The order of fossils in the geological column

[PsychoSarah]

In fast rushing water that contained lots of material yes, but a slow moving flood would deposit its sediments rather quickly, and the bodies wouldn't sink until some time later and would rest on or near the surface, to decompose rather quickly.

A slow moving flood wouldn't pick up much sediment to begin with, relatively speaking.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And you have no idea when it isn't going to work.

Which is worse?

Not understanding how science works.

If you understand science but don't know when "it's not goind to work", at least you'll make progress till you hit that wall. At which point someone smarter then you will probably find an escape route.

In your case however... well. We wouldn't be conversing through cyber space.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

A slow moving flood wouldn't pick up much sediment to begin with, relatively speaking.

True. The heavier particles wouldn't move very far if at all and the finer silt would be so dilute in the massive water column that deposition of it would be insignificant. However there would be erosion and deposition in areas where the waters were narrowly channeled.

 

[PsychoSarah]

True. The heavier particles wouldn't move very far if at all and the finer silt would be so dilute in the massive water column that deposition of it would be insignificant. However there would be erosion and deposition in areas where the waters were narrowly channeled.

True, but it wouldn't be enough to explain most geographic formations.

 

[Dusty Bin]

In fast rushing water that contained lots of material yes, but a slow moving flood would deposit its sediments rather quickly, and the bodies wouldn't sink until some time later and would rest on or near the surface, to decompose rather quickly.

Not only to decompose, the fish would eat most of it, they wouldn't have known they were in a flood, for a fish there's always a flood, fish numbers would have doubled that year, which means God failed in his bid to wipe everything out,
if seeds grew when the flood subsided it would also mean that all the plant's were not killed either, another fail.

 

[dad]

No, creationists do that in an attempt to falsify science, but scientists don't.

In ask an astrophysicist thread, the guy just did exactly that. You think he is a closet creo?

No, they DON'T just assume the same rates. The look for evidence of DIFFERENT rates and don't find them. If they ever do find that evidence, the theory will change. But scientists don't simply ASSUME the rates are the same.

No. They assume present rates. Any looking they do also does the same..assume a present state first and always and only. No wiggling out of it, so called science is religion.

They don't simply "believe" physics operated differently in the past, they design and conduct experiments that would show evidence of a "different state past". Guess what, they have NEVER found any.

Right, they simply believe physics was the same! Thanks for that. I say phooey on what they believe. Who cares?

Unlike you, scientists don't believe that the absence of evidence that physics operated differently in the past is evidence that physics DID operate differently in the past.

Again, I say phooey on what they believe. Who cares? They either know, or any godless blather they spout must be treated like poison.

 

[Dusty Bin]

Again, I say phooey on what they believe. Who cares? They either know, or any godless blather they spout must be treated like poison.

Unless the "godless blather they spout" helps you of course then it won't be treated like poison.
TV evangelists love science, it brings them in millions.

 

[dad]

Unless the "godless blather they spout" helps you of course then it won't be treated like poison.
TV evangelists love science, it brings them in millions.

Playing in a sand box may tell us how the sand behaves when we wet it, or pile it, or toss it in the air, etc. Science can play with stuff in this world and use our present laws. In no way does that make the fables they bark out about the future or God's yesterdays valid in the least.

 

[Dusty Bin]

In no way does that make the fables they bark out about the future or God's yesterdays valid in the least.

Who better to know about that than you? a believer in fables, I wouldn't even begin to question you on the matter because I know nothing of such things, belief in the unbelievable or the unknowable has never been my thing.

 

[bhsmte]

Who better to know about that than you? a believer in fables, I wouldn't even begin to question you on the matter because I know nothing of such things, belief in the unbelievable or the unknowable has never been my thing.

Careful. You know dad has never been defeated right? Well, at least in the last 5 minutes he hasn't been.

 

[dad]

Who better to know about that than you? a believer in fables, I wouldn't even begin to question you on the matter because I know nothing of such things, belief in the unbelievable or the unknowable has never been my thing.

If you know what science claims you are intimate with them.

 

[dad]

Careful. You know dad has never been defeated right? Well, at least in the last 5 minutes he hasn't been.

Thank God for the victory. It is real. We can't lose for winning.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I wasn't going to try to support a very slow, gradual flood because the biblical description indicates it was rather violent.

You do know that only 5% of fossils ever found appear in any sort of order? The fossil record is proof positive of a world wide flood. That and the chalk cliffs, the Grand Canyon, Etc.

I see that people have requested several times that you provide a source for the assertion that the fossil record is out of order. All you've done so far is note that there are marine fossils interspersed with terrestrial fossils; you have failed to explain why this is inconsistent with conventional geology or the theory of evolution.

Conversely, the order of the fossil record is completely inconsistent with the Flood. As others have pointed out, there's some pretty strict zonation going on that can't be reconciled with the Flood, even when ecological zonation, differential escape and hydrologic sorting are invoked. Dinosaurs and modern mammals (to pick one obvious example out of an effectively limitless supply) live in the same geographic locations and in the same environments, yet they are never found together in the same strata.

So I await your evidence for the fossil record being "out of order" and your explanation of why it is so strictly zonated. And in regard to the Grand Canyon, I believe you vanished from a thread discussing that some time ago. Remember the meanders? And how such features can't be produced rapidly and catastrophically?

 

[EternalDragon]

I see that people have requested several times that you provide a source for the assertion that the fossil record is out of order. All you've done so far is note that there are marine fossils interspersed with terrestrial fossils; you have failed to explain why this is inconsistent with conventional geology or the theory of evolution.

Conversely, the order of the fossil record is completely inconsistent with the Flood. As others have pointed out, there's some pretty strict zonation going on that can't be reconciled with the Flood, even when ecological zonation, differential escape and hydrologic sorting are invoked. Dinosaurs and modern mammals (to pick one obvious example out of an effectively limitless supply) live in the same geographic locations and in the same environments, yet they are never found together in the same strata.

So I await your evidence for the fossil record being "out of order" and your explanation of why it is so strictly zonated. And in regard to the Grand Canyon, I believe you vanished from a thread discussing that some time ago. Remember the meanders? And how such features can't be produced rapidly and catastrophically?

It was never "in order" or "strictly" zonated.

I can vanish and re-appear as I want to. I do believe it was shown that the meanders in the canyon could have easily formed quickly. So nothing more to say there.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

My model has,

No wind. The forty days of rain had drained the heat needed for winds from the atmosphere.

Therefore no one could 'sail' anywhere but would be carried along on the flood water along with the corpses as well as the putrid smell.

The rains stopped after forty days, therefore no more fresh water for the duration of the flood.

The ark was in different location, far from the main flood debris and therefore wasn't bothered by it.

You've ignored the majority of my post. You didn't address:

1. The argument that it is absurd to insist that nowhere in the world were there one or more ships already supplied with food and water for various voyages (Poon Lim manages with some biscuits and chocolate after all).

2. The argument that forty straight days of rain would provide a huge amount of fresh water and that that supply would be in addition to water already on board for long voyages..

3.The point from a previous post that people have been known to survive by drinking blood and even urine. In the instance I just linked, the man survived eight months at sea by eating birds and drinking turtle blood. So it is ridiculous to claim that no one else in the entire world was able to survive your Flood.

4. The point that food stores already loaded could easily be bolstered by fishing (considering many of these ships would be fishing ships) and catching birds.

I'm still waiting for:

1. Evidence that rotting corpses would render the air toxic
2. Evidence that rotting corpses would prevent (rather than aid) fishing

Even assuming your no wind argument is valid, there would still be wind for much of the Flood, so there would be ample time to sail away from flotillas corpses. Plus many ships come equipped with oars or poles for locomotion. And in any case you I have still not seen you explain why the corpses would be clotted around where all the world's ships were despite the relatively vast areas of open water.

I hope in your response you will directly address the points I have numbered for your convenience.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

It was never "in order" or "strictly" zonated.

I can vanish and re-appear as I want to. I do believe it was shown that the meanders in the canyon could have easily formed quickly. So nothing more to say there.

Nope and nope. It is indeed strictly zonated. Please provide examples of cenozoic mammals in the same strata as dinosaurs. Can you find dolphins and ichthyosaurs in the same strata? Can you find scleractinian and rugosan corals in the same strata? Gymnosperms always show up before angiosperms. Pelicosaurs always show up before birds. And so on and so on and so on. Can we now move on to the part where you try to explain this zonation in the context of the Flood instead of trying to argue against an objective fact?

And no, no one showed that meanders form rapidly. I guarantee you that you can't link such a post. Dad did his usual song and dance about his endlessly convenient Former state, Juve tried to pretend that the GC was actually not meandering at all and you tried to use the distinctly non-meandering Scablands as evidence that floods cut meanders. But here's the thread; go ahead and find the post where the Flood is shown to have been capable of cutting meanders. I predict that you will either fail or more likely not even try.

You can indeed vanish as you please, it's just really rough on your credibility when your vanishing always coincides with you having difficulties with an argument.

 

[[serious]]

[.QUOTE=Atheos canadensis;65501296]

Poon Lim didn't have to contend with the toxic soup from the bloated and rotting dead bodies that would have polluted the surface of the water and the air. He also had provisions to keep him alive for a time while he assessed his situation. Not a good comparison.



If the flood occurred as is generally imagined there would be ample evidence. Since it didn't happen that way that evidence is absent.

I notice you keep including extra tags, likely unpaired [./quote] tags (I broke this one on purpose and the one in your post) Please try and be more careful, it makes it harder to follow the conversation.

 

[lasthero]

I can vanish and re-appear as I want to.

True. Funny how you tend to do it when you're getting spanked. There's a rather long list of topics you've dropped out of in the 'ed runs away' tag.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You've ignored the majority of my post. You didn't address:

1. The argument that it is absurd to insist that nowhere in the world were there one or more ships already supplied with food and water for various voyages (Poon Lim manages with some biscuits and chocolate after all).

2. The argument that forty straight days of rain would provide a huge amount of fresh water and that that supply would be in addition to water already on board for long voyages..

3.The point from a previous post that people have been known to survive by drinking blood and even urine. In the instance I just linked, the man survived eight months at sea by eating birds and drinking turtle blood. So it is ridiculous to claim that no one else in the entire world was able to survive your Flood.

4. The point that food stores already loaded could easily be bolstered by fishing (considering many of these ships would be fishing ships) and catching birds.

I'm still waiting for:

1. Evidence that rotting corpses would render the air toxic
2. Evidence that rotting corpses would prevent (rather than aid) fishing

Even assuming your no wind argument is valid, there would still be wind for much of the Flood, so there would be ample time to sail away from flotillas corpses. Plus many ships come equipped with oars or poles for locomotion. And in any case you I have still not seen you explain why the corpses would be clotted around where all the world's ships were despite the relatively vast areas of open water.

I hope in your response you will directly address the points I have numbered for your convenience.

My model is supported by the story and vice versa, that no one except the eight survived. I cannot address suppositions that contradict the story, only those that support it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

True, but it wouldn't be enough to explain most geographic formations.

True. Most geographic formations were already there. The flood may have changed them a little but not much.