The Fossil Record

[MorningGlory]

I think you present a plausible explanation for the fossil record, Argosy, certainly as plausible (or more so) than the-flood-did-everything theory.  But.....we have to remember that this is only your opinion and should not be construed as certainty.  It's okay to present your ideas, just don't be surprised when not everyone agrees with those ideas.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

I've just noticed the "dinosaurs and dino poop" thread. I agree with spock, the one year flood cannot explain most of the fossil record. This is the reason I created this thread, to show that there are alternative creationist models that explain the fossil layering better than "the flood did it all" model.

If you place the flood at the PT boundary, incorporating some late Permian and early Triassic layers as flood layers, the entire fossil record fits well into the limited information we have from the bible. (assuming compressed timeframes of course - for this refer to my "Radiometric Dating" thread)

Precambrian bacteria = those billions of creation week bacteria that died off in the multiple generations of bacteria that existed before the first animal died.

Cambrian explosion = the first dead animals after creation week

The transition from marine to coastal to land fossils doesn't mean that fish evolved into mudfish and then evolved into land animals

The transition from marine to coastal to land fossils means that the landmass grew, marine fossils were covered by coastal fossils and then land fossils.

Many of the more dry land animals will most likely be found in the more stable cool highlands of Siberia, these regions have not been properly examined for Cambrian/carboniferous/Permian fossils. they need to be, but the region is remote, and the fossils are covered by a few miles of Siberian basalt formed when lava fountains of the great deep burst forth in the most dramatic volcanic activity the earth has known.

After this lava activity, the ice caps/glaciation melted, the earth was flooded, and all terrestrial life disappeared. Turtles and sea crocodiles survived the flood, crawled onto the land, and dominated earth until the meteor wiped them out. Then the ark animals could safely spread throughout earth.

That my friends, is the fossil record explained in biblical timeframes. No dino poop problems.

You weave a fancy tale.

 

Its more consistent with the fossil record than various categories of animals dying at different depths as per the mainstream christian flood model. Geologists themselves confirm widespread flooding at the PT boundary. What I am suggesting takes into account the following:

1)1700 years of sedimentation prior to the flood.

2) that the flood was only for 1 year

3) Matches the great death event of history with that of the bible

If my proposal fits in better with the bible, and fits in better with the fossil record/geology, on what basis is it more of a fanciful tale than the current flood model? I need bible verses or geological facts to back up your statement.

 

 

 

Hey Argosy,

 

Your whole premise and postulates are built on the ASSUMPTION of the validity of the "Secular" Geologic Column.

 

I have recently run into a BOMBSHELL that Jack-Hammers that "Secular" Geologic Column; check this when you get a chance and let me know what you think.....

 

Guy Berthault:  http://www.sedimentology.fr/

[LookingForAnswers]

 

 

 

I've just noticed the "dinosaurs and dino poop" thread. I agree with spock, the one year flood cannot explain most of the fossil record. This is the reason I created this thread, to show that there are alternative creationist models that explain the fossil layering better than "the flood did it all" model.

If you place the flood at the PT boundary, incorporating some late Permian and early Triassic layers as flood layers, the entire fossil record fits well into the limited information we have from the bible. (assuming compressed timeframes of course - for this refer to my "Radiometric Dating" thread)

Precambrian bacteria = those billions of creation week bacteria that died off in the multiple generations of bacteria that existed before the first animal died.

Cambrian explosion = the first dead animals after creation week

The transition from marine to coastal to land fossils doesn't mean that fish evolved into mudfish and then evolved into land animals

The transition from marine to coastal to land fossils means that the landmass grew, marine fossils were covered by coastal fossils and then land fossils.

Many of the more dry land animals will most likely be found in the more stable cool highlands of Siberia, these regions have not been properly examined for Cambrian/carboniferous/Permian fossils. they need to be, but the region is remote, and the fossils are covered by a few miles of Siberian basalt formed when lava fountains of the great deep burst forth in the most dramatic volcanic activity the earth has known.

After this lava activity, the ice caps/glaciation melted, the earth was flooded, and all terrestrial life disappeared. Turtles and sea crocodiles survived the flood, crawled onto the land, and dominated earth until the meteor wiped them out. Then the ark animals could safely spread throughout earth.

That my friends, is the fossil record explained in biblical timeframes. No dino poop problems.

You weave a fancy tale.

 

Its more consistent with the fossil record than various categories of animals dying at different depths as per the mainstream christian flood model. Geologists themselves confirm widespread flooding at the PT boundary. What I am suggesting takes into account the following:

1)1700 years of sedimentation prior to the flood.

2) that the flood was only for 1 year

3) Matches the great death event of history with that of the bible

If my proposal fits in better with the bible, and fits in better with the fossil record/geology, on what basis is it more of a fanciful tale than the current flood model? I need bible verses or geological facts to back up your statement.

 

 

 

Hey Argosy,

 

Your whole premise and postulates are built on the ASSUMPTION of the validity of the "Secular" Geologic Column.

 

I have recently run into a BOMBSHELL that Jack-Hammers that "Secular" Geologic Column; check this when you get a chance and let me know what you think.....

 

Guy Berthault:  http://www.sedimentology.fr/

 

 

There have been no premises put forth on this board that do not rely on the validity of a certain interpretation of the evidence that is nature. 

 

Interesting article, I would like to see the follow up to it and what comes of it in the community.  On the surface I see one issue with it for the YEC crowd.  He states that the "the time of sedimentation of the St. Petersburg sequence represents only 0.05% of the time refereed to by the geologic time scale."

If you take the time refereed to by the geological time scale and multiple it times .05% you still come up with a number 65.6 times bigger than the 4000 years since the flood.  

[Sheniy]

There have been no premises put forth on this board that do not rely on the validity of a certain interpretation of the evidence that is nature.

This is an excellent point that seem to get forgotten here.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

Uh, you are the one needing to provide some more evidence.  Your post was littered witih assumptions, not the least of which is sea crocodiles and turtles getting wiped out by a meteor.  Honestly, the one needing to provide evidence is you.    It appears your view is a mixture of unproven scientific claims and your own speculations.

If you study the fossil anatomy of the earliest Triassic reptiles you will see that they are the same reptiles that had a previously marine habitat. This is fact. If you would like to contradict this, kindly look up early Triassic reptiles. After what is known as the Permian extinction (the great death) the world was a dry and silted up environment, this is historical fact. Reptiles flourished then. It is also fact that the demise of the dinosaurs is clearly associated with the iridium layer of a meteor impact. this is scientific fact.

Rather than just write off what could be scientific truth, and what could point towards the bible and not away from it, kindly be more investigative in your approach. Its possible that you are able to learn more about creationism, is it not?

 

What is confusing is the way you mix secular scientific terminology meant to communicate long epochs of time and apply it to a recent creative event.  

 

The Meteor or asteroid that allegedly wiped out the dinosaurs is said to have happened 65 million years ago, you are claiming happened within a short time of the flood.   It honestly makes no sense and frankly, it just looks like you are just running with whatever pops into your head.   There is simply no reason to think that some meteor slammed into the earth and wiped out all of the animals.

 

I really have a hard time making sense of your position. 

[Enoch2021]

There have been no premises put forth on this board that do not rely on the validity of a certain interpretation of the evidence that is nature.

 

That's Incorrect, IMHO.  3 off the top of my head are Dino Soft Tissue/ Fossil Soft Tissue/ Dino's and Humans...I'm sure there are many more based on Scripture.  Maybe we should Caveat it with "Reasonable/Rational/Sound" Interpretations.  Because you can say with any subject for the most part....."well, I have a different Interpretation".  Interpretations are for the most part subjective and are like Armpits.....they're smelly and everyone has one. 

 

 

Interesting article, I would like to see the follow up to it and what comes of it in the community.  On the surface I see one issue with it for the YEC crowd.  He states that the "the time of sedimentation of the St. Petersburg sequence represents only 0.05% of the time refereed to by the geologic time scale."

If you take the time refereed to by the geological time scale and multiple it times .05% you still come up with a number 65.6 times bigger than the 4000 years since the flood.

 

Not so.  The most interesting item is that the current "ESTIMATE" of the St. Petersburg Sequence is .05% of the time as refereed against the GEOLOGIC TIMESCALE.  In other words, it's 99.95% WRONG!!!!!.....as measured against, what? You have more work to do to finish the Thesis.......

 

Most Importantly....

 

Then that leads to or "Begs The Question" regarding the Validity and Veracity of what that 99.95% (or .05%) is being measured against........ the "Current" Geologic Timescale!

 

What if the Current Geologic Timescale is wrong?   What is the Geologic Timescale BASED ON..................

 

 

The 4.5 b.y. era started about 1955 with the publication of a classic paper by Patterson et al.

Patterson, C., Tilton, G. and Inghram, M., Science 121:69, 1955.

The 4.5 Billion Year Estimate relies heavily on the uranium/thorium/lead radiometric dating methods.  They estimated the age of the Earth by substituting the lead isotope ratios of certain meteorites in the Holmes-Houtermans equation.  These values they assumed were based on the lead isotope ratios observed for three meteorites.  Big sample size, eh? Moreover, later... it is even more surprising to learn that the lead isotope ratios chosen by Patterson et al were found not to be representative of the majority of meteorites.-----Faul, H., Ages of Rocks, Planets and Stars, McGraw-Hill Book Co., p. 75, 1966

THEN, in 1972, Gale et al dropped a LEAD "Isotope" ANVIL on all of the 13th Century Alchemy......

“ … it is not widely appreciated, outside the ranks of those who work directly in geochronology or meteoritics that, judged by modern standards, the meteoritic lead-lead isochron is very poorly established.

“This (work) shows unequivocally for the first time that there is indeed a real problem in the uranium/lead evolution in meteorites, in that in each of these meteorites there is now insufficient uranium to support the lead isotope composition.

“It therefore follows that the whole of the classical interpretation of the meteorite lead isotope data is in doubt, and that the radiometric estimates of the age of the Earth are placed in jeopardy.”

Gale. N.H., Arden, J. and Hutchison, R., Nature Phys. Science 240:57, 1972

 

Appears nobody got this memo. 

 

 

How does that song go......"Turn out the Lights, the Party is ............OVER!!"

[anthonyjmcgirr]

I want someone to please explain to me the geologic timescale.  Because from my understanding, one doesn't exist except for the ones scientists use that is completely inaccurate and false.  There is absolutely no way to dig a hole in the ground, no matter how deep, and determine which rocks/dirt/etc are from which era.  They say, "Oh, I found a T-Rex bone.  So this rock must be from the ______ era and is _______ millions of years old."  Well, how old is the dinosaur bone?  "Well, it was found the _______ rock layer, and this rock layer was laid down ______ years ago, so the bone is ______ millions of years old."

 

It's called circular reasoning and is COMPLETELY based upon assumptions.  They have absolutely no way to determine what rock came from what era except to say, "We find these fossils in this layer, so this layer must be this age."  It's fairly dumb if you ask me.

[LookingForAnswers]

 

 

 

That's Incorrect, IMHO.  3 off the top of my head are Dino Soft Tissue/ Fossil Soft Tissue/ Dino's and Humans...I'm sure there are many more based on Scripture.  Maybe we should Caveat it with "Reasonable/Rational/Sound" Interpretations.  Because you can say with any subject for the most part....."well, I have a different Interpretation".  Interpretations are for the most part subjective and are like Armpits.....they're smelly and everyone has one.

 

 

The problem with your caveat is that everyone thinks their interpretations are Reasonable/Rational/Sound and people think any interpretation they do not agree with is Unreasonable/Irrational/and Not Sound.  

 

Not so.  The most interesting item is that the current "ESTIMATE" of the St. Petersburg Sequence is .05% of the time as refereed against the GEOLOGIC TIMESCALE.  In other words, it's 99.95% WRONG!!!!!.....as measured against, what? You have more work to do to finish the Thesis......

 

 

According to one man.  I think it is a bit premature to say this one gentlemen is correct. In any case, if you are saying this man is right you still have a major problem as even he dates things 65 times older than what your view allows.  So, if you say this gentlemen is correct you will need to adjust your view on the age of the earth.

[anthonyjmcgirr]

And I went back and read the article on dinosaur poop and it made no sense to me.  It claims all dino fossils are found in the Mesozoic rocks?  Well, how do you know which rocks are Mesozoic?  Because they have dino fossils in them?  It's not like there's an exact measurement: five meters into the ground is when the Mesozoic era rock begins  And the fact that ALL dino fossils are found in what they claim to be one layer should prove that they all died in one catastrophic event.  Most scientists don't doubt this, as they say it was a comet or asteroid, I say it was a flood.  The difference is in order to have billions of fossils, a flood makes more sense than an asteroid/comet because you need water and sediment to bury the bodies immediately to preserve and encase them.  In a lot of cases, there are still feathers/bone marrow/scales and other things within the fossils themselves.  So: flood makes more logical sense to me.

 

And as for the dino poop itself...dinos pooped before the flood.  I'm sure they pooped when they saw the big wall of water heading their way, and they pooped after the flood. I'm certain there were dinosaurs on the ark because every kind was represented.  And the evidence of Job seeing several dinosaurs as well as many other people throughout history. I believe the dinosaurs died off because they were hunted for their meat (as even described in many historical texts deemed by science as myth), the earth became cooler and they didn't live as long to grow to monstrous sizes.  So the poo doesn't sway me towards OEC in anyway.

[Enoch2021]

I want someone to please explain to me the geologic timescale.  Because from my understanding, one doesn't exist except for the ones scientists use that is completely inaccurate and false.  There is absolutely no way to dig a hole in the ground, no matter how deep, and determine which rocks/dirt/etc are from which era.  They say, "Oh, I found a T-Rex bone.  So this rock must be from the ______ era and is _______ millions of years old."  Well, how old is the dinosaur bone?  "Well, it was found the _______ rock layer, and this rock layer was laid down ______ years ago, so the bone is ______ millions of years old."

 

It's called circular reasoning and is COMPLETELY based upon assumptions.  They have absolutely no way to determine what rock came from what era except to say, "We find these fossils in this layer, so this layer must be this age."  It's fairly dumb if you ask me.

 

You've pretty much summed it up 

 

 

"It's the Rocks Date the Fossils and the Fossils Date The Rocks Two-Step"

 

I put it in a song...I think on the Dino Soft tissue thread