Perhaps you miss the point. Per Haldane, the issue is not whether someone might make a claim of finding a bunny or a vertebrate in undisturbed Cambrian deposits but whether or not they actually found such a fossil. Walt Brown makes lots and lots of claims for example, he is, unfortunately for YEC'ers, a bit light on the real evidence.
The Dilemma of the Geological Layers and their Fossil Contents
- Thread starter bob b
- Start date
Perhaps you miss the point. Per Haldane, the issue is not whether someone might make a claim of finding a bunny or a vertebrate in undisturbed Cambrian deposits but whether or not they actually found such a fossil. Walt Brown makes lots and lots of claims for example, he is, unfortunately for YEC'ers, a bit light on the real evidence.
Barbarian observes:
Seems very unlikely, although there are layers just above with a lot of soot, presumably from the fires that accompanied the meteor strike.
In some places; in others, there are very local deposits. Both have been known for hundreds of years, so it's not a "prediction".
I don't know. Alvarez published a map, showing how those sites, in places where he looked, always had an underlying iridium layer. I'll see if I can find it.
You won't find much, if any mixing, obviously two different kinds of rock being melted in the same place accessible to humans would be rather unusual. Normally, we see contact metamorphism on the solid rock, caused by contact with magma.
Barbarian observes:
My guess is that it's going to be more uniform above, than below. And no, it's not uniform everywhere. The Deccan traps, for example, involve a huge, subcontinent-wide release of magma over huge areas. It seems to have occurred either shortly before, or shortly after the strike. And it occurred roughly on the other side of the world. It's tempting to think that they might be related, although I don't know enough about it to say for sure.
Wherever we still have upper cretaceous rock. Subduction removes such rock, and there are few places on earth where all of it is still intact.
Barbarian asks:
How can we test the idea?
For now then, it's dead.
Then it's just a guess, not a theory.
Even engineers know better than that. You've got a lot to learn.
Barbarian asks:
You think they have a list of "allowed" projects?
That's a rather paranoid idea. When even Stephen Gould accepts a YE creationist as a doctoral student, it's obviously not true.
Barbarian observes:
A hydrologist with the ICR tried a long time. Never could get it to work.
Henry Morris
Nothing testable.
Barbarian observes:
Actually, he did. The Pope, as you might know, was also civil ruler at the time.
In fact, by Galileo's time, scientists generally realized the heliocentric idea was right. There's a rather angry comment by Martin Luther who assails Copernicus for saying the Earth moves, when (his literal reading of) Scripture says it does not.
Luther, I think, referred to the Bible saying that the Sun stopped for Joshua, not the Earth. But others have cited the Bible saying the world will not be moved.
Barbarian suggests:
Not unless you can show how the fossil distribution is explained by it. Fairly simple process. Explain exactly what your idea predicts, and what it takes to test it. Then we can look at the fossil record and see.
No. You have supposed that it exists in the fossil record. But no one can even begin to show any evidence for that.
Barbarian observes:
You seem very reluctant to show us a testable claim of your idea. But if you can do that, I'd be pleased to look at it. Show me how "hydrologic sorting" explains the fossil record. Show me how it is responsible for the distribution of fossils in the geologic column.
So what makes you think it's right?
A rabbit in undisturbed Cambrian deposits would be a good one. Pick the one or two you think most persuasive, and we'll take a look at it.
Barbarian observes:
Um, no. For example, one person once asked Haldane what would invalidate evolution. He remarked a rabbit in undisturbed Cambrian deposits. If you're right, there should be a few at least. But no vertebrates at all. And no bunnies.
That's why the actual fossil, in situ, would be required. We have a lot of creationist claims where the evidence is unfortunately lost.
Barbarian observes:
The prediction of feathered dinosaurs must have seemed crazy, based as it was on obscure anatomical similarities between birds and dinos. But later, that prediction was validated. One of the best was Darwin's argument that Lord Kelvin's estimate of the age of the Earth had to be wrong, based on the observed variety of living things. Kelvin lost, when the source of the extra heat confirmed Darwin's theory. There's a lot more like that. Would you like to learn about them?
Technically, birds are dinosaurs. Huxley was widely criticized for his prediction of feathered dinosaurs, based only on anatomical data, but now we have many of them.
Barbarian observes:
Rock, over a long period of time, deforms and folds under compression. It's how the Himalayas are so high. They are still folding, BTW, and GPS instruments can actually measure it. We have no evidence for "waterborne folding"; it's just a story AIG likes to tell.
I'd like to know about an exampleof such soft folding.
Seems very unlikely, although there are layers just above with a lot of soot, presumably from the fires that accompanied the meteor strike.
In some places; in others, there are very local deposits. Both have been known for hundreds of years, so it's not a "prediction".
I don't know. Alvarez published a map, showing how those sites, in places where he looked, always had an underlying iridium layer. I'll see if I can find it.
You won't find much, if any mixing, obviously two different kinds of rock being melted in the same place accessible to humans would be rather unusual. Normally, we see contact metamorphism on the solid rock, caused by contact with magma.
Barbarian observes:
My guess is that it's going to be more uniform above, than below. And no, it's not uniform everywhere. The Deccan traps, for example, involve a huge, subcontinent-wide release of magma over huge areas. It seems to have occurred either shortly before, or shortly after the strike. And it occurred roughly on the other side of the world. It's tempting to think that they might be related, although I don't know enough about it to say for sure.
Wherever we still have upper cretaceous rock. Subduction removes such rock, and there are few places on earth where all of it is still intact.
Barbarian asks:
How can we test the idea?
For now then, it's dead.
Then it's just a guess, not a theory.
Even engineers know better than that. You've got a lot to learn.
Barbarian asks:
You think they have a list of "allowed" projects?
That's a rather paranoid idea. When even Stephen Gould accepts a YE creationist as a doctoral student, it's obviously not true.
Barbarian observes:
A hydrologist with the ICR tried a long time. Never could get it to work.
Henry Morris
Nothing testable.
Barbarian observes:
Actually, he did. The Pope, as you might know, was also civil ruler at the time.
In fact, by Galileo's time, scientists generally realized the heliocentric idea was right. There's a rather angry comment by Martin Luther who assails Copernicus for saying the Earth moves, when (his literal reading of) Scripture says it does not.
Luther, I think, referred to the Bible saying that the Sun stopped for Joshua, not the Earth. But others have cited the Bible saying the world will not be moved.
Barbarian suggests:
Not unless you can show how the fossil distribution is explained by it. Fairly simple process. Explain exactly what your idea predicts, and what it takes to test it. Then we can look at the fossil record and see.
No. You have supposed that it exists in the fossil record. But no one can even begin to show any evidence for that.
Barbarian observes:
You seem very reluctant to show us a testable claim of your idea. But if you can do that, I'd be pleased to look at it. Show me how "hydrologic sorting" explains the fossil record. Show me how it is responsible for the distribution of fossils in the geologic column.
So what makes you think it's right?
A rabbit in undisturbed Cambrian deposits would be a good one. Pick the one or two you think most persuasive, and we'll take a look at it.
Barbarian observes:
Um, no. For example, one person once asked Haldane what would invalidate evolution. He remarked a rabbit in undisturbed Cambrian deposits. If you're right, there should be a few at least. But no vertebrates at all. And no bunnies.
That's why the actual fossil, in situ, would be required. We have a lot of creationist claims where the evidence is unfortunately lost.
Barbarian observes:
The prediction of feathered dinosaurs must have seemed crazy, based as it was on obscure anatomical similarities between birds and dinos. But later, that prediction was validated. One of the best was Darwin's argument that Lord Kelvin's estimate of the age of the Earth had to be wrong, based on the observed variety of living things. Kelvin lost, when the source of the extra heat confirmed Darwin's theory. There's a lot more like that. Would you like to learn about them?
Technically, birds are dinosaurs. Huxley was widely criticized for his prediction of feathered dinosaurs, based only on anatomical data, but now we have many of them.
Barbarian observes:
Rock, over a long period of time, deforms and folds under compression. It's how the Himalayas are so high. They are still folding, BTW, and GPS instruments can actually measure it. We have no evidence for "waterborne folding"; it's just a story AIG likes to tell.
I'd like to know about an exampleof such soft folding.