#80589 - 05/04/06 08:30 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Craftsman
Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 3513
Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m
|
As a point of interest, I should like to add a quote from following up on Bevin's suggestion to Google on 'rapid fossilization.' this quote comes from the first page of hits: "Fossils all over the world show evidence of rapid burial. Many fossils, such as fossilized jellyfish,a show by the details of their soft, fleshy portionsb that they were buried rapidly, before they could decay. (Normally, dead animals and plants quickly decompose.) The presence of fossilized remains of many other animals, buried in mass graves and in twisted and contorted positions, suggest violent and rapid burials over large areas.c These observations, together with the occurrence of compressed fossils and fossils that cut across two or more layers of sedimentary rock, are strong evidence that the sediments encasing these fossils were deposited rapidly—not over hundreds of millions of years. Furthermore, almost all sediments were sorted by water. The worldwide fossil record is, therefore, evidence of rapid death and burial of animal and plant life by a worldwide, catastrophic flood. The fossil record is not evidence of slow change.d Figure 7: Fossil of Fish Swallowing Fish. The fossilization process must have been quite rapid to have preserved a fish in the act of swallowing another fish. Thousands of such fossils have been found. " The website is: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences25.html
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80590 - 05/04/06 11:08 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 4699
Loc: New England
|
Quote:
IOW under extraordinary conditions, fossilizations may occur rapidly. Correct?
Correct.
Quote:
The only possible candidate to support that statement, from what you cited, would be the sand dollars in the proximity of the mineral seep.
Insects into amber, animals into tar, people and animals into volcanic ash (Pompeii, Mt St Helens), mineralisation around mineral springs, and limestone forming over things in caves are all examples that we see happening around us.
Quote:
That example would seem to support rapid fossilization under extraordinary conditions, as would be expected for a GRGF.
or a local flood or mud slide, or a volcanic eruption, or around a mineral spring, or around a tar pit, or on the side of a tree extruding sap, or ...
The existence of fossils is not in doubt, and no-one claims that all fossils take thousands or millions of years to form. It is their quantity and distribution that needs to be explained, not the time that they take to form.
If you look at my earlier remarks again, you will see that.
See, for instance
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/limehash.htm
http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/Mar04/fossilMeteorites.html
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/dinosaur-extinction.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/296/5576/2203
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/henke_steno.htm
http://newsletter.dri.edu/2003/summer/travertineterrace.htm
/Bevin
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80591 - 05/05/06 06:40 AM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Craftsman
Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 3513
Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m
|
Having reviewed the articles and photographs on the 'Creation Science' website, I am reminded of the 'Great Writ' in English Common Law, 'Habeas Corpus,' which means, 'You should have [the] body.' In these photos, we have the body--hard evidence. I think it would be appropriate to consider each of the statements in the excerpt from the articles, individually. So, I will list them, and invite comment: Quote:
David Koot said:
"Fossils all over the world show evidence of rapid burial."
/
"Many fossils, such as fossilized jellyfish,a show by the details of their soft, fleshy portionsb that they were buried rapidly, before they could decay. (Normally, dead animals and plants quickly decompose.)"
/
"The presence of fossilized remains of many other animals, buried in mass graves and in twisted and contorted positions, suggest violent and rapid burials over large areas."
/
"These observations, together with the occurrence of compressed fossils and fossils that cut across two or more layers of sedimentary rock, are strong evidence that the sediments encasing these fossils were deposited rapidly—not over hundreds of millions of years."
/
"Furthermore, almost all sediments were sorted by water. The worldwide fossil record is, therefore, evidence of rapid death and burial of animal and plant life by a worldwide, catastrophic flood. The fossil record is not evidence of slow change."
/
"Figure 7: Fossil of Fish Swallowing Fish. The fossilization process must have been quite rapid to have preserved a fish in the act of swallowing another fish. Thousands of such fossils have been found."
/
"Figure 8: Fish-in-Long Fish. In the belly of the above 14-foot-long fish is a smaller fish, presumably the big fish’s breakfast. Because digestion is rapid, fossilization must have been even more so."
/
"Figure 9: Fish-in-Curved Fish. The curved back shows this fish died under stress."
/
"Figure 10: Dragonfly Wing. This delicate, 1 1/2-foot-long wing must have been buried rapidly and evenly to preserve its details."
So, I invite response and comment as to each of these statements. The website is:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences25.html
I should like to point out that the discovery of even a few fossils which "cut across two or more layers of sedimentary rock" would tend to impeach the long-age theory.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80592 - 05/05/06 07:00 AM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: Mandy]
|
Craftsman
Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 3513
Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m
|
Quote:
bevin said:
Insects into amber,
Your source stated that the process would take thousands to millions of years.
Quote:
animals into tar,
Asserted to be from a previous epoch.
Quote:
people and animals into volcanic ash (Pompeii, Mt St Helens),
Agreed.
Quote:
mineralisation around mineral springs, and limestone forming over things in caves are all examples that we see happening around us.
Might be good to see some pics of the fossilization process or claim of such.
Quote:
It is their quantity and distribution that needs to be explained, not the time that they take to form.
After summarizing the info about the fossilization process, that may be the next issue to address.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80593 - 05/05/06 02:04 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 4699
Loc: New England
|
Quote:
I should like to point out that the discovery of even a few fossils which "cut across two or more layers of sedimentary rock" would tend to impeach the long-age theory.
You are wrong - such evidence does NOT "impeach evolutionary theory". What you need is a fossil which
- goes through several layers AND
- the layers have different dates AND
- has not been put in the layers at a later date
For instance: A local flood causes several different layers of materials to be deposited - heaviest first while the water was moving quickly, fines later. An animal is buried across these layers. The animal gets fossilized and the sediments turn to rock - voila, a 'polystrate fossil'.
For instance: A series of layers of rock have been laid down, then a tree grows through them and is fossilized.
For instance: A fossil is created in a layer of sedimentary rock, half the layer erodes leaving the fossil exposed, and then a second layer is laid down - possibly at a MUCH later date.
You are treating geologists like they are morons. They aren't - these things have been aggressively and deeply studied by students eager to topple the status quo and earn a Nobel Prize.
Any disproof of evolution is going to require a detailed new piece of research, not some old argument that has been repeatedly and adequately answered for over 100 years.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/polystrate.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/talk_origins.html#polystrate
http://www.asa3.org/archive/ASA/199803/0232.html
/Bevin
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80594 - 05/05/06 02:14 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 4699
Loc: New England
|
Quote:
So, I will list them, and invite comment
(a) Some mechanism for inhibiting decay and consumption is indeed necessary to make a fossil - and burial in flood-born sediments is one such mechanism (regardless of the size of the flood)
(b) The floods could indeed be large - remember that the long-age model includes the flooding of the entire Mediterrean, and the Grand Canyon is not small
Quote:
"Furthermore, almost all sediments were sorted by water
Of course - that is why they are called sediments
Quote:
The worldwide fossil record is, therefore, evidence of rapid death and burial of animal and plant life by a worldwide, catastrophic flood.
The step from 'many various size floods' to 'worldwide catastrophic' is not backed by evidence - this is the writer's bias leaking in
This discussion about rate and burial is a red herring - it has nothing to do with determining age.
/Bevin
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80595 - 05/05/06 11:31 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: Mandy]
|
Craftsman
Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 3513
Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m
|
Quote:
bevin said:
What you need is a fossil which
- goes through several layers AND
- the layers have different dates AND
- has not been put in the layers at a later date
And that seems to be what we're talking about. (Although, the 'dates' of the layers seem to be the call of the evolutionists.)
Quote:
For instance: A local flood causes several different layers of materials to be deposited - heaviest first while the water was moving quickly, fines later. An animal is buried across these layers. The animal gets fossilized and the sediments turn to rock - voila, a 'polystrate fossil'.
Keyword: "Flood" That is the point. Whether it was local or worldwide, is a separate question from the specific issue here.
Quote:
For instance: A series of layers of rock have been laid down, then a tree grows through them and is fossilized.
That would be obvious--displacement of the strata as the tree pushed up through them. Not on point.
Quote:
For instance: A fossil is created in a layer of sedimentary rock, half the layer erodes leaving the fossil exposed, and then a second layer is laid down - possibly at a MUCH later date.
Then there would be some erosion of the exposed fossil as well, which would be observable. Not on point.
Quote:
Any disproof of evolution is going to require a detailed new piece of research, not some old argument that has been repeatedly and adequately answered for over 100 years.
Your links each seem to rely on the same arguments--quite repetitious. Without bothering to get into the merits of fossilized trees--they are not the issue here. Not on point.
Edited by David Koot (05/05/06 11:33 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80596 - 05/05/06 11:47 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: Mandy]
|
Craftsman
Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 3513
Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m
|
Sitting as a trier of fact--which someone who is seeking to find the truth must do--I have reached some tentative conclusions: *The fossils in the photographs would seem to support the belief in a Flood;
*Some arguments presented by evolutionists seem very weak, and in some cases specious;
*There are phenomena which seem consistent with a Flood, for which evolutionists have no answers;
*Based on the available evidence, neither theory--long-age evolution and recent Creation--has ready answers for all observed phenomena. The evidence thus far considered, would seem to support the possibility of the occurrence of a Flood.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80597 - 05/06/06 01:57 AM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Husband and Father
Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 7070
Loc: Brisbane, Australia
|
Hmmm, OK David, I'm very much not convinced by that case, but let's let it slide for the moment. Even if we did accept that evidence, the Flood is actually a side issue to the origins discussion, and even the fossil record discussion, unless your claim is that the Flood is to be the catch-all explanation for the entirety of the fossil record, or at least any inconvenient bits. Is that the case? or are there parts of the fossil record that the Flood does not neatly explain? If that's your claim we could then test that claim, but it's in essence another 'deus ex machina': any time the discussion gets difficult the Flood can simply be invoked. That being the case, there's really no further point in discussing the fossil record in the context of origins. We're cast back on radiometric dating to talk about the age of the earth. But then, with your contention that the rocks are very old and Genesis is talking only of the creation of life, that avenue is closed too. Bottom line: we can keep bringing evidence forever, but you already have explanations ready. It's my contention that many of those explanations use a logical fallacy whereby if some small facet of a discipline or explanation is open to question the entire explanation is considered invalidated. That may be due to a lack of understanding of the nature of science: science is not well adapted to yield certainty, and is instead about an on-going process of testing and challenging explanations. But some explanations are pretty robustly supported by all the evidence we have so far. I remain completely willing to continue the discussion, but we can all see the progressive process by which I keep narrowing the discussion or moving away from particular areas. That's not me being strategic or trying to shift the 'battle' (just a metaphor!) to ground that is more favourable to my point. Nor is it me being convinced of your points. It is me recognising that you have made up your mind in a particular area (from my perspective, in defiance of some pretty strong evidence), and that there is no further point discussing that point. To be very clear - I am not accusing you of intellectual dishonesty. I am saying that 'what we have here is a failure to communicate'  - because the modes of argumentation in science and theology are quite different. You need to understand that scientific theories are not constructed like stone archways, where the loss of one stone tumbles the archway. Rather, they are like drystone walls, where one stone can fall out and be replaced by a better one. (There's a whole other conversation about Popper, Kuhn and Lakatos and the ways scientific theories change to be had here, but I'm not sure if anyone is interested.)
_________________________
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80598 - 05/06/06 02:13 AM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 4699
Loc: New England
|
Quote:
*The fossils in the photographs would seem to support the belief in a Flood;
It is a HUGE LEAP OF FAITH to go from 'local flood' to 'world wide flood' - one for which you have presented NO evidence.
Quote:
*Some arguments presented by evolutionists seem very weak, and in some cases specious;
Which ones do you think are weak? Of course some will be - because (a) there are people who are not fully on top of the matter making arguments, and (b) the range of arguments will run from the very solid to the 'hint at' variety. However I hope you are not writing off the solid ones just because you don't understand them properly.
Quote:
*There are phenomena which seem consistent with a Flood, for which evolutionists have no answers;
Which ones?
Quote:
*Based on the available evidence, neither theory--long-age evolution and recent Creation--has ready answers for all observed phenomena.
I have already provided a long list of very specific issues for which the short-age people have no good answers. Which observed phenomona do you think the evolutionists lack a plausible answer for?
Quote:
The evidence thus far considered, would seem to support the possibility of the occurrence of a Flood.
This is solely because the only evidence you have considered so far is 'fossils are made by quickly preserving things'. This evidence is unable to easily distinquish between many local floods and one global flood.
If you only discuss things that can't distinguish, of course it will 'seem to support the possibility'. You have to discuss things that can distinguish the possibilities.
/Bevin
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
SEARCH OUR SITE
|
|
This full membership income helps pay for hosting, advertising, domain names, software support etc etc
|
|
|
64 registered (aldona, Beryl, Bravus, Bruno, bygjymbo, c freeland, carolaa, CoAspen, Coulsty, Curly, darlene, dgrimm60, Dottie, fca, fccool, forgie, Gerry Cabalo, Gladussee, Heather Cummings, iramos, Jerry D Thomas, John317, Kevin H, Kountzer, lazarus, LifeHiscost, Lineman, Liz, Loren Fenton, LynnDel, max, Maxi, melvin mccarty, mikeyswen79, Nan, Neil D, Nightingale, Norman, olger, pkrause, Planey, Redwood, Robert, Sapphire, SMAN, Taylor, vern, 17 invisible),
400
Guests and
239
Spiders online. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Registered: 10/18/02
Posts: 612
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index
