Did we re-evolve after the comet that killed all the dinosaurs?

laughsoutloud

New member
You are wrong he addresses that directly. In fact I just re-read that part.
Please, lets not discuss this any further because you haven't read it, so it's a huge waste of time to argue with you about it.
Oh - so you don't want to actually explain his argument? I can understand why. I'll quote Brown:
In an unpublished experiment at Loma Linda University, a dead bird, mammal, reptile, and amphibian were placed in an open water tank. Their buoyancy in the days following death depended on their density while living, the build-up and leakage of gases from their decaying bodies, the absorption or loss of water by their bodies, and other factors. That experiment showed that the natural order of settling following death was, from the bottom up, amphibian, reptile, mammal, and finally bird.16 This order of relative buoyancy correlates closely with “the evolutionary order,” but, of course, evolution did not cause it. Other factors, also influencing burial order at each geographical location, were liquefaction lenses, which animals were living in the same region, and each animal’s mobility before the flood overtook it.
So his argument is that things with a similar buoyancy should end up "sorted" together. His test involved an experiment using 3 modern animals (unpublished to boot: I imagine a water trough with 3 dead animals floating in it. Very rigorous!).

- Did he go and look at the results of a modern catastrophic flood? No.
- Does his experiment account for plant life, which is also sorted in groups, and is associated with specific groups of animals in the geographic strata? No.
- Is there any explanation for why all sorts of creatures of different size, shape and species are found together, yet the sorting is still by species that results in support for the idea of evolution? Again, no.
- When we go looking, do we find the geologic strata sorted as he suggests: "amphibian, reptile, mammal, and finally bird"? No, we find these groups mixed, with creatures that are none of those even further down.
- On what basis does he assign buoyancy? An ad hoc guesstimate, based on a sample of 3 modern animals. Hardly compelling.

So his explanation explains nothing.
 

laughsoutloud

New member
So let's move on to Brown's explanation for sedimentary rocks:
If water flows up through a bed of sediments with enough velocity, water pressure will lift and support each sedimentary particle. Rather than thinking of water flowing up through the sediments, think of the sediments falling down through a very long column of water. Slight differences in density, size, or shape of adjacent particles will cause them to fall at slightly different speeds. Their relative positions will change until the water’s velocity drops below a certain value or until nearly identical particles are adjacent to each other, so they fall at the same speed. This sorting produces the sharply-defined layering typical in sedimentary rocks. In other words, vast, sharply-defined layers are unmistakable characteristics of liquefaction and a global flood.
When we go look, do we find unbroken layers of sedimentary rocks? No
DO we find that large-grained sedimentary rocks are lower than fine-grained sedimentary rocks? No
Do we find evidence of wind-blown layers, of layers of ash (indicating a fire), layers of compressed plant material (coal) etc between sedimentary rock? Yes

Does Brown's explanation actually fit the facts as we find them when we go looking? No
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
When we go looking, do we find the geologic strata sorted as he suggests: "amphibian, reptile, mammal, and finally bird"? No, we find these groups mixed, with creatures that are none of those even further down.
Really????

Wow. That's an odd admission. So much for the old outdated geologic column eh?

The truth is animal fossils do tend to follow a sorted layering, but not perfectly which is one of the reasons Dr. Browns theory fits the evidence better than the "party line".
 

laughsoutloud

New member
Really????

Wow. That's an odd admission. So much for the old outdated geologic column eh?

The truth is animal fossils do tend to follow a sorted layering, but not perfectly which is one of the reasons Dr. Browns theory fits the evidence better than the "party line".
No, the geologic column finds animals of mixed type together - yes birds are higher up, but hardly unmixed with amphibians, reptiles or mammals. And especially when you factor in the idea of buoyancy, the whole idea flounders. Using his argument, animals of equal buoyancy should sort together, regardless of where they fit in the evolutionary timeline. For example, since there are both aquatic and terrestrial dinosaurs, mammals, birds and reptiles, you should see them sort together.

His additional caveats - how fast they could run and where they were located does not explain anything, since the water would have been turbulent, stirring everything up for far longer than anything stayed alive - after all, Brown has geysers of water so strong that rocks achieve escape velocity!

This doesn't hold together - it is not an alternative theory, it is a just-so story for creationists, plain and simple. That his story is not compelling is further underscored by the number of creationist groups who distance themselves from Brown.
 

laughsoutloud

New member
Knight writes
That's an odd admission. So much for the old outdated geologic column eh?
If you look at an evolutionary timeline, you'll see that some dinosaurs and early mammals lived at the same time. Evolution is working in parallel - it is not a straight line from single-cell creature to humans.

It is Brown's over-simplified picture that needs to be tossed out. It seems that it takes more 3 modern animals and a tank of water to puzzel out the natural world.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
No, the geologic column finds animals of mixed type together - yes birds are higher up, but hardly unmixed with amphibians, reptiles or mammals. And especially when you factor in the idea of buoyancy, the whole idea flounders. Using his argument, animals of equal buoyancy should sort together, regardless of where they fit in the evolutionary timeline. For example, since there are both aquatic and terrestrial dinosaurs, mammals, birds and reptiles, you should see them sort together.
Only somewhat. Because of the water lenses you get varied layering with some ordering but not perfect ordering.

That fits with the real world evidence.

Perfect order (or very close to it) should be the case if evolution were true. Yet that isn't what we find (not even close). Therefore Dr. Brown's theory is a much better fit with reality.

His additional caveats - how fast they could run and where they were located does not explain anything, since the water would have been turbulent, stirring everything up for far longer than anything stayed alive
Try thinking, it's fun!

In a catastrophic flood some things get quickly covered up and "locked" forever in time while other creatures that are in different locations or can run faster are NOT covered up and "locked" in time (i.e., some things get stirred up, while others don't). Therefore we get a varied layering with some amazing order, yet with dramatic exceptions to the order - which is exactly what we find in the real world. (I do have some exposure to this field, after helping to design spaceships for NASA my dad was a geologic draftsmen for over 30 years and he is still sharp as can be to this very day)

Dr. Brown's theory accommodates the order and the disorder that we actually observe while your theory fails to accommodate both existing simultaneously. If evolution were true we shouldn't find ANY (or very few) exceptions to the layering of fossils. In short, the standard "party line" explanation for old earth geology falls flat.

I enjoyed the chapter on Limestone did you read it?

This doesn't hold together - it is not an alternative theory, it is a just-so story for creationists, plain and simple. That is not compelling is further underscored by the number of creationists group who distance themselves from Brown.
To each their own.
 

laughsoutloud

New member
Knight writes
Only somewhat. Because of the water lenses you get varied layering with some ordering but not perfect ordering.

That fits with the real world evidence.

Perfect order (or very close to it) should be the case if evolution were true. Yet that isn't what we find (not even close). Therefore Dr. Brown's theory is a much better fit with reality.
No, it does not fit, Knight. Buoyancy should be tightly correlated with stratification - it is not. Brown's argument is falsified.

Please provide evidence of creatures that are out-of-order from an evolutionary perspective.

In a catastrophic flood some things get quickly covered up and "locked" forever in time while other creatures that are in different locations or can run faster are NOT covered up and "locked" in time (i.e., some things get stirred up, while others don't).
And when does this happen in a global flood that cooers the mountains to a depth of 40 feet, and generates enough water pressure to eject the asteroids from earth orbit? Everything was a boiling, churning mess if Brown is right. What is more, if your argument is correct, we should see even more randomness, not less, if there are successive layers of animals being trapped in multiple layers of sediment. That is not what we see. And you still have not addressed the issue of vegetation, which is highly correlated with evolutionary time, but not with buoyancy or the speed of creatures fleeing the flood.

It is not just my view that Brown falls flat - both mainstream science and creationists dismiss him. Further, his ideas do not bear scrutiny. Even by the explanations given here, his theory does not fit the facts.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Knight writes
No, it does not fit, Knight. Buoyancy should be tightly correlated with stratification - it is not. Brown's argument is falsified.
You are an idiot! There are literally hundreds of factors that effect how and when things get buried or fail to get buried in a flood or other catastrophe. The only reason you could possibly be arguing this point is to obfuscate.

Please provide evidence of creatures that are out-of-order from an evolutionary perspective.
I could... but I don't need to!!! You did that yourself you moron. Only a few posts ago you wrote....
No, the geologic column finds animals of mixed type together - yes birds are higher up, but hardly unmixed with amphibians, reptiles or mammals.

I'm sorry but you are just too stupid to have a rational discussion with.
 

laughsoutloud

New member
Can you give me an example of that?

And how does that effect or impact this conversation?
Brown suggests that creatures viewed as evolutionarily early are really just less buoyant. Yet there are both amphibious mammals, birds and reptiles, not to mention dinosaurs - so their buoyancy levels would be expect to be similar.

Here is a summary of what was going on in the JURASSIC

210-145 mya JURASSIC

* The ATLANTIC OCEAN is forming, as the supercontinent of Laurasia now starts to break apart. Gondwanaland is still intact and evolving a distinctive flora.

* Proliferation of wind-dispersed POLLEN: Except for the plants that evolved in the early Paleozoic (mosses, ferns, horsetails), land plants now have long-distance sex without depending on water to disperse sperm. Pollen grains that land on receptive female parts grow sophisticated "pollen tubes" to deliver swimming sperm to the ovule.

* GYMNOSPERMS — cycads, ginkgos, and ancient CONIFER TREES (such as redwoods, but not yet the pines) originate: all are seed plants that produce pollen. Great gymnosperm forests of the Mesozoic tower over the remnant lineages of lycopods and horsetails that lurk on the forest floor — lineages which had once been the forests of the Paleozoic.

* DINOSAURS, which originated in the Triassic, become the largest land animals of all time, in the form of the great herbivorous sauropods (e.g. Brachiosaurus, Seismosaurus, Diplodocus), which reach their zenith in size and diversity during the Jurassic.

* LARGE MARINE REPTILES (the snake-necked plesiosaurs and dolphinlike ichthyosaurs) arise, as do the flying PTEROSAURS.

* The first BIRDS (Archaeopteryx) with feathers and teeth, originate.

* The first FROGS evolve from amphibian ancestors.

* MAMMALS are almost as ancient as dinosaurs. Although most were probably smaller than a squirrel and probably nocturnal, the fossil of 1 meter-long badger-like predatory mammal has been dated to 170 million years ago, and that of a beaver-like mammal about the size of a platypus is 164 million years old. The latter has evidence of hair and of sweat glands (that could have provided milk).

So you would expect to see creatures from this time period together - but not creatures from the modern time period mixed in. As you can see, there are reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, frogs and mammals (along with distinctive vegetation)- all evolving in parallel, and not separated in the geologic record by buoyancy.

So flood geology fails, because it does not fit the facts - even leaving the alternative explanation out of it. Brown predicts one thing, but what we see is something else. Global flood theory disproved.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
So you would expect to see creatures from this time period together - but not creatures from the modern time period mixed in. As you can see, there are reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, frogs and mammals (along with distinctive vegetation)- all evolving in parallel, and not separated in the geologic record by buoyancy.

So flood geology fails, because it does not fit the facts - even leaving the alternative explanation out of it. Brown predicts one thing, but what we see is something else. Global flood theory disproved.
:sigh: Buoyancy is only one factor among many.

Oh and....
Out of place fossils.

I gotta get some work done, I will be back later. :up:
 

PKevman

New member
You are an idiot! There are literally hundreds of factors that effect how and when things get buried or fail to get buried in a flood or other catastrophe. The only reason you could possibly be arguing this point is to obfuscate.

I could... but I don't need to!!! You did that yourself you moron. Only a few posts ago you wrote....

I'm sorry but you are just too stupid to have a rational discussion with.

Classic. :thumb::rotfl:
 

laughsoutloud

New member
Knight writes
I'm sorry but you are just too stupid to have a rational discussion with.
Well then, by all means give it up.

My comment about the geologic column does not mean what you evidently think it means. In my post just previous to this one, I listed the mainstream view that, during the Jurassic, reptiles, dinosaurs, frogs, birds and mammals were all evolving together. There are representatives here of each of Brown's test subjects for buoyancy. I also noted that there are both aquatic and terrestrial members of these groups - who would, it could be assumed, have similar buoyancy (that is the aquatic birds, reptiles, mammals, etc all have to float, and so obtain a similar buoyancy).

So we find, in the geologic record, examples of each of Browns test subject's ancestors in the same strata - falsifying Brown's idea (that is, we find Brown's test subjects sorting together, irrespective of buoyancy, not apart, as he predicts). What is even more intriguing is that the progeny of the reptiles, frogs, mammals, birds etc are also found together in the same strata, but higher up - in other words, they are not mixed by kind (birds) or buoyancy (aquatic) or by area (so no lensing or local effects). To repeat, even though these creatures should have been sorted into different layers, they end up in the same layer (reptiles, birds, mammals), but they are different species, obviously similar to, but different from, the ones buried lower down.

Could this be the result of many sedimentary events trapping a subset of the population? No, because there would have been complete mixing due to turbulence (which should have at least produced random groupings over a geographical area as random groups of creatures are trapped and buried), and besides, the unvarying sort order (what mainstream science views as evolutionary order) is repeated again and again in the geologic record. No something else, besides buoyancy and the ability to run kept these creatures sorted in distinct groups. Again, without referencing evolution, Brown is falsified. Evolution suggests that the sorting element was time. This sort order has not been falsified.
 

laughsoutloud

New member
:sigh: Buoyancy is only one factor among many.

Oh and....
Out of place fossils.

I gotta get some work done, I will be back later. :up:
And I have addressed more than just buoyancy. Even at its most basic, Brown's theory does not hold up (each of his test creatures are found together in the same strata, for example, in finds from the Jurassic period).

As for your out-of-place fossils link, it is a mis-mash of discredited links. Happy to get into specifics of a particular case, if you like, but these are a handful of contested findings, by no means viewed as legit out of place fossils. And more to the point, they do not offer support for Brown's ideas - creationism is still falsified, no matter how these examples turn out.
 
Top