Coitus Interruptus... Flirty Turtles, Fossils and the Flood

[6days]

Boston how are you so where are you

Too funny! I just noticed this at the end of my above post. I created the post by voice and didn't realize it picked up part of a conversation I had with someone

 

[Silent Hunter]

Local floods don't deposit sediment and cement to form fossils.

WOW! That was really convincing!

Now all you have to do is explain, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, WHY local floods are incapable of depositing sediment and "cement" that would cover plants and animals in order for fossils to form.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

I clearly said that floods deposit sediment/minerals.

You also clearly said that "floods do ... form fossils," while earlier you had accepted that floods don't form fossils. I can't deal with what you propose when it is contradictory.

Which is it: Can floods form fossils?

Do you deny that this happens?

A flood results in a net loss of sediment from the landscape.

You are never going to bury turtles by flooding them and then removing the water.

In a very broad sense this true.

It's actually specific and necessary. Fossilization begins with the burial of an organism in cement-rich sediment. Then you need to remove the water.

 

[Silent Hunter]

You also clearly said that "floods do ... form fossils," while earlier you had accepted that floods don't form fossils. I can't deal with what you propose when it is contradictory.

Which is it: Can floods form fossils?[/]Since I've never said that water by itself (except by your deceitful manipulation of my sentences) can form a fossil this is yet a another straw man.

If you cannot engage the conversation rationally go find someone else.

A flood results in a net loss of sediment from the landscape.

You are never going to bury turtles by flooding them and then removing the water.

:chuckle:

No, plain water devoid of sediment cannot deposit sediment. Since you should know that floods rarely occur without carrying any sediment at all, I suspect your true intentions in this conversation extend little beyond being a troll.

However, all of that eroded sediment (from the landscape) carried by the water in a flood has to go somewhere doesn't it? It's called "sediment" for a very good reason. :duh:

It's actually specific and necessary. Fossilization begins with the burial of an organism in cement-rich sediment. Then you need to remove the water.

In this thread I am not at all interested in how fossils form and am not inclined to continue to follow you down that rabbit hole. Continued effort on your part to engage me in that line will be summarily ignored.

What I am interested in, and have been since my first post, is 6days' explanation of how a global flood is the ONLY explanation as to how plants and animal can be covered by sediment such that there is the opportunity for fossils to form.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

I've never said that water by itself can form a fossil.

Great.

Can a flood form a fossil?

No, plain water devoid of sediment cannot deposit sediment. Since you should know that floods rarely occur without carrying any sediment at all, I suspect your true intentions in this conversation extend little beyond being a troll. However, all of that eroded sediment (from the landscape) carried by the water in a flood has to go somewhere doesn't it? It's called "sediment" for a very good reason. :duh:

I have no idea what this means.

A flood sees a net loss of sediment from the landscape. It doesn't deposit anything significant; certainly nothing that could see these turtles fossilized.

In this thread I am not at all interested in how fossils form and am not inclined to continue to follow you down that rabbit hole. Continued effort on your part to engage me in that line will be summarily ignored.

You don't want to discuss the evidence. Gotcha.

What I am interested in, and have been since my first post, is 6days' explanation of how a global flood is the ONLY explanation as to how plants and animal can be covered by sediment such that there is the opportunity for fossils to form.

It isn't the only explanation.

However, science is about eliminating explanations. For that, you have to look at evidence. Pity you're only interested in storytelling.

 

[Silent Hunter]

A flood results in a net loss of sediment from the landscape.

Even a local flood?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[6days]

You also clearly said that "floods do ... form fossils," while earlier you had accepted that floods don't form fossils. I can't deal with what you propose when it is contradictory

haa... I Also noticed he would rather be illogical than follow the evidence.

 

[6days]

What type of flood would preserve a pod of whales?
What type of flood would preserve copulating turtles?
What type of flood preseves a school of jellyfish?
What type of flood causes fossil graveyards?
What type of flood would preserve 2 dinosaurs who are fighting with each other?
What type of flood created fossils everywhere in the world preserving them in ocean bottom mud?

None.

So, Silent Hunters remarks are wrong? Or are you avoiding the question? Hunter said a flood can create fossils.

The turtles weren't in flood deposits.

There is no agreement amongst scientists on the taphonomic conditions. The turtles are preserved in sediment. Something catastrophic seems to have killed and preserved them.

The global flood model is the best explanation for the evidence.

Then describe the environment of deposition these specimens were found it and explain how it was produced by a global flood.

Read the OP

The evidence supports the truth of God's Word

 

[6days]

What type of flood would preserve a pod of whales?
Whales live in the ocean. There are documented recent, in the news, accounts of whole pods of whales beaching themselves and dying where they lay. What prevents then from being covered in sand, silt, or whatever before they completely decayed?

Haha..... Your arguments are becoming more desperate and illogical... its psuedoscience you believe in.
Scavengers, bacteria and oxidation destroy beached whales.

I refer you back to my comments and then in bold lettets the article from a secular journal...Special conditions must exist for something to become fossilized. And we seldom if ever find something in ocean sediment that is in the process of being fossilized. Yet, throughout the world we have some areas where sea creatures have been almost perfectly preserved in fossil form, including soft tissue.


"My initial hypothesis was validated by a consistent and worldwide pattern." And this pattern included "rapid entombment of soft-bodied organisms in sediments" . .He also assumes the conditions that must have existed in a "global ocean". The author also says a cause would be "rapid entombment" by "bottom-flowing density currents."

What type of flood would preserve copulating turtles?

Let's assume for argument that it was indeed a flood. What prevents the turtles from being buried in sediment from a large local flood?

That has been answered many times for you. Stripe is correct... evolutionists are hard of reading.... or something like that. It could be a local 'flood'... it would have to be a catastrophic event rapidly burying and killing organisms under tons of sediment preserving them from oxidation and bacteria. But as the secular Journal says, the fossil evidence is a consistent worldwide pattern which is why the fossil evidence support God's Word.

You avoided the question I asked you, so I answered it for you

What type of flood preseves a school of jellyfish?

See above but insert "a school of jellyfish" instead of "the turtles".

So... your answer is a large flood... that rapidly buries and preseves them in sediment? That is the short version of the global flood model. Its the evidence we see around tbe world.

What type of flood causes fossil graveyards?

See above but insert "a fossil graveyard" instead of "the turtles".

So not the type of flood we have ever witnessed? But you believe that magnitude of flood is possible?

What type of flood would preserve 2 dinosaurs who are fighting with each other?

How do you know they were fighting and didn't, just by coincidence, die in the same location?

It's called EVIDENCE.
In 1971, scientists in the Gobi desert of Mongolia uncovered a fossil of a velociraptor, which had its claw deep into the body cavity of a protoceratops. The protoceratops appeared to biting the arm of the velociraptor. These 2 dinosaurs appeared to be in the midst of a fight to the death when they were suddenly buried by sandy sediment, preserved and fossilized. The Gobi desert has produced hundreds of other fossils of creatures who were rapidly buried, such as...oviraptors, sinornithoides, pinocosaurus, lizards, crocodiles and small mammals. What type of event could explain these animals being rapidly buried by sandy sediment? (Not a sandstorm..... Crocodiles don't live in high altitude sand dunes.)

What type of flood created fossils everywhere in the world preserving them in ocean bottom mud?

What prevents fossils everywhere in the world preserving them in ocean bottom mud from being buried in sediment from large local floods?

Your question has been answered multiple times. The consistent worldwide pattern of rapid burial in ocean mud / sediment is evidence of the truth of God's Word.

The global flood model is the best explanation for the evidence.
Your favorite global flood model is not even wrong. It is a possibly explanation but it isn't the only explanation nor is it without question the best explanation.

 

[Jose Fly]

So, Silent Hunters remarks are wrong? Or are you avoiding the question? Hunter said a flood can create fossils.

I specifically responded to your question: "What type of flood would preserve copulating turtles?" Given that the copulating turtles we're talking about are the ones from the Messel site, the answer is "none". The specimens were not in any sort of flood deposit.

Try and pay attention next time, or stop trying to quote mine.

There is no agreement amongst scientists on the taphonomic conditions. The turtles are preserved in sediment. Something catastrophic seems to have killed and preserved them.

You're dodging the issue. If you believe these turtle specimens are the result of a global flood, then describe the environment of deposition of the area in which they were found and explain how it was produced by a global flood.

Read the OP

The OP contains nothing of the sort. Either you can describe the relevant strata and explain how they are the result of a global flood or you can't.

I guarantee you won't.

The evidence supports the truth of God's Word

The moon is made of cheese.

Now that we've established how simple it is for anyone to assert things without evidence, how about actually doing something more than that?

 

[Silent Hunter]

Can a flood form a fossil?

No. Except for your deceitful manipulation of my sentences (something you are famous for) I have never said otherwise.

I have no idea what this means.

Creationists have no reading comprehension skills.

A flood sees a net loss of sediment from the landscape. It doesn't deposit anything significant; certainly nothing that could see these turtles fossilized.

Really? And you know this because of your extensive experience studying floods and how much sediment they are able of carrying and depositing?

What do you propose as a mechanism, (you can pose more than one) such that enough sediment is deposited to bury the turtles such that the conditions were optimum that fossilization could occur. We can then use the scientific method to try to exclude it as a possible explanation.

You don't want to discuss the evidence. Gotcha.

I don't care about the fossils. I take it as read that they formed. What I want to explore is the evidence for the mechanism as to how the turtles were buried such that enough sediment was deposited to bury the turtles such that the conditions were optimum that fossilization could occur.

It isn't the only explanation.

Exactly! Go tell 6days!

However, science is about eliminating explanations. For that, you have to look at evidence.

Please explain how the evidence for how fossils form applies to the evidence for how the organism first became buried.

Pity you're only interested in storytelling.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Silent Hunter]

Hunter said a flood can create fossils.

No, he didn't.

The evidence supports the truth of God's Word

Except when it doesn't then the creationist simply acts like that evidence doesn't exist.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Silent Hunter]

So, Silent Hunters remarks are wrong?

:chuckle:

My remarks were hypothetical and you would know that if you didn't limit yourself to only what supports your preconceptions.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Silent Hunter]

Haha..... Your arguments are becoming more desperate and illogical... its psuedoscience you believe in.
Scavengers, bacteria and oxidation destroy beached whales.

Really? All of them without exception? No possible way for it to happen?

I refer you back to my comments and then in bold lettets the article from a secular journal...Special conditions must exist for something to become fossilized. And we seldom if ever find something in ocean sediment that is in the process of being fossilized. Yet, throughout the world we have some areas where sea creatures have been almost perfectly preserved in fossil form, including soft tissue.

You've got not even wrong down to a, ahem, science.

I think you're mistaken (as are most creationists) in your understanding of "soft tissue". The tissue isn't still soft, it is simply fossilized in such a way that the tissue pattern is apparent.

"My initial hypothesis was validated by a consistent and worldwide pattern." And this pattern included "rapid entombment of soft-bodied organisms in sediments" . .He also assumes the conditions that must have existed in a "global ocean". The author also says a cause would be "rapid entombment" by "bottom-flowing density currents."

No way it could have happened except in th type of flood you favor? Right?

That has been answered many times for you. Stripe is correct... evolutionists are hard of reading.... or something like that. It could be a local 'flood'... it would have to be a catastrophic event rapidly burying and killing organisms under tons of sediment preserving them from oxidation and bacteria. But as the secular Journal says, the fossil evidence is a consistent worldwide pattern which is why the fossil evidence support God's Word.

I find it hard to believe that a secular journal would say, "The fossil evidence is a consistent worldwide pattern which is why the fossil evidence support God's Word", or is that your embellishment?

You avoided the question I asked you, so I answered it for you

What question did I avoid? You would do good to go back and answer all of the questions of mine you have avoided.

So... your answer is a large flood... that rapidly buries and preseves them in sediment? That is the short version of the global flood model. Its the evidence we see around tbe world.

Yeah, except the evidence suggests the event that buried the turtles happened 500,000,000 years ago. Please reconcile that with a supposed global flood that you say happened 4,500 years ago that buried the turtles.

So not the type of flood we have ever witnessed? But you believe that magnitude of flood is possible?

That's the argument you are going with, no one has ever seen a catastrophic flood? Who, besides the mythical Noah, saw the global flood you claim? Yet you believe that magnitude of flood is possible but not a catastrophic local flood? Really?

It's called EVIDENCE.
In 1971, scientists in the Gobi desert of Mongolia uncovered a fossil of a velociraptor, which had its claw deep into the body cavity of a protoceratops. The protoceratops appeared to biting the arm of the velociraptor. These 2 dinosaurs appeared to be in the midst of a fight to the death when they were suddenly buried by sandy sediment, preserved and fossilized.

Coincidence is not a factor? Those blinders you wear aren't something you should wear if you want to experience reality.

The Gobi desert has produced hundreds of other fossils of creatures who were rapidly buried, such as...oviraptors, sinornithoides, pinocosaurus, lizards, crocodiles and small mammals. What type of event could explain these animals being rapidly buried by sandy sediment? (Not a sandstorm..... Crocodiles don't live in high altitude sand dunes.)

So.

Your question has been answered multiple times. The consistent worldwide pattern of rapid burial in ocean mud / sediment is evidence of the truth of God's Word.

Except when it isn't. You are so afraid to shatter your carefully constructed little fantasy you can't bring yourself to look at any evidence that is contradictory.

The global flood model is the best explanation for the evidence.

Your favorite global flood model is not even wrong. It is a possibly explanation but it isn't the only explanation nor is it without question the best explanation.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Silent Hunter]

haa... I Also noticed he would rather be illogical than follow the evidence.

... said the person who will not even be in the same room with evidence contradictory to his carefully constructed hallucination.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Silent Hunter]

In 1971, scientists in the Gobi desert of Mongolia uncovered a fossil of a velociraptor, which had its claw deep into the body cavity of a protoceratops. The protoceratops appeared to biting the arm of the velociraptor. These 2 dinosaurs appeared to be in the midst of a fight to the death when they were suddenly buried by sandy sediment, preserved and fossilized.

The word "appeared" occurrs twice on this blurb. Are you sure it isn't coincidence that the fossils were in the position found?

Where is this citation from... let me guess... AIG?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[6days]

.....the creationist simply acts like that evidence doesn't exist.

Hunter.... Do you know what evidence is? Evidence is things like fossils..... Galaxies....DNA.....mutations, etc.

Evidence always supports the Biblical account.... Always.

 

[6days]

... said the person who will not even be in the same room with evidence contradictory to his carefully constructed hallucination.

Do you understand what evidence is? Evidence can be mutation rates.....it can be historical accounts.....it can be a smoking gun. There is no such thing as contradictory evidence to God's Word. If you understand evidence....you know I am correct.

 

[6days]

The word "appeared" occurrs twice on this blurb. Are you sure it isn't coincidence that the fossils were in the position found?

Where is this citation from... let me guess... AIG?

Perhaps in AIG.... But you can find it in many secular articles also. Ex... https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530090-800-stunning-fossils-dinosaur-death-match/ Notice.... Rapid burial in a "landslide"

 

[Silent Hunter]

Hunter.... Do you know what evidence is? Evidence is things like fossils..... Galaxies....DNA.....mutations, etc.

Evidence always supports the Biblical account.... Always.

... except when it doesn't. Creationist ALWAYS ignore evidence that conflicts with their carefully constructed fantasy.

Fossils are dated by science to be MILLIONS of years old... ignored.

Galaxys are determined by science to be MILLIONS of light years distant... ignored.

Do you understand what evidence is? Evidence can be mutation rates.....it can be historical accounts.....it can be a smoking gun. There is no such thing as contradictory evidence to God's Worrd.

... except when it is. Creationist ALWAYS ignore evidence that conflicts with their carefully constructed fantasy.

The bible is a historical account? Really? ... and your evidence of talking snakes, burning bushes, and bloody rivers is... ?

If you understand evidence....you know I am correct.

It is because I understand the evidence that I'm convinced that you are wrong.

Perhaps in AIG.... But you can find it in many secular articles also. Ex... https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530090-800-stunning-fossils-dinosaur-death-match/ Notice.... Rapid burial in a "landslide"

It must be a typo then that the fossils are dated by science to be 74 MILLION years old. Isn't that a tad older than is possible for your "biblical flood model" to be a plausable explanation?

Oops! I notice that science supporting the biblical account is missing. An oversight perhaps?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk