Fossils

Author: ronjs ,

Posts

Total: 22
ronjs
ronjs's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 260
0
2
2
ronjs's avatar
ronjs
0
2
2
Fossils were created by dead animals being buried deep enough so that the natural elements, predators, scavengers, micro organisms etc. couldn't destroy them before fossilization could take place. A worldwide flood would provide very good conditions for this to occur.
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 786
3
3
6
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
6
--> @ronjs
Floods are not known to organize much less organize by complexity. If you were to find a human fossil in the same strata as a dinosaur fossil then a flood could be considered. However, we dont find this. What we find is simpler organisms in lower/older strata and more complex organisms in shallower/younger strata. A flood does not explain this.






ronjs
ronjs's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 260
0
2
2
ronjs's avatar
ronjs
0
2
2
--> @SkepticalOne
Actually 95% of fossils consist  of shallow marine animals which were likely the first to be buried whereas other animals with more mobility could survive longer and be buried higher in the sedimentary layers. Mammals tend to float to the surface and could be food and/or landing places for birds and their bodies would be destroyed so we would not expect to find as many mammal fossils. The fossils are not organized by complexity since even the simplest life forms are incredibly complex.
 The quick deposition of the sedimentary layers can easily be observed by putting various sediments with water in a large beaker or other container and shaking it up and watching the layers form within a few minutes.  
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,659
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
--> @ronjs
The organization of fossils in strata does not support a sudden burial by a global flood.

SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 786
3
3
6
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
6
--> @ronjs
The fossils are not organized by complexity since even the simplest life forms are incredibly complex.

Unless you wish to argue multicellular organisms are less complex than single-celled organisms, we should agree on the fact that less complex fossils will be found in deepest (as well as shallowest) strata while more complex forms (and artifacts such as footprints, burrows, pottery, etc.) are found with increasing frequency as we move from deep to shallow (and not at all in the oldest, deepest layers).  Additionally, the diversity of life decreases as we explore older, deeper strata. 

How could a flood do this?

What's more problematic is that fossils caused by a global flood would all be the same age and several corroborating types of radiometric dating (as well as ice cores, dendrochronology, etc.) show this not to be the case.








ronjs
ronjs's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 260
0
2
2
ronjs's avatar
ronjs
0
2
2
--> @SkepticalOne
Add various organisms, from the alleged simple and upwards,  into a container of water and sediments, shake it up and observe how everything settles, it simply doesn't take millions of years. Very few fossils  would likely form because decay and predators would destroy the dead animals before fossilization could occur
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 786
3
3
6
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
6
--> @ronjs
First off, your analogy does not describe what we find. Shaking a hypothetical container of sediment and organisms does not yield rabbits (for example) only in the shallowest layers without fail. This is a significant problem for your explanation.

Secondly, fossilization is rare, but with billions of life forms "rare" is not a problem. Fossils are snap shots of moments in time and, as already mentioned, we know when these fossils lived by many corroborating methods of dating. You would need to show the dating methods significantly flawed before they can be dismissed.

Long story short: the fossil evidence does not match what we would expect to find from a global flood.


ronjs
ronjs's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 260
0
2
2
ronjs's avatar
ronjs
0
2
2
--> @SkepticalOne
The limitations of the dating method are well documented with many evolutionary scientists admitting that the results don't match their presuppositions (faith) and as a result they have also admitted, in publications, that they will fudge the figures to match their expected results. Personally, I prefer direct observation and repeatability to draw my conclusions. What one would expect to find from a global flood is millions of dead and fossilized animals buried in sediments laid down by water all over the globe, and that is what we find, how one interprets this evidence is the big difference.
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 786
3
3
6
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
6
Limitations of a tool is not the same thing as a flaw in a tool. A ruler cannot measure light years, but this limitation does not affect the accurate measurements it can make of a penci. Whatsmore, we can verify this measurements with other tools such as a tape measure. In context, carbon dating has a different application than U/Pb dating. Both are valid in the proper context, both are corroborated by other dating methods, and all tell us fossils were laid down at vastly different times.

If you'd like to talk more specifically about dating methods, we can, but I'll need you to provide more than vague references to unnamed scientists poo-pooing specific results. What I can say is that tools can be misunderstood and misused, but, again, this in no way diminishes their validity.

And lastly, as already mentioned, even without dating methods fossils have been deposited in a way not indicative of a global flood. For example, you will not find a dinosaur in the same strata as a human; you will not find modern vertebrates in the Pre-Cambrian. This is not an interpretation problem - it is direct observation contrary to the typical results of a flood.

Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,109
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Skept said the D word.  [email protected]*$%saur.


The WWF. World wide flood. 
I'm happy to go with a world wide flood if one can explain why God made then buried Dinosaur bones.



Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,713
2
1
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
1
2
--> @ronjs
The limitations of the dating method are well documented with many evolutionary scientists admitting that the results don't match their presuppositions (faith) and as a result they have also admitted, in publications, that they will fudge the figures to match their expected results.

That is a very obvious fabrication on your part. Try being honest, instead.
ronjs
ronjs's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 260
0
2
2
ronjs's avatar
ronjs
0
2
2
--> @Goldtop
 The article about scientists manipulating data comes from secular publications, Science or Nature magazines, from about two years ago, I do not recall which one it was but will look for the article.
ronjs
ronjs's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 260
0
2
2
ronjs's avatar
ronjs
0
2
2
--> @Deb-8-a-bull
Dinosaurs were created on the same day as other animals until, like other animals died in the flood, with some becoming extinct and some with us still today.
ronjs
ronjs's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 260
0
2
2
ronjs's avatar
ronjs
0
2
2
--> @SkepticalOne
One wouldn't expect to find all living things at the same level because some bloat and float before sinking and being covered in sediment.
Also, I have provided a directly observable and repeatable experiment which indicates that sedimentation happens in a short time, can you provide me with one that directly shows that it takes millions of years?
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,713
2
1
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
1
2
--> @ronjs
 The article about scientists manipulating data comes from secular publications, Science or Nature magazines, from about two years ago, I do not recall which one it was but will look for the article.
Those are just pop-sci publications. So what. 

You haven't provided anything so we can conclude you have nothing to offer.
ronjs
ronjs's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 260
0
2
2
ronjs's avatar
ronjs
0
2
2
--> @Goldtop
So the two most prestigious science journals are now crap.....is that what your saying, does the science community agree with your evaluation? 
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,713
2
1
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
1
2
--> @ronjs
So the two most prestigious science journals are now crap.....is that what your saying, does the science community agree with your evaluation? 

They are pop-sci magazines written by folks who would sensationalize science. They aren't peer reviewed papers.

Besides, you still haven't produced anything to support your accusation.
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 1,532
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
--> @SkepticalOne
how have you formed this conclusion?

Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 1,532
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
Floods are not known to organize much less organize by complexity. If you were to find a human fossil in the same strata as a dinosaur fossil then a flood could be considered. However, we dont find this. What we find is simpler organisms in lower/older strata and more complex organisms in shallower/younger strata. A flood does not explain this.


SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 786
3
3
6
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
6
--> @Tradesecret
Observations across time.
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
--> @Goldtop
I don't know what articles you are referring to, but Science and Nature are both among the top peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,713
2
1
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
1
2
--> @Stronn
In a very broad sense where those magazines accept anything to review, I usually refer to sites like this for peer-reviewed papers