Search This Blog

Monday, January 03, 2011

Fossil evidence that falsifies Darwinism...part one...Jellyfish and Octopi!

Allow me a couple of minutes for a commercial broadcast.  My wife and I work with teenagers.  Two of our fellow youth staffers, a married couple, and one former student from the teen group are leaving for eleven months to go to third world countries bringing medicine and food and water and hard work and good old fashioned compassion with them.  They call it the World Race.   Jeremy and Sara have all their money to pay for the trip.  Yes, when we go on missions a missionary board does not pay your way.   Jeremy and Sara had to raise many thousands of dollars.

But my friend Kaity, who I have known since she was a freshman in high school, still needs more support.  I have watched Kaity go from a giggly little goofball with big eyes and great optimism to a teenager struggling with the process of understanding her own personal faith with God and wanting a little help with some schoolwork, to a young woman who is doing a great job in college and has probably met the love of her life there, a guy named Matt.  Kaity is a kind, loving, smart, funny, adorable, energetic young woman who has lots of personal charisma and charm.  But being away at college rather than back home it was harder for her to raise money and she needs more to sustain her eleven month trip.

Please consider sending Kaity some support so she can go where people are dirty and hungry and there are no comfy beds or climate-controlled environments.   Kaity wants to give almost an entire year of her life going to the poor and needy and helping to make their lives better.   You can help her do this by going here:


~~~~~~~



Lies?



I remember that back in the days before high school we used to think it was cool to have slumber parties.  Girls did it, of course, but guys did as well.   We'd listen to the latest music, play long games of Risk and  play ping-pong or pool and sometimes sneak out to TP another friend's house or try to raid the house where the girls were having a slumber party.  This record reminded me of the party we had at John H____b's house because it was the first party I remember where the girls raided US!   We were all for it but John's parents figured that out pretty quick and chased the girls back to Dianne G____u's house where they were supposed to be staying.   This Knickerbockers song was just out and I had the .45.   We were listening records when we heard a tap at the window and Dianne and Kathy S____r and some of the other girls appeared at the window and we were just letting them in when along came the parents...Anyway, The Knickerbockers really had only one big hit song and that was it.  They could sound like the Beatles, Four Seasons, Zombies, etc.   Don't think they ever really found their own sound but, hey, how many little bands ever make even ONE hit song?

TP'd house

Truth

Real Christianity is not talking about it or going to church, it is LIVING it out.  I assure my readers that I do not lie to them when making posts, so when commenters say I am lying it is likely because they have no arguments to make.  Lying will not please God and will not advance the cause of either Truth or Christ.  I promise I will not lie to you and if I discover that I have been mistaken I will try to correct it.   Thus I have made it clear that I do not use the Dr. Dino site nor will I post anything from his site ever again (I did a couple of times in my earliest posts before I realized what was going on with him). 

Thus I have absolutely tossed aside any water canopy scenarios for the prediluvian world.  

Thus I also cast aside John Hartnett, so references to him are kind of dumb or very desperate.  If a commenter says anything about Hartnett you know he is reaching for anything he can think of to avoid the topic of the post. 
Due to so many commenters who repeat standard Darwinist propaganda and the sad fact that many of them are too indoctrinated to even understand that they are repeating and believing lies, I am now going to make a few simple posts that address the fossil record and other concerns and thereby address various falsehoods repeated by some who comment.   I will take one issue on at a time, so references to other issues in the comments thread of this post are a waste of time.

The fossil record doesn't support Darwinism, it refutes it.  Fully formed organisms suddenly "appear" and are miraculously preserved...unless you account for the worldwide flood and then the fossil record makes sense.   I will try to keep things simple and address one or two portions of the subject at a time.   Feel free to search the blog for past posts on the subject.   Today?  Only rapid burial explained by the Noahic Flood can explain this:


Fast octopus fossils reveal no evolution


Photo: stockxpert
Octopus
Five octopus fossils, supposedly 95 million years old, were recently discovered in Lebanon, catching scientists by surprise.1
 
First, they were surprised that the octopuses were even fossilized. Unlike animals with hard shells or bony skeletons, cephalopods, like the octopus and squid, have no hard parts (other than the mouth2). One report said that fossilizing an octopus was as unlikely as capturing a “fossil sneeze”.

The fossils were exquisitely preserved. All eight arms were visible for each animal, as well as traces of muscle and rows of suckers. Remarkably, a few of the fossils even showed internal gills and remnants of ink.

Scientists try to explain the past by looking at what they see happening today. When an octopus dies today, it decomposes into a slimy blob and disappears within a few days. For an octopus to be fossilized it would need to sink to the ocean floor without being eaten, and remain there without decomposing or being consumed by bacteria while being buried by sediment. How could such a process be possible for an octopus at all?

Lead author of the report, Dr Dirk Fuchs of the Freie University, Berlin, said, “The luck was that the corpse landed untouched on the sea floor. The sea floor was free of oxygen and therefore free of scavengers.” But lack of oxygen is no preservative—experiments with fish carcasses show that even in the absence of oxygen they still disintegrate on the ocean bottom.3 Other scientists have published research showing that the ocean floor is actually teeming with bacterial life.4 So these scientists have not explained the remarkably preserved fossils at all.

Fossil photo and diagram from D. Fuchs, G. Bracchi and R. Weis, ref. 1.
Fossil octopus remarkably preserved in Lebanon reveals details of the eight arms, suckers, ink, gills, mouth, eye capsule and more.
Fossil octopus remarkably preserved in Lebanon reveals details of the eight arms, suckers, ink, gills, mouth, eye capsule and more.

The second surprise was that the specimens look very much like modern species of octopus:
“These things are 95 million years old, yet one of the fossils is almost indistinguishable from living species.”
Evolutionary thinking predicts that an octopus as old as these should look much more “primitive”, since evolution requires increasing complexity over time.5 Evolutionists had always assumed that the ancient octopus would show “primitive” features,6 but this discovery, “pushes back the origins of the modern octopus by tens of millions of years …”.

However, the biblical creation model easily explains this amazing octopus discovery.

First, it explains the special conditions needed for soft-bodied animals like the octopus to fossilize.7

Specifically, the animal must be buried rapidly (while still alive or soon after death) under metres of sediment in order to exclude oxygen and prevent any further scavenging or decay.

Such conditions would certainly have been present in the ocean during the global Flood recorded in the Bible.

No miraculous stroke of luck is called for. In fact, creationists would expect the existence of such well-preserved fossil octopuses. And of course, there are many examples of soft-bodied organisms in the fossil record.6,7,8,9,10
 
What’s more, this particular fossil octopus is enclosed in limestone. Long-age geologists have thought that limestone takes long periods of time to form—hence this octopus fossil, being entombed in limestone, presents an additional challenge to evolutionary thinking. But for biblical creationists there is no mystery, as conditions during the global Flood would have been suitable for rapid limestone formation.11
 
What about the similarity of the fossil octopus to modern species? Once again, the biblical creation model predicts that species similar to modern varieties would exist in the fossil record. After all, the fossils were formed only a few thousand years ago, and all the species alive today are descended from animals that were alive before the Flood.12
 
Evolutionary scientists scratch their heads in surprise at their own discoveries because they don’t expect such evidence within their evolutionary philosophy. They are continually forced to invent new stories to account for their surprises.

On the other hand, creationists can enjoy these discoveries and marvel at the wonderful confirmation scientific evidence provides for the biblical record of Earth history. This fossil gives us reason to praise our mighty God who created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1), who revealed Himself through his Son Jesus (2 Timothy 1:8–10; Hebrews 1:2ff) and who will judge the world in righteousness (2 Peter 3:3–7).

References and notes

  1. Fuchs, D., Bracchi, G. and Weis, R., New octopods (Cephalopoda: Coleoidea) from the Late Cretaceous (Upper Cenomanian) of Hâkel and Hâdjoula, Lebanon, Palaeontology 52(1):65–81, 2009. See also: Rare fossil octopuses found, , 18 March 2009. 
  2. The mouth resembles a parrot’s beak. See: The beak of the colossal squid, , 26 March 2009.
  3. Garner, P., Green River blues, Creation 19(3):18–19, 1997.
  4. ‘Barren’ seafloor teeming with microbial life, , 29 May 2008. 
  5. Progressive complexity, , 26 March 2009. 
  6. Eyden, P., Fossil octopuses, , November 2004. 
  7. Catchpoole, D., Hundreds of jellyfish fossils! Creation 25(4):32–33, 2003. 
  8. Thompson, A., Rocks reveal oldest known jellyfish, , 30 October 2007. 
  9. What are those big jellyfish fossils doing in Wisconsin? , 24 January 2002. 
  10. Strange creatures—a Burgess Shale fossil sampler, , 26 March 2009. 

Jelly

Jellies

Hundreds of jellyfish fossils!


What a storm it must have been! News reports said that hundreds of giant jellyfish once lived about 500 million years ago, but were ‘stranded by a freakish tide or storm’ on an ancient beach. Sand later buried them, forming fossils.1,2 With many specimens measuring over 50 cm (20 in) across, these are the biggest fossil jellyfish known.

Found in a Wisconsin sandstone quarry, it must have been an extraordinary set of circumstances that preserved them, geologists say, for fossilized impressions of jellyfish, which have no skeleton or other hard parts, are extremely uncommon.3
 
‘Preservation of a soft-bodied organism is incredibly rare, but a whole deposit of them is like finding your own vein of gold’, said James Hagadorn, one of the paleontologists who reported the find.1,4 Also remarkable is that the rock was sandstone (i.e. the jellyfish were buried in sand which later ‘cemented’ into rock), rather than fine-grained rock like mudstone. In sand, buried jellyfish quickly break down because oxygen readily filters through interconnected air spaces between sand grains, allowing rapid decay. But in fine-grained settings, Dr Hagadorn and his colleagues explain that ‘catastrophic burial and stagnation’ inhibit decay; therefore, jellyfish are more readily preserved. ‘You never get soft bodied preservation in that kind of coarse grain size’, Hagadorn says excitedly.5 ‘When people find a T-rex, that doesn’t excite me that much, because a T-rex has bones and teeth—really easy to fossilize. But to preserve a jellyfish, that’s hard, because it has no hard parts. Something is there we don’t understand.’

The ‘storm tide’ scenario proposed by James Hagadorn and his colleagues seems at first to explain some of the puzzle. They point out that when jellyfish are stranded on beaches today, they quickly fall prey to scavenging predators such as birds and beach-dwelling crustaceans. So why didn’t scavengers rip into these stranded jellyfish? The answer, say the paleontologists, is that these fossils are over half a billion years old, i.e. they lived before land animals and birds had evolved. New Scientist explained, ‘Because there were not any birds back then, the carcasses remained stranded until they were buried by subsequent storms.’6 So their preservation is attributed to the absence of scavengers and that the jellyfish were buried soon after they were stranded. But note that this ‘explanation’ for the absence of scavengers assumes that evolution is demonstrated fact—which it most certainly isn’t. And these jellyfish fossils certainly don’t support the idea of burial over millions of years either.

The evidence doesn’t fit

A scanned copy of Hagadorn et al.’s Figure 3 on page 149 of Geology journal, February 2002,4,7 [which cannot be reproduced here (see note), but is available in the printed copy] gives us a closer look at the evidence and we can determine how well their interpretation fits. The figures reveal a number of puzzles which the ‘multiple storm tide’ scenario does not satisfactorily explain:
  • The presence of beautifully-preserved ripples, so obviously evident in photographs A–F, is a major difficulty for the jellyfish-stranded-by-ebbing-tide story. Sand ripples are formed by flowing water, but when the tide recedes, the swash and backwash of waves on the beach completely obliterates any sand ripples formed earlier. Yet the Hagadorn et al. theory proposes that there were (a) multiple tidal cycles (vertical range approx. 1–2 m (3–6 ft)) before the jellyfish were buried under layers of sediment deposited each time the tide returned, and (b) waves (generated by wind). Clearly, the story doesn’t fit the evidence.

  • The paleontologists conclude that the ‘multiple generations of ripples’ (photo C) in the first few layers of sediment in and around jellyfish impressions, together with the absence of ripples within the central area of each impression (B–G), indicates that jellyfish carcasses remained intact through multiple tidal cycles. But today, whenever an ebbing tide leaves stranded jellyfish exposed to drying air and sun, the carcasses shrink and the stomach cavity collapses—i.e. today’s jellyfish carcasses do not remain ‘intact’ as the fossil jellyfish did. To try to explain this puzzle, the paleontologists suggest that perhaps the fossil jellyfish carcasses reabsorbed water (thus expanding back to their original size) each time the tide returned. But this is really stretching the ‘multiple tides’ story to try to make it fit the evidence. Instead, the evidence rather seems to show that the fossilized jellyfish were under water continuously as they were being buried under layers of sediment.

  • A major problem for the paleontologists’ scenario is that, today, when masses of jellyfish are stranded by a storm etc., they commonly pump their bells to try to escape. But the tell-tale ‘concave rings’ of sediment resulting from the bell contractions of dying jellyfish, as seen on beaches today, are absent in nearly all these fossil impressions. It would seem that the paleontologists are correct to surmise that most of the jellyfish were dead or didn’t pulse, but their ‘beach stranding’ scenario does not explain why.

  • In the quarry, the paleontologists found that ‘at least seven flat-lying planar bed surfaces contain hundreds of medusae [jellyfish] impressions’ (our emphasis). And the depth of these fossil-bearing bands of sediment from the lowest jellyfish fossil layer to the highest was several metres (about 12 ft). What a storm that must have been! Actually, Hagadorn et al. invoke ‘severe tropical storms’ (implying more than one storm) as the cause of jellyfish stranding, but their paper avoids any mention of a time period. (In newspaper reports though, Hagadorn is reported to have said that the fossilized jellyfish were ‘encased in about 12 vertical feet of rock representing a span of time up to 1 million years’.2) Was it one storm every hundred thousand years or so, for a million years? If the storm tide scenario cannot satisfactorily explain the jellyfish fossils in one of the sediment beds, how much more difficult would it be to explain seven? And in each case, the fossils have been beautifully preserved.

A better alternative: smothered in the Flood!

The evidence makes much more sense from a biblical Flood perspective:
  • The preservation of the sand ripples is easily explained. Being at depth rather than in a tidal zone, waves did not erode the sand ripples. Also, ripples can only be preserved when covered by a different type of sediment—in this case, the ripples in coarse sand were overlain by a finer silty sand and red oxidized mud.

    Such a starkly different type of sediment is much more likely to have been carried and deposited by swirling floodwaters than by a returning tide in a beach environment.
  • The multiple layers of ripples (and the variation in their alignment/orientation between layers) reflect their having been laid down by sediment-laden currents of varying strength (thus the variation in particle sizes between layers).

    This is much easier to imagine with swirling, surging floodwaters flowing over the continents than within the confines of a beach environment over millions of years.
  • The likely reason why ‘The majority of jellyfish were dead or did not pulse, …’ is that they were overcome quickly by sediment-laden water, smothered under layer-upon-layer of sand and silt. So most had no chance to exhibit the usual beach-stranding ‘escape behaviour’ (hence the absence of concave sediment rings). Interestingly, Hagadorn et al. suggest that the asymmetrical steepened edges of the convex ring in photo G ‘perhaps reflect’ an effort to escape stranding. But might this actually reflect the jellyfish’s attempt to escape from being buried (by an underwater avalanche of silt) rather than from being stranded on a beach?
  • The evidence indicating that the jellyfish did not dry out fits better with their being buried while continuously under water.
  • The absence of any evidence of scavenging was not due to beach-dwelling scavengers having not yet evolved, but to the jellyfish having been covered by sediment quickly.
  • The lack of any evidence of burrowing by worms etc. in the sediment shows that these layers were buried quickly underneath the overlying layers of sediment—consistent with the global Flood.
  • The seven sediment bands of jellyfish fossils, across several metres (about 12 ft) of layers, are readily explained by the biblical Flood. (And remember that seven beds are all that we can see—probably many more jellyfish impressions remain concealed within the quarry rocks.)

    Jellyfish are essentially floaters, at the mercy of strong currents, and perhaps in the fast-moving, sediment-carrying waters of the Flood (Genesis 7:11), the bell-pumping action of jellyfish would have pumped silt/sand/mud into their stomachs and internal cavities, and as their sediment load increased, they would have progressively sunk to the sea bed, being quickly buried as layers of sediment built up. This also seems to fit with the carcasses all facing the same direction when they were buried, much better than does the Hagadorn et al. ‘storm tide’ scenario.
So, the evidence fits with the biblical Flood, not with Dr Hagadorn’s storm tide.8 As one science commentator said of stranded jellyfish:
‘Waves and sand destroy their bodies before they can be covered in sediment—essential for the slow process of fossilization.’9
But the long-age uniformitarian idea that the fossils are formed by sediments slowly covering up dead animals does not describe how these jellyfish fossils could have been preserved.

No wonder Charles Darwin, with his uniformitarian thinking, wrote, ‘No organism wholly soft can be preserved.’10
 
With all these hundreds of jellyfish fossils in a Wisconsin quarry, I wonder what Darwin would say now?

Related Magazine Articles

Jellyfish
Creation 25:4 (September 2003)

References and notes

  1. Jellyfish horde uncovered after half a billion years, , 5 February 2003.
  2. Bridges, A., Rare trove of fossilized jellyfish found in Wisconsin, The Salina Journal, , 5 February 2003. 
  3. Past findings of fossilized jellyfish have also been very confronting for evolutionists. See, for example, Fossil jellyfish in Australia, (originally published in Creation 4(2):31, 1981); also Fact Sheet: Ediacara Fauna Fossils, , 24 June 2003. 
  4. Hagadorn, J.W., Dott, R.H. and Damrow, D., Stranded on a Late Cambrian shoreline: Medusae from central Wisconsin, Geology 30(2):147–150, 2002. 
  5. Impressions of Ancient Jellyfish, Geotimes, , 12 February 2003. 
  6. NewScientist.com, Jellyfish jackpot found on fossil beach, , 24 Jan. 2003.
  7. Scientific journals require researchers to present not just their interpretations of the evidence but also their evidence (observations / experimental results) from which they have drawn their conclusions. This allows the reader to check that the researcher’s interpretations of the evidence fit with the actual evidence itself. (In contrast, newspapers usually only publish paleontologists’ conclusions, rather than what they actually observed.) 
  8. There is also another difficulty for evolutionists. These are the biggest-ever fossil jellyfish found, yet they are in Cambrian (‘dated’ at 510 million years) strata—which doesn’t support the ‘big-evolved-from-little’ idea. 
  9. Clarke, T., Jellies roll back time, Nature Science Update, , 15 February 2002.
  10. Darwin, C., The Origin of Species, first published 1859, quote taken from p. 422 of the 6th Edition, 1872 (reprinted 1902). 
[Note: Due to copyright restraints, the pictures and figures referenced in this article are only available in Creation magazine.

  1. Grand Canyon limestone fast or slow deposits? Creation 17(3):50–51, 1995. Return to text.


    50 comments:

    Jon Woolf said...

    Neither of these is what you previously claimed: a fossil out of place in the geologic column. They're simply unusual examples of softbody organisms being fossilized.

    Try again, Radar.

    Anonymous said...

    "when commenters say I am lying it is likely because they have no arguments to make"

    Don't flatter yourself. When you make an untruthful statement, you are called on it. Almost all of the time, you are unable to back up your erroneous claim. Which would be fine if you left it at that.

    But in almost all cases, you repeat the claim later on, at which point you are knowingly making an untruthful statement - which is lying.

    Expect to be called on it, and don't pretend that it's some kind of victory as you're attempting to do here.

    Captain Stubing said...

    The two articles above seem to be based on the mistaken notion that the occurrence of some kind of flood in the past -

    a) disproves "Darwinism" somehow,

    b) is automatic proof of a global flood.

    Sorry, creationists, you're going to have to kick your brains into a higher gear than that.

    Plus, as Jon Woolf already pointed out, Radar hasn't come up with a fossil out of place in the geologic column.

    And did I read Radar claim somewhere recently that there are polystrate fossils that go through layers covering millions of years? Examples please.

    Anonymous said...

    Radar says,

    "I assure my readers that I do not lie to them when making posts, so when commenters say I am lying it is likely because they have no arguments to make. Lying will not please God and will not advance the cause of either Truth or Christ. I promise I will not lie to you and if I discover that I have been mistaken I will try to correct it."

    Come on Radar, anyone who has been here for even a hand full of post understands that this is completely and demonstrably false. Tell me, what does Jesus say about lying about lying?

    - Canucklehead.

    Anonymous said...

    This is just ridiculous; I posted an article in two parts to prevent it from being erased due to being too long, and it STILL disappeared after a few seconds. Then I tried 4 parts: same result. Let's try 5 parts then...

    Radar said:

    "Thus I also cast aside John Hartnett, so references to him are kind of dumb or very desperate. If a commenter says anything about Hartnett you know he is reaching for anything he can think of to avoid the topic of the post."

    Which is the typical Radar knee-jerk reaction: "Everyone is wrong but I'm right, even when I'm wrong".
    Of course there's much more to it, Radar. Not in the least the fact that the Harnett-debacle clearly displays your use of double standards and lack of critical thinking. Here's why:

    (part 1/5)

    Anonymous said...

    (part 2/5)

    1 - Let's be fair: you didn't really cast aside Hartnett. When the bogus math was pointed out to you, you immediately tried to contact Harnett to give him a chance to explain. Did you ever contact someone from the 'evolutionist' side to give them a chance to explain? No, you immediatly judge them and find them guilty. No second chance for them! First proof of double standards.
    Also: I seem to recall that you said you knew some engineer friends who could prove that Hartnett's math was actually correct. Yet we've seen this engineer explain it here on the blog. Were you lying Radar? If not, where's the engineer and his explanation?

    Anonymous said...

    (part 4/5)

    3 - Casting aside Harnett won't make the problem go away. If anything, it displays your hypocrisy when you point out the 'evolutionist lies'. A creationist scientist was caught telling lies; so you cast him aside. Yet you still continue to believe the creationism is right. However, you try to convince people that the Theory of Evolution is wrong by pointing out 'lies'. But if you can continue to believe in Creationism even when its scientists tell lies, why can't those who adhere to Evolution do just the same? Once again: double standards.

    Anonymous said...

    I give up. Boy what a mess this blog is! Part 3/5 and 5/5 got deleted right away. Shortened the comment and reposted but to no avail.

    Something is seriously FUBAR here; I post on a number of Blogger blogs but this is the only one where I have these kind of problems; and apparently I'm not the only one...

    Anonymous said...

    Just this:

    Radar, you've often stated that you don't trust anything on Talk.Origins because they are -according to you- deceptive.
    Question: why is there still a link to Creation Ministries International here when they clearly spread deceptive information (Hartnett's article)?

    Double standards, maybe?

    radar said...

    Jon Woolf, this is my blog. I am going to put out reasons why the fossil record falsifies Darwinism in the order I choose. Not one of you has said anything about this post. THIS POST is the first part of a series on fossils. Obviously you have no answer to it.

    Once Hartnett did not respond to me I cut him out of my approved sources. You will not see me post another Hartnett article. There is no JohnHartnett.com. If there was, I would not use it. I did due diligence by emailing and calling him. Since he would not respond I put him in the dustbin...along with Dr. Dino and talkorigins.

    I know some of the Creation.com people, as in have met them, talked with them in person, on the phone and emails. There are plenty of dependable and even famous scientists who are creationists I can draw from without Hartnett. So what is it with you and your Hartnett obsession? Can't you sleep, chew your nails or something? Get over it...

    In the case of talkorigins I tried emailing them and even got some back and forth but eventually realized that they would not back off of their posts. That puts them in the category of Dr. Dino.
    They know DiPeso was a hack and his "findings" were debunked several different ways concerning the Acambaro figurines. They do not care.

    Jon Woolf said...

    No, Anon, you're definitely not the only one.

    Incidentally, while looking for further information on these octopode fossils, I found this sentence: "Given the fact that there are no hard parts to preserve to speak of, the detail here is amazing, and testiment to the exceptional preservation often found in the Lebanese Lagerstatt."

    Take special note of that last word. Lagerstatte is a German word that means, literally "storage place." In palaeontology, a lagerstatte is a sedimentary rock deposit that preserves fossils with extraordinary detail. The famous Green River Formation, with all its exquisite fish fossils, is a lagerstatte. So is the Burgess Shale, and the Solnhofen limestone which produced the first known Archaeopteryx fossil along with many wonderful pterosaur, insect, plant, and even entirely soft-bodied organisms such as jellyfish. Given the nature of the locale as a lagerstatte, these octopode fossils become much less difficult to believe as the result of regular natural processes. And, of course, Radar's pipe-dream of them as proof of the Flood (which we already know never happened) suffers accordingly.

    radar said...

    Jon, that is pathetic. Your "explanation" explains nothing. I can call a cardboard box a "refrigerator" but that doesn't make it one. Looking at it another way, just because I can identify a refrigerator doesn't mean the word "refrigerator" explains refrigeration. Refrigeration requires design and a motor and pump and other components. We can explain how a refrigerator works. Lagerstatte doesn't explain anything.

    By what means did these fossils get preserved with NO deterioration, no signs of bacterial decay or predation, ripples, often many layers of ripples intact, etc?
    Clue - it isn't because of a nice long German word.

    Jon Woolf said...

    Research, Radar. Research. It's a skill you should cultivate. I gave you a perfect search term. Just click over to your favorite source, Wikipedia, and type it in. You'll get all the information you could want.

    radar said...

    Jon says look at wikipedia.

    In other words, he does not have a CLUE as to how soft-bodied organisms like this could be preserved from a long age Darwinist perspective. So that means point one belongs to me with no factual dissent.

    radar said...

    Canucklehead, remember that Jesus is a real person and your mocking is not particularly wise.

    Anonymous said...

    "There are plenty of dependable and even famous scientists who are creationists I can draw from without Hartnett. So what is it with you and your Hartnett obsession? Can't you sleep, chew your nails or something? Get over it..."

    There are plenty of dependable and even famous scientists who are evolutionists I can draw from without Haeckel. So what is it with you and your Haeckel obsession? Can't you sleep, chew your nails or something? Get over it...

    Also: since Creation.com clearly spreads lies everything you post from that site will be cast aside as being untrusworthy.

    Anonymous said...

    "In other words, he does not have a CLUE as to how soft-bodied organisms like this could be preserved from a long age Darwinist perspective. So that means point one belongs to me with no factual dissent."

    No Radar, Jon tried to set you on the right track. Instead of following it and doing some research that will give you all of the answers you seek, you rather take the easy way out and declare victory.

    Your eagerness to remain ignorant is really embarrassing, Radar. No wonder people are no longer interesting in having a debate with you; why should they put in all the effort if you're not willing to do a minimum of research?

    Anonymous whatsit said...

    "In the case of talkorigins I tried emailing them and even got some back and forth but eventually realized that they would not back off of their posts. That puts them in the category of Dr. Dino.
    They know DiPeso was a hack and his "findings" were debunked several different ways concerning the Acambaro figurines. They do not care."

    How are we supposed to believe a word of this? Let's see the back and forth that you mention here. Did they have a rebuttal? Did they really agree with you and then said they did not care? Sounds fishy, but if you have the correspondence, let's see if it backs up your claims.

    Let's see how quickly you skip to "Oh I can't find it"...

    And was it Creation.com that was spreading that lie about the rate at which the moon was receding from the Earth? The lie was pointed out to you, Radar. Did you contact them to get to the bottom of this? Why do creationist websites have to spread such dumb lies?

    Anonymous whatsit said...

    Since my previous post here disappeared (like so many others), I'll be chopping it up into little chunks...

    "Jon says look at wikipedia.

    In other words, he does not have a CLUE as to how soft-bodied organisms like this could be preserved from a long age Darwinist perspective. So that means point one belongs to me with no factual dissent."

    No, when Jon said look at Wikipedia, he did not mean "Radar wins", he meant this:

    Look at Wikipedia.

    Anonymous whatsit said...

    Pretty straightforward.

    You go to en.wikipedia.org.

    You type in "lagerstatte".

    First hit in the search results is this one.

    Anonymous whatsit said...

    Featured prominently right there are the different types of preservation that would explain the deposits mentioned in your pasted articles:

    A number of taphonomic pathways may produce lagerstätten. Here's an incomplete list:

    * Orsten type preservation and Doushantuo type preservation preserve organisms in phosphate
    * Bitter Springs type preservation preserves them in silica
    * Carbonaceous films are the result of Burgess Shale type preservation
    * Pyrite preserves exquisite detail in Beecher’s Trilobite type preservation
    * Ediacaran type preservation preserves casts and moulds with the aid of microbial mats.


    -- complete with links with more information about each type.

    Anonymous whatsit said...

    There's your factual dissent, and since you don't have a rebuttal other than a hasty and unearned victory claim, you lost this round.

    You're the one that doesn't have a "CLUE as to how soft-bodied organisms like this could be preserved from a long age Darwinist perspective" - but only due to your own lack of intellectual curiosity, down to being too lazy or arrogant to follow a simple hint as to where information can be found.

    Jon wins this round. Hope you got something better, but we won't hold our breath.

    Better creationists please.

    Anonymous said...

    Looks like I'm going to have to chop this one up as well (after a couple attempt to post the whole thing). Aaaanyway....

    Couple things. First, Radar said,

    "Canucklehead, remember that Jesus is a real person and your mocking is not particularly wise."

    Umm, are you threatening me, Radar? LOL. It appears you've forgotten that I don't believe in your Jesus (I was raised a christian though, so I know AAALLLLLL about the guy). And I don't believe in him just like I don't believe in Thor or Allah or Buddha, etc, etc. etc.

    And this from the guy that endorsed "Draw Mohammad Day"?
    http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2010/04/i-stand-for-first-amendment-and-against.html
    This kind of thing cuts both ways, doesn't it? I mean a muslim believer would certainly have strongly cautioned you in much the same way you "cautioned" me, right? So, if you understand how it is that you dismiss Islam so confidently, maybe you'll understand how silly your statement to me was.

    - Canucklehead. (part 1 of 3)

    Anonymous said...

    Recently you stated that it takes years of study to truly "understand" the bible. How is it that you don't feel the same way about other holy books like the Koran, the Book of Mormon, or even Dianetics? Because practitioners of those "religions" would say the same thing wouldn't they? Why are we non believers unqualified to comment on christianity and the bible (despite the fact that we may have been raised as christians) but yet you feel uniquely qualified to dismiss ALL OTHER RELIGIONS. What about that frightening "Honor thyself" lady? Her blog is almost entirely devoted to hate speech against Islam and muslims. Why is that OK with you? Why do you feel that she's "qualified" to do this?

    Oh and in your first comment in the thread, you also state,

    "Not one of you has said anything about this post."

    Can you really be that obtuse? Two of the first four comments (one from Jon and the other from the captain) deal directly with your asserted "fossil evidence", and the other two pull quotes directly from the post itself. So, if you don't want comments regarding your lying ways, don't try to make a statement about them in your post. Make sense?

    - Canucklehead. (part 2 of 3)

    Anonymous said...

    Oh and your blogger.com comments definitely seem to be broken. I too have posted a number of comments over the last month or so only to see them disappear into the ether (including a particularly good one about your self centred and misguided belief that prayer somehow "works", and, of course, a couple great comebacks to Timmay). Talk about frustrating. You know Radar, if you are trying to discourage commenters from coming here, deleting comments is definitely the best way to go about it. But in the end, if you're doing that, you might as well shut down commenting all together because you've already lost the "debate". Oh and if you're not deleting them, as you claim, sitting there denying that there's a problem with the comments, essentially amounts to the same damn thing. Get on it Radar, it's your blog after-all.

    - Canucklehead. (part 3 of 3)

    Anonymous said...

    Finally, I figured that, as you like to point out that your former atheism gives you some kind of perspective into the arguments for/against belief, you may lay some credence on what this former evangelical has to say about the movement.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s6JFoIVnTw&feature=related

    Here's my favorite quote in case you miss it. He says regarding Evangelicals (such as yourself) "a village cannot reorganize village life to suit the village idiot." ...Awesome!

    Tell me Radar do YOU think that president Obama "might be the antichrist"?

    - Canucklehead.

    IAMB said...

    Canuck, don't be too hard on Radar about the comments. It seems this has been an ongoing issue for since mid-to-late 2008 on plenty of BlogSpot blogs. The only working fix I've seen suggested (more of a bandage than an actual "fix") is for Radar to change the comment style from what he's using now to having them appear in a popup window. I despise that format, personally, but I'm told it works.

    Heh... verification word: pities. Yup. For shizzle.

    radar said...

    Not one commenter has presented a sensible way that these soft-bodied creatures could be so perfectly preserved in any scenario other than the massive flood/water driven burial scenario.

    Canucklehead. I believe in Christ. It is like I think your building is on fire. I am yelling "Fire!" out to you. You do not believe in fire. Or maybe to be fair you do believe in fire, you just do not believe YOUR building is on fire. If I am right, I am simply trying to save your butt. If I am wrong you are not harmed because I yelled out. It is not a "threat" in that I am not God and I do not decide the fate of any person. Because of my beliefs, I call out "Fire!" when I believe someone is in danger.

    radar said...

    As to President Obama, I think he is an radical socialist whose programs endanger the country. His agenda has hurt us financially, the unemployment is at about 10 per cent, his agencies have killed off our own power production so that, as fuel costs rise, the costs of everything rises and we have stagflation for the first time since Jimmy Carter was President.

    If Obamacare is not blocked and greenhouse gas taxes are not blocked, the economy will drop another step down and even more of us will be out of work and wondering how to save the house.

    But I absolutely reject any idea that Obama is "The Antichrist." He is just "The Disaster."

    Anonymous said...

    Oh and does this look familiar to anyone.

    I present to you the "Creationist Rhetor-O-matic",

    http://i.imgur.com/NleU7.jpg

    My apologies for the slightly grainy quality of the image.

    - Canucklehead.

    radar said...

    I believe Islam is an evil that has been a threat to peaceful nations for centuries. The US Navy was first commissioned to deal with Islamic pirates off the Barbary Coast. It was Islamic hordes who almost took over Europe before the Crusades took most of it back.

    I have read the Koran, so what? It is pretty jumbled. Students of Islam had to clean up much of the spelling and grammatical errors made by Mohammed. Mohammed was a pedophile who taught a system of legalism, revenge, the subjugation of women and domination of other peoples of other faiths by the sword. Islamic terrorists will not be pleased until they have conquered the world and have the reign over all, including you.

    That does not mean that many Islamists ignore the warlike passages of Islam and live by the basic morality of Biblical code. Lots of Muslims are not determined to see Sharia law over all. So I see individual people as themselves first and foremost. I do not hate atheists or people who believe other religions. I am concerned about anything they do that harms me or my country.

    radar said...

    Amazing how hard you commenters try to talk about ANYTHING other than the topic of this post.

    Anonymous said...

    Relative to the "Fire" in your earlier comment, I would like to note that I don't believe in this "fire" in the first place because there aren't any flames to be seen, there isn't even a sign of smoke, no alarms are going off and it isn't getting the least bit warm. Also, to be fair, this example of yours would have to exist in a world where fire last appeared 2000 years ago and hadn't been seen since.

    - Canucklehead.

    Anonymous said...

    "Amazing how hard you commenters try to talk about ANYTHING other than the topic of this post."

    Yeah, we tend to move on when a topic is decisively dealt with. No use flogging a dead horse.

    "It was Islamic hordes who almost took over Europe before the Crusades took most of it back."

    What about the Christian 'hordes' who took over the Americas?

    Anonymous said...

    "Not one commenter has presented a sensible way that these soft-bodied creatures could be so perfectly preserved in any scenario other than the massive flood/water driven burial scenario."

    Did you miss the wikipedia suggested by Jon Woolf and hammered home by Anonymous whatsit?

    Anonymous said...

    "Amazing how hard you commenters try to talk about ANYTHING other than the topic of this post."

    Wrong again. Jon Woolf and Anonymous whatsit did so earlier in this thread. You failed to respond.

    Amazing how hard you try to talk about ANYTHING other than that.

    Anonymous said...

    Okay, lets get back to the topic at hand:

    Not one commenter has presented a sensible way that these soft-bodied creatures could be so perfectly preserved in any scenario other than the massive flood/water driven burial scenario.

    Let's accept for a second (and ignore the link to Lagerstatte) that the only way some soft bodied creatures could be preserved was in a flood. What requires that flood to be a "world wide flood"?



    lava

    Anonymous whatsit said...

    "I know some of the Creation.com people, as in have met them, talked with them in person, on the phone and emails."

    Radar, there is a creationist lie making the rounds about the rate at which the moon recedes from the Earth, which YECs have pretended, using some rather obscure logic and figures. Jon Woolf took this apart here.

    Creation.com seems very fond of this particular lie. When you go to their website and do a search for moon receding, you get three pages of hits based on the same lie. Some of those are even articles written by your hero, Jonathan Sarfati. Since you dismiss talkorigins because you claim they are liars, you should likewise ditch creation.com and Sarfati, the same way you ditched Hartnett and Dr. Dino.

    Anonymous whatsit said...

    "Amazing how hard you commenters try to talk about ANYTHING other than the topic of this post."

    Look in the mirror buddy. Ball's in your court. Go about halfway up this comment thread, where the topic of this post was dealt with conclusively and you had no comeback.

    Why won't YOU talk about the topic of this post, Radar? You're blathering on about how evil Islam is and how socialist Obama is and buildings on fire and who knows what.

    Maybe you forgot the topic of your own post?

    Jon Woolf said...

    Lava wrote: "Let's accept for a second (and ignore the link to Lagerstatte) that the only way some soft bodied creatures could be preserved was in a flood. What requires that flood to be a "world wide flood"?"

    Good question. And it occurs to me that it leads to an even more interesting question: why would anyone think that such preservation would even be possible in a worldwide flood? I think even Radar would agree that producing a fossil imprint of a jellyfish requires very still water and very fine sediment -- as evidenced by the nature of the rock in question, which is a fine-grained silty limestone. (Were it in England I'd call it a limey siltstone, but it's not, so...) Yet the standard description of the biblical Flood is anything but still water: the fountains of the great deep, forty days and nights of heavy rain, continents whizzing around and crashing into each other in a global demolition derby ... Where in such a scenario do you find days, weeks, months of still water and fine sediment settling slowly out of suspension? Even in a small area?

    radar said...

    If you actually read the entire post, the Flood-related burial of soft-bodied creatures at depth is explained. So why ask me a question the articles answered?

    Those who have been in the field studying fossil records know that a surprising number of trilobites and clams and such creatures are found buried upright in groups. We know that a clam or a mussel will not stay in one piece for long after death. We know that all creatures become carrion very quickly upon death. So when soft-bodied jellyfish are found in multiple layers, hundreds and hundreds, all apparently alive when buried, a burial force is needed.

    What happens to the sea floor during a storm? Essentially nothing. When an animal that lives in water dies, it many times takes days for the body to descend to the ocean floor, if it makes it that far. Most of the deep-sea population depends on food that comes down from on high in the form of scraps and dead fish and other organisms.

    In the Flood, the rapid subduction of continental plates and the fountains of water and gases released, along with volcanic activity would have made much of the surface of the Earth a madhouse of forces, many of which were stripping the land of its topsoil and flooding it out into the ocean. Jellies just minding their business would have suddenly been blanketed with the sediments coming down to the bottom of the sea. Wave after wave of sediments completely buried such creatures and entombed them away from predation. Really, there is no other scenario than the Flood that explains the massive layers of sediment, the literally millions of fossils apparently buried alive, sometimes while giving birth or eating another animal.

    The finding of an intact fossil of pretty much any kind of organism ought to be rare. We do not see such things happening with any regularity today. Yet we have huge layers of sedimentary rock that sometimes span continents and cross oceans filled with the fossils of intact organisms and with the tell-tale signs of water catastrophism.

    So do you postulate millions of miraculous fossils preserved by unknown means or do you accept the obvious, that only a world wide flood could make the sedimentary rock layers we see and preserve all these organisms? You laugh at the concept of a God as supernatural and miraculous and therefore unacceptable. Yet you will easily accept hundreds of individual miracles in the form of jellies and octopi which just cannot be preserved in any normal circumstances. All of the non-flood explanations are just silly.

    radar said...

    A number of taphonomic pathways may produce lagerstätten. Here's an incomplete list:

    * Orsten type preservation and Doushantuo type preservation preserve organisms in phosphate
    "* Bitter Springs type preservation preserves them in silica
    * Carbonaceous films are the result of Burgess Shale type preservation
    * Pyrite preserves exquisite detail in Beecher’s Trilobite type preservation
    * Ediacaran type preservation preserves casts and moulds with the aid of microbial mats."

    None of this pertains to the jellies or the Octopi. Furthermore, this is descriptive not prescriptive. So you have found that many rock layers have preserved fossils. How? What caused the layers to be generated? Again, this is me asking you how an automobile works and you replying, "Chevrolet, Ford and Toyota." You have not explained anything.

    Anonymous whatsit said...

    "The finding of an intact fossil of pretty much any kind of organism ought to be rare." [etc.]

    Well that's just it - it is rare. That's why we only have the remains of a small fraction of all the organisms that have lived on this Earth. A handful of T-Rexes etc. Yet according to your scenario, there ought to be lots and lots and lots of them. So the YEC scenario doesn't really work in this context.

    Yet even rare events start to stack up over time, which is why the fossil record reflects what an old-Earth scenario would predict: fossils sorted by geological ages, and only a small portion of them, since fossilization is such a rare event for most organisms.

    (That's aside from the fact that the fossils also should be intermingled with more modern organisms, e.g. elephants and hippos and dinosaurs all mixed together - that's yet another fact that falsifies YEC and the Global Flood scenario.)

    Anonymous whatsit said...

    "If you actually read the entire post, the Flood-related burial of soft-bodied creatures at depth is explained. So why ask me a question the articles answered?"

    Because it only hypothesizes about flood-related aspects, not, as you put it, "Flood-related" aspects (i.e. related to Noah's Flood). You seem to take any evidence of rapid burial not as evidence that a flood occurred, as any reasonable scientist would, but as evidence that the Global Flood described in Genesis occurred and that therefore somehow an old Earth is disproven.

    The articles didn't present any proof of that. That's what lava was asking about. Floods and rapid burials are nothing out of the ordinary for conventional old-Earth geology.

    Anonymous whatsit said...

    "Furthermore, this is descriptive not prescriptive."

    Imagine that. Science is descriptive, Radar. Surely you've had this explained to you more than once.

    "So you have found that many rock layers have preserved fossils."

    That's a poor description of what happened here. What we did was give you information about how soft organisms can be fossilized, in response to the claim that fossilization of soft organisms somehow falsifies Darwinism and proves a Global Flood, thus disproving the point of the post.

    Anonymous whatsit said...

    "How? What caused the layers to be generated?"

    The formation of sediment layers wasn't really the focus of your post, but is of course addressed by conventional geology.

    "Again, this is me asking you how an automobile works and you replying, "Chevrolet, Ford and Toyota." You have not explained anything."

    Nonsense. It's like us handing you a hyperlinked manual to the car... and you refusing to read it, rattling off one excuse after another.

    Anonymous whatsit said...

    "None of this pertains to the jellies or the Octopi."

    You can lead Radar to sources, but you can't make him read...

    Radar, take your own advice and THINK. Don't swallow every little article on creation.com as gospel truth. Consider the fact that it was demonstrated just a few comments above yours that creation.com does indeed post lies. Pages and pages of them. Double-check everything and THINK.

    Google, for example, something like "fossil preservation of jellyfish". That very quickly leads you to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ediacara_biota .

    It's the last type mentioned in the list above, and it happens to pertain directly to the fossilization of jellyfish.

    Jon Woolf said...

    "Really, there is no other scenario than the Flood that explains the massive layers of sediment, the literally millions of fossils apparently buried alive, sometimes while giving birth or eating another animal."

    What about the ones that weren't? Again I'll repeat: how does YECism explain weathered, scavenged, broken, or otherwise partial fossils? How, for example, do you explain the dinosaur Deinocheirus mirificus, whose only known specimen consists of two complete forelimbs -- and I mean complete forelimbs, every single bone from scapula to claws, completely intact -- and almost nothing else?

    Anonymous whatsit said...

    ... and of course Large Igneous Provinces, likewise unexplainable by YEC.

    Jon Woolf said...

    Oh, one other thing. For now.

    "What happens to the sea floor during a storm? Essentially nothing."

    Deep water, that's true. But shallow water -- such as the kind of locale where jellyfish would be stranded -- gets ripped apart.

    Then there's the other side of the problem: the 'fountains of the great deep.' One earthquake, occurring under several hundred feet of water and twenty miles of rock, can generate tsunamis a thousand miles away. You think a thirty-foot wave breaking on shore wouldn't damage something as delicate as a stranded jellyfish? Think again. And the Flood scenario would have hundreds of such waves, from hundreds or thousands of such earthquakes. Sorry, Radar, once again your Flood turns out to be a lamb to the slaughter, torn limb from limb by cruel hard evidence.

    I, on the other hand, can image a scenario that explains these fossil jellyfish. It's an unlikely scenario, but not an impossible one. It involves a rocky shoreline with a wide sand-bottomed tidepool behind it, and a wide tidal range. Jellyfish get into this shallow little sandy cove during a very high tide, say a perigee-perihelion spring tide. Then they're stranded and left to die when the tide goes out. Lesser tides then cover them with sand, without allowing more jellyfish in. Years later the same situation occurs again, and another layer of jellyfish fossils is deposited. And again, and again. It only stops when some change in the situation breaks up this very special combination of rock, beach, and tidal pattern.