What Would Falsify the Flood?

Justatruthseeker said:

Funny how the dark matter astronomers use are found in books, but not in reality, and you use these stories to reject reality.

Click to expand...

Now you know that is not true about dark matter. There is evidence for Dark Matter. It is not conclusive, but there is evidence.

Let's get back to the subject at hand.

Loudmouth said:

What features would a fossil bearing strata need to have in order for you to accept it as being a non-aquatic deposition of fossils?

What would falsify a recent global flood? Or will you have an ad hoc rationalization no matter what the evidence is?

Click to expand...

I just need what geologists say, that fossil bearing rock is formed from sediment deposit. We can rule out glaciers, as they would have crushed fossils, not caused them to be buried in the first place, as glaciers have only "exposed" fossil layers. You can not point to one fossil being formed today, except claiming it is happening. Yet why then do we not see any buffalo bones in the process of fossilization across the Midwest, they were killed in the thousands and littered the plains. because bones or animals not immediately buried are scavenged and decay from bacteria. Plenty of rivers and lakes have been dredged to deepen them, not one bone in the process of fossilization has been found. Because slow covering by sedimentary drift in lakes and rivers does not occur quickly enough to prevent decay.

Also many flattened fossils have been found, which required immense pressure "before" fossilization, not a gradual slow sediment layering.

Even your scientists arn't sure how they get to where they are found

Fossils of the Burgess Shale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"These fossils have been preserved in a distinctive style known as Burgess shale type preservation, which preserves fairly tough tissues such as cuticle as thin films, and soft tissues as solid shapes, quickly enough that decay has not destroyed them. Moderately soft tissues, such as muscles, are lost. Scientists are still unsure about the processes that created these fossils. While there is little doubt that the animals were buried under catastrophic flows of sediment, it is uncertain whether they were transported by the flows from other locations, or lived in the area where they were buried, or were a mixture of local and transported specimens. This issue is closely related to whether conditions around the burial sites were anoxic or had a moderate supply of oxygen. Anoxic conditions are generally thought the most favourable for fossilization, but imply that the animals could not have lived where they were buried."

So you need the anoxic theory to back up why you have dug 60,000 specimens from one site, with many more left to get, but then by that theory they could not have lived at that site, but must have been transported by a catastrophic event of sediment burial. And as we know, fossilization is a one in a million chance happening, and 60,000 speciemns have been recovered.

This is quite common in the fossil record, despite your claims it isn't, claims never once backed by any facts, just claims. Yet your own evolutionists admit this is the most likely scenario.

Fossilized bone would not compress, but shatter, so this is why they believe it was a rapid catastrophic event of sediment flow, to compress the bones while still soft.

Fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Organisms are only rarely preserved as fossils in the best of circumstances"

The Record of Time:  Interpreting the Fossil Record

"Research into these matters has shown that fossilization is a rare phenomenon. In order for a fossil to form, the body must not be eaten or destroyed by erosion and other natural forces. Preservation would most likely occur if the organism were buried quickly and deeply."

FOSSILIZATION AND ADAPTATION

"Fossilization is a rare event. The chances of a given individual being preserved in the fossil record are very small."

Fossil Formation: The Work of Ages

"Fossil Formation Is A Rare Occurence... For these species to be preserved, a series of truly fortunate events had to have occurred. If even one of these events failed, that animal or species would never be seen by modern eyes"

So it is rare in the best of circumstances, yet 60,000 fossils have been recovered with untold more yet to come.

So tell me again, what you have been avoiding answering since I first asked. If 60,000 fossils were found, with countless more still expected to be dug up, how many must have been there originally for the quantity found to have survived to become fossilized?

Justa, always good for a laugh/

Subduction Zone said:

We do not see anything that indicates a change in velocity of the plates, in fact we have a continual record of their position since the breakup of Pangaea 200 million years ago.

The problem with flood "geologists" is that they cannot explain how anything happened.

Click to expand...

You have nothing.

WHALE FOSSILS HIGH IN ANDES SHOW HOW MOUNTAINS ROSE FROM SEA - NYTimes.com

So your claims that mountains of today can be traced back to Pangaea is a bold faced out and out falsification. Almost every mountain range that exists have had marine animals discovered in them, indicating by geological theory (we will ignore flood theory for now) that they were once seafloor, not existing mountains from the time of Pangaea.

Why do you make stuff up?

When I told him that fossilization is extremely rare he did not believe me. Now he posts an article that points out the obvious. That fossilization is a rare event.

Justatruthseeker said:

You have nothing.

WHALE FOSSILS HIGH IN ANDES SHOW HOW MOUNTAINS ROSE FROM SEA - NYTimes.com

So your claims that mountains of today can be traced back to Pangaea is a bold faced out and out falsification. Almost every mountain range that exists have had marine animals discovered in them, indicating by geological theory (we will ignore flood theory for now) that they were once seafloor, not existing mountains from the time of Pangaea.

Why do you make stuff up?

Click to expand...

LOL. Justa's incredibly poor reading comprehension strikes again.

Justa, remember who has theories that work together and who does not have even one theory to back their claims.

I will be happy to discuss any of these articles one at a time or any aspect of geology.

No Gish Gallops allowed.

A Gish Gallop will be taken as an admission of defeat on your part.

Subduction Zone said:

Now you know that is not true about dark matter. There is evidence for Dark Matter. It is not conclusive, but there is evidence.

Let's get back to the subject at hand.

Click to expand...

I know it has never been shown to exist. I know there is a force going on you cant explain because you ignore 99% of the universe, Plasma, and so must make up Fairie Dust to explain the 99% of the universe you do ignore.

Just as you ignore 99% of the evidence that fossilization is an extremely rare event, unlikely unless animals are immediately buried. So rare you claim that is your lack of transitory species, yet 60,000 fossils found in one deposit. So once again, if it is so rare that this is the reason you lack transitory species, then how do you explain 60,000 fossils? So if one in a million are fossilized in the best of circumstances, then what, 60 million animals were washed up and buried? We don't see that kind of populations in any area today, yet you claim animal population today is greater than what was found in the fossil record to explain lack of transitory species. Double-talk.

Subduction Zone said:

Justa, remember who has theories that work together and who does not have even one theory to back their claims.

I will be happy to discuss any of these articles one at a time or any aspect of geology.

No Gish Gallops allowed.

A Gish Gallop will be taken as an admission of defeat on your part.

Click to expand...

You have never presented one fact in any of your posts, why would you start now? You just make claims, and expect them to be taken as fact, when they are merely avoidance of facts.

Subduction Zone said:

When I told him that fossilization is extremely rare he did not believe me. Now he posts an article that points out the obvious. That fossilization is a rare event.

Click to expand...

All you got to do is show a single post where I ever said that. Stop lying!

Justatruthseeker said:

I know it has never been shown to exist. I know there is a force going on you cant explain because you ignore 99% of the universe, Plasma, and so must make up Fairie Dust to explain the 99% of the universe you do ignore.

Click to expand...

Wrong. No one is ignoring plasma. No one has give any evidence that it can be the cause of the "too fast" spinning of the galaxies. Dark Matter explains that very well. They have observed an invisible mass split off from galaxies by gravitational lensing when two galaxies collide. Is that Dark Matter? We are not sure. But it seems likel.

Just as you ignore 99% of the evidence that fossilization is an extremely rare event, unlikely unless animals are immediately buried. So rare you claim that is your lack of transitory species, yet 60,000 fossils found in one deposit. So once again, if it is so rare that this is the reason you lack transitory species, then how do you explain 60,000 fossils? So if one in a million are fossilized in the best of circumstances, then what, 60 million animals were washed up and buried? We don't see that kind of populations in any area today, yet you claim animal population today is greater than what was found in the fossil record to explain lack of transitory species. Double-talk.

Click to expand...

LOL. I was the one that told you that fossilization is an extremely rare event.

Now please try to ask sensible questions.

And please, don't say anything about what I claim. You cannot understand the papers you read. You cannot understand people when they post a response to you. You claim that we say things that we did not say.

There are so many gaps in your learning it is hard to know which to help you with first.

Again, let's bring up subjects one at a time.

Justatruthseeker said:

You have never presented one fact in any of your posts, why would you start now? You just make claims, and expect them to be taken as fact, when they are merely avoidance of facts.

Click to expand...

No, that is wrong. I have presented evidence when requested. Usually my points are so obvious that no evidence is needed. You never request the evidence when you disagree with my claims. Please do so in the future.

Justatruthseeker said:

All you got to do is show a single post where I ever said that. Stop lying!

Click to expand...

Here you go, it is a direct, unaltered quote from you:

One out of a million huh? This is why bones are all jumbled together in mass graveyards. I have no doubts that of the thousands of fossils found in these graveyards that they represent a mere fraction of what was originally there. Therefore if 10,000 are found in one spot, I expect 100,000 animals were originally piled up in this same spot. But your innumerable transitional forms are all missing, instead we find innumerable forms of well defined species. Your deceit ill becomes the name of science.

Click to expand...

That was in response to a claim of mine that less that one in a million animals were ever fossilized.

I don't have to lie. The truth is on my side.

And Justa, the offer still stands. I will be more than happy to help you understand any article that you bring up here. Please remember whenever you say "Geologists say..." you are probably wrong. Just as a Muslim would probably be wrong if he said "Christians say ...".

Justatruthseeker said:

Funny how the dark matter astronomers use are found in books, but not in reality, and you use these stories to reject reality.

Click to expand...

Funny how the calculations scientists use to send probes to Mars, build aeroplanes, cars computers etc. are in books! Really now do you even know what reality is? This is probably the saddest attempt you have done so far to discredit science.

Funny how religions are found in Books (Bible, Qur'aan, Torah, etc) but not in reality? hehe works both ways! talk about shooting yourself in the foot

Justatruthseeker said:

And yet you observe no fossils being formed in the present in any of these lakes, rivers, or oceans. Please link to any study showing such, and you might have a case. And claims that it is ocurring today without actual evidence does not a case make.

HDER Chapter 9

"Present earth conditions are not producing fossils such as are found in abundance in fossil bearing rocks.Fossils like those found in the rocks are not today observed being formed anywhere on the earth by the gradual processes just described. When plants and animals die they are immediately attacked by scavengers, fungi, and bacteria, which destroy them before they can be buried by sediments and fossilized. Any appreciable formation of fossils apparently requires sudden entrapment and rapid burial, a catastrophic process."

So you don't observe it happening anywhere on earth by slow and gradual processes, but then expect me to accept that it happened this way in the far far past where we can't verify it. It requires sudden entrapment and rapid burial, a catastrophic process.

Your hypothesis holds no, ummm water.

And in case you need an evolutionist viewpoint.

Fossilization, how do fossils form

"[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The remains of an organism that survive natural biological and physical processes must then become quickly buried by sediments."



So a million to one odds, yet we find thousands all buried together all around the world. Only quick burial could explain this.

As for your layering, don't get too hung up on it, it's a theory presented as fact when we often find the exact opposite.


[/FONT]
Streams and rivers act on a small fraction of the available sediments and deposit them along a narrow line, but strata are not linear features. Liquefaction during the flood acted on all sediments and sorted them over large areas in a matter of weeks or months. Shellfish being heavier settled first, then smaller animals as bloating affcets larger massed animals to a greater extent. If you drop a dead horse and a chicken into water, the chicken will settle first.



"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]So for example, with two particles of the same mass and density, the one with the larger surface area (thus more friction) will settle slower. Two particles of the same size and shape, but different density, the one with the higher density (more mass) will settle faster."

[/FONT]Common scientific knowledge.[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

Click to expand...

Okay, I'm writing this response with the assumption that you are going to display some intellectual honesty and actually respond to the points I have just made, some of which you have ignored in your post. I will respond to the points you have just raised, but you should display the honesty and courtesy to respond those I have raised. Sound fair to you?

First I think you should clarify what you mean by fossilisation when you claim it isn't happening today. I suspect you're conflating fossilisation with burial. I'm not sure how you can make the claim that the process of fossilisation when by organic material in the bone is replaced by minerals is not occurring. It would be occurring in buried bones that would obviously not be visible at the surface. The source you quote is a mere creationist propaganda site. The reference it provides for the claim you quote is a book by Henry Morris whose training as a customer up engineer hardly qualifies him as an expert on the fossil record. And indeed he and his book have been roundly criticized for misquoting and inaccuracy. Providing such an unqualified and unreliable source for your claim is essentially no better than bald assertion.

If you are also claiming that burial is not occurring today, that too is absurd and I would be very interested in seeing the scientific literature that supports this dubious claim. This is another sampling bias; you aren't going to see the bodies that actually are buried. But we know that burial occurs today. River deltas are one prime location. And modern preservation has also been recorded in the La Brea tar pits. I have personally come across many animal skeletons buried to varying degrees in sediment. Because I can observe skeletons that are clearly being buried even in terrestrial environments, it stands to reason that there are many skeletons that have been fully covered that I am not seeing.

Then you quote some sites saying that burial must be rapid for the bones to be preserved in the fossil record. This is generally correct. But your quotes do not say or even imply that such rapid burial must necessarily be the result of a flood, let alone that it must be the result of a global Flood. A great deal of sediment can be suspended and subsequently deposited by a river, certainly enough to bury bodies. Also note that your quotes talk about rapid burial, not the sudden, instantaneous burial you insist on. If fact the first link points out that crinoids, while abundant in the fossil record, are not generally buried rapidly. Note that preservation does not require that a body be buried essentially instantly as you believe or even that it be buried rapidly at all. In fact the fossil record proves that bones can be exposed for quite a while before burial and still be preserved. Bones, especially in large bone beds, are often covered in tooth marks, which proves that they were exposed for enough time for scavengers to find and feed on them. This evidence of prolonged exposure is consistent with the mainstream understanding of the burial and fossilisation process. It is inconsistent with the basically instantaneous burial you imagine must be the result of the Flood. The fact that bonebeds containing hundreds of individuals show evidence of having been exposed for extended periods before burial soundly refutes your propaganda site's claim that "Any appreciable formation of fossils apparently requires sudden entrapment and rapid burial, a catastrophic process". Numerous bonebeds with hundreds of animals each sounds like an "appreciable" number of fossils to me, and yet the evidence shows they weren't suddenly buried. Burial needn't be sudden and certainly needn't be catastrophic. Feel free to cite an actual scientifically-supported source for the claim that burial must be instant and can only be the result of a catastrophic flood.

Your explanation of the organization of the fossil record is equally as absurd as the example of a common YEC explanation I provided in my last post. It does not accurately describe let alone explain the fossil record. I do not dispute the physical law you quote, but the fact is that the fossil record is not organized the way you imagine. It doesn't go clams, small animals then large animals. You have very small animals appearing in higher strata than larger animals for example. To take an example from my last post, why do we see large pelycosaurs like Dimetrodon lower down in the record than mouse-sized mammal fossils if the organization of the record is the product of the sorting you describe? The fossil record is not organized by size and thus the pattern seen is not explainable by the physics you cite. This is not up for debate. This is objective fact whether you think the record is the product of the Flood or normal processes. The physics you describe are real, the pattern you imagine is not.

So I have addressed your points, now this is where you do me the courtesy of addressing mine. You still need to explain the pattern seen in the fossil record because the pattern you describe simply doesn't exist. Again, the fossil record is not organized by the size or density of the organisms. And you have yet to explain how the Flood could have preserved a dinosaur sitting undisturbed on its nest. I have yet to find a creationist who can do this. They always do their best to avoid answering it like you have done so far.

Justatruthseeker said:

And yet you observe no fossils being formed in the present in any of these lakes, rivers, or oceans. Please link to any study showing such, and you might have a case. And claims that it is ocurring today without actual evidence does not a case make.

HDER Chapter 9

"Present earth conditions are not producing fossils such as are found in abundance in fossil bearing rocks.Fossils like those found in the rocks are not today observed being formed anywhere on the earth by the gradual processes just described. When plants and animals die they are immediately attacked by scavengers, fungi, and bacteria, which destroy them before they can be buried by sediments and fossilized. Any appreciable formation of fossils apparently requires sudden entrapment and rapid burial, a catastrophic process."

So you don't observe it happening anywhere on earth by slow and gradual processes, but then expect me to accept that it happened this way in the far far past where we can't verify it. It requires sudden entrapment and rapid burial, a catastrophic process.

Your hypothesis holds no, ummm water.

Click to expand...

What about bog mummies? Since coal seams are fossilized bogs, the fossils in them are old bog mummies. And what about tar pits, like La Brea? Not all the bones found in them are ancient. Some must be only partially fossilized. Both would be examples of fossilization occuring today. The death and burial are sudden, but the fossilization is a slow process.

As for the supposed extreme decline in the rate of animals caught in bogs, tar pits and the like, to become fossils, the fantastic rate needed to account for all the fossils under the assumption that none are older than 6,000-7,000 years, drops to something more reasonable when you allow their true ages to spread out in the epochs before the date arrived at for the creation of Adam by calculating from the genealogies in the Bible.

OllieFranz said:

What about bog mummies? Since coal seams are fossilized bogs, the fossils in them are old bog mummies. And what about tar pits, like La Brea? Not all the bones found in them are ancient. Some must be only partially fossilized. Both would be examples of fossilization occuring today. The death and burial are sudden, but the fossilization is a slow process.

As for the supposed extreme decline in the rate of animals caught in bogs, tar pits and the like, to become fossils, the fantastic rate needed to account for all the fossils under the assumption that none are older than 6,000-7,000 years, drops to something more reasonable when you allow their true ages to spread out in the epochs before the date arrived at for the creation of Adam by calculating from the genealogies in the Bible.

Click to expand...

Perhaps he is making the mistake of assuming fossilization occurs rapidly. I have seen many make that error. In fact their beliefs demand a belief in rapid fossilization. The "Flood" was only about 4,500 years ago by Ussher's chronology. There are many La Brea Tar Pit bones that are not fossilized that are more than twice that age.