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

[Silent Hunter]

Scientific journals often have articles supporting the Biblical creation model which includes the global flood. (Although the evolutionary based journals of course interpret evidence from their world view). For example, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, has an article of a worldwide pattern of fossils.
2012, Mechanism for Burgess Shale-type preservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Gaines, R. R.

When a creature dies in the ocean its carcass is normally consumed by other animals, and bacteria, very rapidly. 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. Here in Canada, we have an area called Burgess shale with abundant fossilized sea creatures with even eyes and intestines preserved.

So, paleontologists wonder why fossils have such remarkable preservation in areas like Burgess shale in Canada,,,Chengjiang Shale in China and other areas. Researcher Gaines Gaines says, "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."
Besides the journal, also see
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-03/uosd-mfb030712.php

If Noahs flood really happened one of the evidences would be billions of dead things rapidly buried in layers of sediment found throughout the world including marine fossils in the mountain ranges. And what is the evidence? As described in many journals... we find billions of dead things well preserved due to rapid burial and found throughout the world... and we do find marine fossils even in the highest mountains.

Dr. Gary Parker wrote:
I’ve mentioned that, because of the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence, many evolutionists are now calling themselves neo-catastrophists. They want nothing to do with old-fashioned catastrophism (Noah’s Flood!), but they agree that most layers of fossil-bearing rock were produced rapidly and broadly by flooding on a catastrophic scale

:yawn:

You quote a web site that admits that the information found therein is unverified and a creationist and expect to be taken seriously? Really?

You live in a small sad little world.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Jose Fly]

Scientific journals often have articles supporting the Biblical creation model which includes the global flood. (Although the evolutionary based journals of course interpret evidence from their world view).

IOW, creationists are fond of taking other people's hard work and trying to spin it to their own ends. How slimy.

If Noahs flood really happened one of the evidences would be billions of dead things rapidly buried in layers of sediment found throughout the world

Why then are there no crabs, lobsters, or other modern marine benthic organisms found with trilobites?

including marine fossils in the mountain ranges.

Ever figure out how to do that without boiling the oceans away?

 

[Silent Hunter]

IOW, creationists are fond of taking other people's hard work and trying to spin it to their own ends. How slimy.

Why then are there no crabs, lobsters, or other modern marine benthic organisms found with trilobites?

Ever figure out how to do that without boiling the oceans away?

Interestingly he conveniently leaves out that the dating for the shale is 500,000,000 years ago.

I wonder how that fits into his global flood hypothesis 4,500 years ago?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[6days]

You quote a web site that admits that the information found therein is unverified and a creationist and expect to be taken seriously? Really?

No... I quoted a secular journal PNAS, that agrees with most things Stripe and I have said. The journal / researcher said, "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."

Notice... he uses phrases like global ocean...and consistent worldwide pattern....and rapid entombment.

As the OP says, the fossil evidence is consistent with God's Word and the global flood model.

Interestingly he (6days) conveniently leaves out that the dating for the shale is 500,000,000 years ago.

I wonder how that fits into his global flood hypothesis 4,500 years ago?

So now our disagreement is only over the date. The "consistent worldwide pattern" of fossils is consistent with the "rapid entombment" in the "global" flood model. God's Word and science will always be consistent.

 

[Silent Hunter]

No... I quoted a secular journal PNAS, that agrees with most things Stripe and I have said.

:chuckle:

No, you quoted eurekaalert.com. You should pay attention to the links you provide. The actual PNAS article would be a plus. My guess is it similar to what you found on euraalert.com but I suspect you would/will commit the same errors you have below...

The journal / researcher said, "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."

Notice... he uses phrases like global ocean...and consistent worldwide pattern....and rapid entombment.

As the OP says, the fossil evidence is consistent with God's Word and the global flood model.

You're so not even wrong it boggles the mind.

The way you intrepret these "phrases" probably don't coincidence with the author's intent but you've well known for picking and choosing the quotes you think best suit your agenda.

I think the Earth has a global ocean as it now exists. Even when the only continent was Pangea the Earth had a global ocean. If this isn't true you need to explain why not.

Can't local floods account for the same features you describe? If not, why.

So now our disagreement is only over the date. The "consistent worldwide pattern" of fossils is consistent with the "rapid entombment" in the "global" flood model. God's Word and science will always be consistent.

So the fact that the author of your little "gotcha" article proporting a date of 500,000,000 years ago is meaningless?

To be exact, how is something the author and SCIENCE specifically says happened 500 MILLION years ago consistent with your favorite book?

You are so myopic when looking for "evidence" and so selective in what you choose to quote from "secular journals" you can make them appear to say whatever is needed to justify your delusion.

Either look at and consider ALL of the evidence or none of it.

It's funny how Stripe thinks evolutionists have a reading problem. I wonder if he's met you?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Silent Hunter]

That website was eurekalert.org not eurekaalert.com.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

Nope. The fossils are evidence of the animal or plant that was buried. To understand HOW the plant or animal was buried it is necessary to analize the surrounding rock in which the fossil is/was found (although the type of plant or animal can sometimes be a helpful clue).

Fossils aren't any help when figuring out how fossils formed. Check.

:idunno: What would you use? And why would you use as evidence something that is obviously irrelevant to what you are trying to figure out?

The fundamental necessities of a situation are irrelevant. Check.

Your earth-shattering hypothesis ... will probably continue to remain a closely guarded secret.

Darwinists hate reading.

When have I denied your "fundamentals"? Be specific.

When did I claim that you deny the fundamentals? Be specific.

We should have been beyond how fossils form at post #220, yet here we are going over something that was never in dispute... again. :sigh:

Apart from Cabinethead and Alate trying to deny the role of cement and you denying the role of fossils as evidence. Meanwhile, the interesting questions get ignored.

 

[Stripe]

What you need to do now is convince me that a local flood could not possibly be responsible for what we see in the geologic record.

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

 

[Silent Hunter]

Fossils aren't any help when figuring out how fossils formed. Check.

Apparantly you are unfamiliar with the concept that a strawman is an irrational argument. Fossils are irrelevant to understanding HOW the plant or animal was buried.

The fundamental necessities of a situation are irrelevant. Check.

Not true. The fundamental essentials of the mechanism of HOW plants and animals are buried BEFORE they become fossils is vital.

Darwinists hate reading.

Really? Where did you say it and what did you say?

When did I claim that you deny the fundamentals? Be specific.

Well, you do keep insisting that fossils are fundamental to how fossils form for a number of unexplained reasons.

Apart from Cabinethead and Alate trying to deny the role of cement and you denying the role of fossils as evidence. Meanwhile, the interesting questions get ignored.

Yeah, we're still waiting for your answers to those.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Silent Hunter]

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

I thought you said that "normal floods" don't do that. You still haven't explained the difference between a "normal" flood and any other type of flood. When can we expect this paradigm shifting exposition?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

I thought you said that "normal floods" don't do that. You still haven't explained the difference between a "normal" flood and any other type of flood. When can we expect this paradigm shifting exposition?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

Floods don't make fossils.

We must eliminate this notion from the range of possibilities.

Science, remember?

 

[Silent Hunter]

Floods don't make fossils.[/]Of course not and no one was/is/or probably will make that argument but thank you for pointing this out again for the umpteenth time.

However, isn't water a necessary transport medium for the minerals that DO make fossils?

Additionally, what does the formation of fossils have to do with how the original plants and animals were buried in sediment?

We must eliminate this notion from the range of possibilities.

What you really should be doing is finding a way to eliminate floods as a mechanism for burying plants and animals in sediment. :thumb:

Science, remember?

GREAT! When do you think you will be getting around to using it?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Silent Hunter]

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

Floods do deposit sediment/minerals that do form fossils.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

Floods don't cause fossils.

Of course not.

Floods ... do form fossils.

:dizzy:

However, isn't water a necessary transport medium for the minerals that DO make fossils?

Water is a necessary factor in this case.

Additionally, what does the formation of fossils have to do with how the original plants and animals were buried in sediment?

Because the deposition of the sediment is the beginning of fossilization.

 

[Jose Fly]

Interestingly he conveniently leaves out that the dating for the shale is 500,000,000 years ago.

I wonder how that fits into his global flood hypothesis 4,500 years ago?

He left a lot out actually. Anytime 6days quotes something, you'd be well advised to go check the original source. He's been busted for quote mining here so many times it's ridiculous. It's just what creationism forces its advocates to do.

Here are some important details just from the news release...

"The critical discovery by the research team was a layer of calcium carbonate cement, in all of the sites, laid on the sea floor soon after burial of the fossils in mud. This mineral carpet acted as a barrier to the microbial communities that would normally consume soft tissue organisms in two-three weeks."

How exactly does a global flood do that? I guarantee they won't be able to say.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Floods don't cause fossils.

:dizzy:

While this tactic isn't a new low for you it was not unexpected. I clearly said that floods deposit sediment/minerals. Do you deny that this happens?

Water is a necessary factor in this case.

Absolutely! Sediment can't be deposited without it.

Because the deposition of the sediment is the beginning of fossilization.

In a very broad sense this true. Once again you are not even wrong. Congratulations.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Silent Hunter]

Here are some important details just from the news release...

"The critical discovery by the research team was a layer of calcium carbonate cement, in all of the sites, laid on the sea floor soon after burial of the fossils in mud. This mineral carpet acted as a barrier to the microbial communities that would normally consume soft tissue organisms in two-three weeks."

How exactly does a global flood do that? I guarantee they won't be able to say.

I guarantee they won'tbe able to say why it is impossible for a local flood to do it either.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[6days]

Floods do deposit sediment/minerals that do form fossils.

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?

The global flood model is the best explanation for the evidence. Boston how are you so where are you

 

[Jose Fly]

What type of flood would preserve copulating turtles?

None. The turtles weren't in flood deposits.

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.

 

[Silent Hunter]

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? Don't we regularly find ships buried in sand in the ocean without attribting it to a global flood?

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?

What type of flood preseves a school of jellyfish?

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

What type of flood causes fossil graveyards?

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

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? See above but insert "2 dinosaurs who are fighting with each other " instead of "the turtles".

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?

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.

Your problem is that you won't even consider other, more rational, explanations and focus all of your resources on isolating ONLY the evidence that fits your conclusion, all other evidence be damned.

Please explain why all of the fossil beds you use as evidence are dated by the same science you say is in full agreement with a "global flood model" as being far, far older than your favorite book would date Noah's flood.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk