[Job 33:6]

All of that assumes a uniformitarian principle and requires and assumes a very long time for these things to happen. If I agree with all the facts you raise but just place them in a vastly accelerated and far messier catastrophist model we have a world in which the flood is the only explanation for the graveyards in the rocks beneath our feet.

You have no secured audit trail of the evidence, you have no eye witnesses to the events you describe, there are no repeatable experiments you can perform to demonstrate the correctness of abiogenetic, macroevolutionary history. You preach the evolutionary story with an unsubstantiated certainty on the basis of what is a reductive, materialist, naturalistic methodology. A methodology that cannot demonstrate the truth of its sermon to us all. That said thanks for an interesting conversation.

The difference though is that...we can see the rate of tectonic movement. Today. With plate tectonics, there is no need to propose the idea of wild and crazy explosions and plants our running eachother for higher ground. I do not need to propose the idea that all the literal mountains of evidence was wiped out by crazy acidic explosions that destroyed metamorphic rock.

With plate tectonics, all you literally need to do, is look out the window and there it is. No further explanation needed, what you see is how it is.

 

[Job 33:6]

why is the mid oceanic ridge 70 million years old, and why is it 350 million centimeters away? Because its been moving at 5cm per year for 70 million years. And if I look outside, this is the rate that they are moving. Why do the radioactive methods match that 70 million years that i predicted just using google earth? Because thats just what they are. Thats just the way it is. Why else would absolute methods match my 5 minute google earth test?