Search This Blog

Friday, May 14, 2010

Quick YEC tangent about fossil records

YEC has problems with rock records? YEC is indefensible? I am not going to get off the cellular and genetics issues but this post is a quick reminder.

Polystrates are not our problem, they are for Darwinists. So are out-of-order fossils and rock layers, megebreccias and an increasing number of "Lazarus" organisms being found alive much as they were just before the flood.
We find extensive fossil “graveyards” and exquisitely preserved fossils. For example, billions of nautiloid fossils are found in a layer within the Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon. This layer was deposited catastrophically by a massive flow of sediment (mostly lime sand). The chalk and coal beds of Europe and the United States, and the fish, ichthyosaurs, insects, and other fossils all around the world, testify of catastrophic destruction and burial.


Borrowing wording in some cases from Andrew Dennis:

We find fossils of sea creatures in rock layers that cover all the continents. For example, most of the rock layers in the walls of Grand Canyon (more than a mile above sea level) contain marine fossils. Fossilized shellfish are even found in the Himalayas. Rocks do not normally bend; they break because they are hard and brittle. But in many places we find whole sequences of strata that were bent without fracturing, indicating that all the rock layers were rapidly deposited and folded while still wet and pliable before final hardening. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone in Grand Canyon is folded at a right angle (90°) without evidence of breaking. Yet this folding could only have occurred after the rest of the layers had been deposited, supposedly over “480 million years,” while the Tapeats Sandstone remained wet and pliable.



We find rock layers that can be traced all the way across continents—even between continents—and physical features in those strata indicate they were deposited rapidly. The Tapeats Sandstone and Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon can be traced across the entire United States, up into Canada, and even across the Atlantic Ocean to England. The chalk beds of England (the white cliffs of Dover) can be traced across Europe into the Middle East and are also found in the Midwest of the United States and in Western Australia. Inclined (sloping) layers within the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon are testimony to 10,000 cubic miles of sand being deposited by huge water currents within days. Directional sorting is often found in the fossil record.

The flood provided an excellent environment for the required quick burial of fossils. Preservation of complete animal or plant remains requires quick burial by sediments. Dead animals or plants which are not buried quickly decompose or are eaten before they can become preserved. Fossils are often found buried in hundreds of feet of solid, unbroken rock strata. Flood geologists infer that those rock strata were laid down in a relatively quick period, burying the organisms before they had time to decompose.
Oh, yes, and as we study the cell we see that rapid speciation is a design feature of the organism and thus we have many varieties of animals coming from the kinds that were extant after the flood. Have a great weekend!!!

18 comments:

WomanHonorThyself said...

Have a beautiful weekend despite the insanity around us!!:)

Jon Woolf said...

For example, billions of nautiloid fossils are found in a layer within the Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon. This layer was deposited catastrophically by a massive flow of sediment (mostly lime sand).

No, it wasn't. This is Sedimentology 101, Radar. Please, learn some basic geology from some real geologists. You're just embarrassing yourself here. Limestone is a chemical sedimentary rock, not a clastic. The Redwall Limestone is a typical limestone save that it seems to have been deposited in shallow water where most limestone is deposited in deep water. There is no evidence that it was deposited by a "sediment flow."

For example, most of the rock layers in the walls of Grand Canyon (more than a mile above sea level) contain marine fossils.

If the land of the Colorado Plateau was once under water, then where did all the water go?

Rocks do not normally bend;

Actually, yes they do.

For example, the Tapeats Sandstone in Grand Canyon is folded at a right angle (90°) without evidence of breaking.

What's your source for this claim, please?

while the Tapeats Sandstone remained wet and pliable.

I don't know how you can type this stuff with a straight face. Have you ever tried to bend wet sand?

radar said...

Give it up Jon, seriously. You simply attack me instead of providing evidence. You cannot claim that limestone cannot be a sedimentary deposit with a straight face. In fact you simply do not consider the flood as a massive catatrophic event with no precedent and with forces far more powerful than you and I have witnessed. You simply cannot make your claims with certainty.

Readers, notice the tactics of the commenters:

1) Attack radar personally
2) Make fun of the post
3) Try to lead you elsewhere
4) Make some statement that sounds pretty good that probably doesn't relate directly to the post or is just "truthiness" as Stephen Colbert would say.

No Jon, you could not make sand bend but a massive post-flood dike collapse or a crust subductive event involving still-wet and somewhat elastic layers of sediment is another story. That is simply being stupid. Anyone with a tiny bit of imagination can conceive of giant forces working in conjunction with a flood event that covers the entire planet in association with plate tectonics gone wild.

creeper said...

Re. out-of-order fossils: name one.

Re. "Lazarus" organisms: an organism surviving longer than was previously supposed is not a problem for the theory of evolution. All it means is that the organism in question didn't go extinct, which is just dandy with the theory of evolution.

What would be surprising (and what would disprove the theory of evolution) is an advanced organism showing up in an earlier rock stratum than its ancestor, e.g. homo sapiens in, say, the Jurassic.

Again, Radar, when you claim that a "Lazarus" organism is a problem for "Darwinists", all you succeed in doing is making yourself look less informed than a high school student.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Give it up Jon, seriously. You simply attack me instead of providing evidence."

Actually, it's just the opposite. Jon dishes out one fact after another, a list of evidence every time you ask for it. And you can't reply, so you attack him with speculation, for example whether he's paid by NCSE instead of addressing his cogent points. Even right here you can't address his comments.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Anyone with a tiny bit of imagination can conceive of giant forces working in conjunction with a flood event that covers the entire planet in association with plate tectonics gone wild."

Well sure, but (a) why do you need the flood event, and (b) why shouldn't such forces be able to bend rock? They move continents and raise mountain ranges, but you're saying for them to be able to bend rock, you have to add water to make it work?

-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

You cannot claim that limestone cannot be a sedimentary deposit with a straight face.

I didn't. What I did (with considerable amusement) was demonstrate yet again that you simply don't understand this topic well enough to argue it. Limestone is a sedimentary rock. But it's not a clastic rock. Clastic rocks are formed from cemented-together bits of sediment. Examples are shale, sandstone, siltstone, breccias. Limestone is in a different class: a chemical sedimentary rock formed primarily by chemical precipitation from water. You can't get a chemical-sedimentary rock from a sediment flow. Sediment flows only form clastic rocks.

In fact you simply do not consider the flood as a massive catatrophic event with no precedent and with forces far more powerful than you and I have witnessed.

True. Because the evidence convinces me that no such flood ever happened.

You simply cannot make your claims with certainty.

That makes two of us, now doesn't it?

No Jon, you could not make sand bend but a massive post-flood dike collapse or a crust subductive event involving still-wet and somewhat elastic layers of sediment is another story.

Is it? In my experience, flowing water does one of two things:

1) erode sediment
2) deposit sediment

I can't think of any cases where flowing water folded or bent sedimentary layers. Doesn't mean they don't exist, of course, just that if they have then I haven't heard of them. Can you give any examples?

And sudden tectonic movement doesn't bend rock either. It breaks it. That's where earthquake faults come from.

Anyone with a tiny bit of imagination can conceive of giant forces working in conjunction with a flood event that covers the entire planet in association with plate tectonics gone wild.

Glendower: "I can call spirits from the vasty deep!"

Hotspur: "So can I. So can any man. But will they come when you call?"

As often happens, the Bard got it right. Anyone can imagine such things. But does your imagined scenario match the real-world evidence? And the answer to that is, No.

Jon Woolf said...

Something else that occurs to me: Radar, do you know the history of geology? Do you know the many years of study, the many thousands of man-hours of work put in by early geologists all over the world in the 1700s and 1800s? Are you aware of the mountains of evidence that forced geologists to abandon Biblical Flood geology in favor of an old-Earth hypothesis?

Or do you honestly believe that a bunch of atheists and their familiar-demons got together one fine spring day and decided to invent modern geology specifically as a way to undermine Man's belief in the Bible and God?

creeper said...

Jon, Radar previously briefly blogged about that subject here. It's such a long time ago that it was even before my time here.

And I vaguely recall he had some other post on this subject, but I can't find it right now. Maybe Radar has the link.

Among other things, the linked post above contains this gem: "The fossil layers are generally distributed as one would expect in a flood, the bottom dwelling sea life at the bottom, the fish at another level, shore-dwellers at another layer and the largest land animals near the top. (Particularly the ones capable of recognizing danger and able to run to higher ground).

This is presented with no apparent irony and no awareness that this "explanation" doesn't match the observed evidence in any way whatsoever.

-- creeper

Hawkeye® said...

Radar,
Here are some links you might find interesting...

http://ianjuby.org/sedimentation/

http://ianjuby.org/

(:D) Best regards...

creeper said...

Here's another post from Radar on the subject.

-- creeper

creeper said...

Incidentally, Radar, what is the YEC explanation for the reverse S-shaped swirl in the second picture? What forces do YECs think caused this formation?

-- creeper

AmericanVet said...

Here we go again. There are ways that with great heat a rock layer could be bent rather than broken and in a case like that there are telltale inicators in that rock layer that is was superheated and made elastic. We do not see this in the Grand Canyon. We do see layers sorted rather neatly by flood flow and then acted upon in catastrophic ways by movements of the Earth while layers were still somewhat wet. I assume you have played with mud and molded with clay at some point? Mud eventually hardens and clay exposed to air hardens.

Creeper probably doesn't know much about any of these subjects but actually my description of the rock layers is quite apt. The so-called Cambrian explosion features creatures quite unlikely to be able to avoid sedimentation. It is sadly probable that all trilobites were buried and extinguished in the Flood. Too bad, they had very cool eyes that biologists would love to study.

I stand by my posts as being science rather than the myths and propaganda you people have been answering back with and naturally with a superior air while you do it. Jon is pretty good at truthiness while creeper is more of a potshot guy. You never manage to deal with the science parts do you?

AmericanVet said...

Also Jon Woolf does not know much about flooding. One of the first great 20th century creation scientist was a top hydrologist, Dr. Henry Morris. He recognized that the rock layers of the earth most resembled the aftermath of a huge flood and began his study of the rocks that led him to believe the Bible and in the Flood.

Mt S. Helens and the aftermath thereof created a mini-grand canyon with layers very similar to those of the big canyon itself. Also a forest of trees standing up straight but stripped of leaves and branches such as are common in rock layers was produced by that volcanic event. That event was a clue to researchers that such a catastrophe multiplied to the nth degree could well have produced the rock layers and fossils and attendant paraconformities and etc.

creeper said...

"You never manage to deal with the science parts do you?"

If memory serves, you're the guy who came up with this explanation:

"The fossil layers are generally distributed as one would expect in a flood, the bottom dwelling sea life at the bottom, the fish at another level, shore-dwellers at another layer and the largest land animals near the top. (Particularly the ones capable of recognizing danger and able to run to higher ground)."

Seeing as you're also the guy who hides behind endless copypasta, has a long record of evading uncomfortable questions and betrays stunning gaps in knowledge the moment you stray into your own commentary (e.g. the theory of evolution predicts that bacteria should turn into something other than bacteria in a limited lab experiment, Darwinists say everything comes from nothing, etc.), I would suggest that it is you who hasn't dealt with the "science parts".

Jon doubtlessly knows far more about geology than I do, and certainly more than you, which is why it is a pleasure to see him rebut your claims and see you short of a response.

Regarding polystrate fossils, my main question is always: what is the difference in dating between the layers at the top and the bottom of the fossil in question? In another discussion you already embarrassed yourself by equating massive layers of snow with an alleged equivalent of ice core layers, and it wouldn't surprise me to see you make the same mistake here.

And of course I note that YEC draws a complete and utter blank on the sorting of fossils in rock layers. The above quote is just an amusing example of that ("largest land animals at the top", and so on).

-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

[shakes head sadly] Radar, can't you please do some actual research? Morris the Elder is hardly "one of the first great creation scientists of the 20th century." He was merely a follower of George Macready Price, who was writing about the Genesis Flood more than a century ago. Like his followers, Price had an ovine confidence that his work would destroy modern geology ... and accomplished exactly nothing, because honest geologists know "Flood geology" is a pile of nonsense built on deception.

Mt S. Helens and the aftermath thereof created a mini-grand canyon with layers very similar to those of the big canyon itself.

Cut through soft ash, not hard rock.

You still have not attempted any substantive response to my Grand Canyon article, Radar. Where did the water come from? Where did it go? How were the buttes carved? How were the side-canyons carved? How did sessile organisms like brachiopods and bryozoans grow and reproduce while the region was accumulating several feet of fresh sediment every day?

Until you answer these (and many other) questions, you're just blowing smoke.

creeper said...

And since we're on the subject of geology, here's a fun tale of a poor YEC who actually had to have his indoctrinated beliefs stand the test of real world application:

Glenn Morton's story.

"I left seismic processing and went into seismic interpretation where I would have to deal with more geologic data. My horror at what I was seeing only increased. There was a major problem; the data I was seeing at work, was not agreeing with what I had been taught as a Christian."

"Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either."


-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Do the ‘Creationists’ believe that the ‘Evolutionists’ made up that the world is millions of years old? Or do they believe the evolutionists are just blindly following a grander scheme to discredit religion? Do creationists believe that the world is only a few thousand years old? Do evolutionists believe that if the world is millions of years old then that proves there is no god? And do creationists believe that if evolutionists can prove this, it discounts God?
If my above assumptions (and they are only assumptions) are correct, why would anyone believe there is no god just because the world is (an assumption) millions of years old? Can God not be this old? Is it because that’s what the bible says about the creation of the world/humans? Was not the bible scribed by the hand of man? Is man not fallible? Could it be at all possible that man made a mistake when he wrote God’s word? Maybe God did it intentionally as our limited comprehension could not grasp anything larger? Do you all argue for the sake of it? Can’t everyone be right? Yes there is a God. No there is no God. The Earth is old/new blah blah.