Life From Dirt?

[Subduction Zone]

P.S. I was told by a poster that lava is NOT sediment. but according to what I read, it is. Do you agree that lava is considered as sediment? Maybe I forgot, but that's what I remember I read. So if it is, that should be a point of agreement.

Yes, liquid lava is not a sediment. Volcanic ash is volcanic, but it is not liquid. People will argue both ways about it. If fits more than one category. But the minerals in volcanic ash are crystalline. Leaching is not something that crystals do, unless it is a crystal of a salt.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If I'm wrong I don't mind being corrected in a kind way. So do you agree that sediment is something that moves?

That question is not asked all that well. Individual sediments will move, until they are deposited. Once deposited they tend to stay in place. How would they be moved if they were not eroded away first?

So when we see layers of sedimentary rocks, that was the way that they were deposited.

Sometimes deposition stops and erosion can occur for a while. That leaves a record. They can usually be spotted. That sharp borderline between layers is called an "unconformity" if it happens.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, liquid lava is not a sediment. Volcanic ash is volcanic, but it is not liquid. People will argue both ways about it. If fits more than one category. But the minerals in volcanic ash are crystalline. Leaching is not something that crystals do, unless it is a crystal of a salt.

I was using the definition of sediment from National Geographic. Again, it says,

Lavas are volcanic rocks, not sediments. The sea-floor can be muddy or limey as well as sandy.

Preservation of fossils in tar appears to be very rare. According to McKittrick Tar Pits - Wikipedia , there are only five natural asphalt lake areas in the world, three of which are in California, although Binagadi asphalt lake - Wikipedia provides a sixth example (in Azerbaijan).

I didn't make it up. That is what was said in National Geographic. Do you disagree with the following statement? "For an organism to be fossilized, the remains usually need to be covered by sediment soon after death. Sediment can include the sandy seafloor, lava, and even sticky tar." So from what I see, sediment can include lava.
You might want to check it out: Sediment

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, liquid lava is not a sediment. Volcanic ash is volcanic, but it is not liquid. People will argue both ways about it. If fits more than one category. But the minerals in volcanic ash are crystalline. Leaching is not something that crystals do, unless it is a crystal of a salt.

I'm not getting into anything more than what sediment is. And from what I read, lava is considered sediment. Sediment

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was using the definition of sediment from National Geographic. Again, it says,

I didn't make it up. That is what was said in National Geographic. Do you disagree with the following statement? "For an organism to be fossilized, the remains usually need to be covered by sediment soon after death. Sediment can include the sandy seafloor, lava, and even sticky tar." So from what I see, sediment can include lava.
You might want to check it out: Sediment

That quote is not in there. I even specifically searched for "lava" and that word is not anywhere in that article. Are you reading a translation? Translations can get words wrong. And then when you talk to someone reading it in its original form that word is not to be found.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not getting into anything more than what sediment is. And from what I read, lava is considered sediment. Sediment

Once again, I used the find function. You hit the control key and the letter f at the lame time. It will find the word for you. It also tells you how many times it is found on the page. The word "lava" does not appear even once in the article that you linked.

 

[YoursTrue]

That question is not asked all that well. Individual sediments will move, until they are deposited. Once deposited they tend to stay in place. How would they beE moved if they were not eroded away first?

So when we see layers of sedimentisary rocks, that was the way that they were deposited.

Sometimes deposition stops and erosion can occur for a while. That leaves a record. They can usually be spotted. That sharp borderline between layers is called an "unconformity" if it happens.

Regarding your expression of individual sediments, and yes, I'm not an expert, but here is what I found about molten lava and magma. "Lava is molten or partially molten rock (magma) that has been expelled from the interior of a terrestrial planet (such as Earth) or a moon onto its surface" Lava, of course, as far as I know, stops flowing at a certain point. So apparently it consists of molten rock or partially molten rock expelled from the interior (for this conversation) of the earth. Lava - Wikipedia
There's more, but lava is said to consist of rock, molten or partially molten. I can only imagine how hot it is since it is said to eradicate everything in its way. The point is that it's rock that comes from underneath the surface of the earth.

 

[YoursTrue]

That quote is not in there. I even specifically searched for "lava" and that word is not anywhere in that article. Are you reading a translation? Translations can get words wrong. And then when you talk to someone reading it in its original form that word is not to be found.

ok, I'll look for it again.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Subduction Zone Maybe you can find it here, but it's a few paragraphs down. This is the quote "For an organism to be fossilized, the remains usually need to be covered by sediment soon after death. Sediment can include the sandy seafloor, lava, and even sticky tar." Fossil
You can find it if you search the quote, but I believe the link should show it. It says that sediment can INCLUDE lava. "Sediment can include the sandy seafloor, lava, and even sticky tar." And as I kept looking for it, while I thought of lava as a very, very hot substance coming from a volcano eruption, apparently lava is LIQUID rock. Maybe? The rock cools down at a certain point as it settles on the earth.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Subduction Zone 3rd paragraph under the subheading "Fossilization" Fossil
OK, you're right, I linked the article Sediment, not Fossil. Sorry about that. It's under Fossil, not Sediment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone Maybe you can find it here, but it's a few paragraphs down. This is the quote "For an organism to be fossilized, the remains usually need to be covered by sediment soon after death. Sediment can include the sandy seafloor, lava, and even sticky tar." Fossil
You can find it if you search the quote, but I believe the link should show it. It says that sediment can INCLUDE lava. "Sediment can include the sandy seafloor, lava, and even sticky tar." And as I kept looking for it, while I thought of lava as a very, very hot substance coming from a volcano eruption, apparently lava is LIQUID rock. Maybe? The rock cools down at a certain point as it settles on the earth.

That is a different article than your "sediment" one. And they are simply wrong. Lava is not a sediment. Piece of solidified lave could be sediment. Now volcanic ash is borderline, but why are you fixated on exceptions? You cannot disprove the concepts being discussed with exceptions.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is a different article than your "sediment" one. And they are simply wrong. Lava is not a sediment. Piece of solidified lave could be sediment. Now volcanic ash is borderline, but why are you fixated on exceptions? You cannot disprove the concepts being discussed with exceptions.

ok, I understand your point, BUT -- from what I read, lava is molten rock. I'm not fixated on exceptions, and from the recognition of molten rock being lava, I would have to agree that lava is sediment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

ok, I understand your point, BUT -- from what I read, lava is molten rock. I'm not fixated on exceptions, and from the recognition of molten rock being lava, I would have to agree that lava is sediment.

No, sediments are made up of pieces of rock that have been eroded and redeposited. So sediment could be totally made up of eroded and redeposited lava, but it is not "lava" itself.

Wikipedia is a better source for general scientific knowledge:

"Sediment is a naturally occurring material that is broken down by processes of weathering and erosion, and is subsequently transported by the action of wind, water, or ice or by the force of gravity acting on the particles. For example, sand and silt can be carried in suspension in river water and on reaching the sea bed deposited by sedimentation; if buried, they may eventually become sandstone and siltstone (sedimentary rocks) through lithification."

Sediment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The law of monophy: species never outgrow their ancestry.
Yes, all canidae descendents remain canidae. Just like all canidae and felines remain mammals. Just like all mammals remains vertebrates. Just like all vertebrates remain eukaryotes. Etc.

Your "logic" here makes no sense at all and exposes a rather willfull ignorance of the subject matter.

PS: the same "logic" here also means that humans and the other great apes (chimps, bonobo's, gorilla's, oerang utangs) share ancestors. They all "remain" apes / primates.


The only thing interesting here, is how you draw arbitrary lines just to make reality fit your biblical interpretations, while ignoring all evidence that the lines are completely arbitrary and that our collective ancestral history stretches way further back then the mere arbitrary "family" level.

My comments were intended for @YoursTrue , because I knew she’d understand it.

You said, I’m “ignoring all evidence”.
That’s rich, because you only have one line of evidence: some living creatures have the same genes.

Most scientists who see these same genes in other organisms automatically jump to the conclusion, “Oh, because these organisms ‘share’ the same genes, it must mean they are related!”

It eludes them, that a Designer could simply have duplicated them in the origination of such unrelated species. And they then stay within their “kinds.”


Honestly, sharing the same genetic structure, could just as well be evidence that all Families(?) / Orders(?) of creatures were designed by one Creator, using the same genetic DNA blueprint! And they diversified from there.

The Cambrian Explosion and the Fossil record both tend to support this conclusion, whether you deny it or not.

But I know that you have a lot of faith in the creative power of ToE.

 

[ratiocinator]

That’s rich, because you only have one line of evidence: some living creatures have the same genes.

This is a massive misrepresentation. It both ignores most of the genetic evidence but also ignores all the other evidence. As far as genetics goes the it's not just that organisms share genes, that really wouldn't do and wouldn't convince anybody.

If you were right about that being the extent of the evidence, you'd be right to dismiss it. This is why creationists always have to misrepresent what the evidence is, and can never deal with the real evidence. If you genuinely think that organisms sharing genes is all the evidence we have from genetics, then you either haven't done your homework, you have been lied to, or you've learnt from somebody else who hasn't done their homework or has been lied to.

In genetics, it's the exact nature of the differences, as much as the similarities, that's important, as well as non-functional, mutated genes and the exact differences between those. There is also statistical evidence from the differences.

As a small example, humans still have a mutated version of a gene for making egg yoke, that is left over from our egg laying ancestors.

Also:

Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Evolution from DNA Sequences

We demonstrate quantitatively that, as predicted by evolutionary theory, sequences of homologous proteins from different species converge as we go further and further back in time. The converse, a non-evolutionary model can be expressed as probabilities, and the test works for chloroplast...

journals.plos.org

 

[Astrophile]

Most scientists who see these same genes in other organisms automatically jump to the conclusion, “Oh, because these organisms ‘share’ the same genes, it must mean they are related!”

It eludes them, that a Designer could simply have duplicated them in the origination of such unrelated species. And they then stay within their “kinds.”

What observational or experimental test could distinguish between these two hypotheses?

 

[Subduction Zone]

My comments were intended for @YoursTrue , because I knew she’d understand it.

You said, I’m “ignoring all evidence”.
That’s rich, because you only have one line of evidence: some living creatures have the same genes.

Most scientists who see these same genes in other organisms automatically jump to the conclusion, “Oh, because these organisms ‘share’ the same genes, it must mean they are related!”

It eludes them, that a Designer could simply have duplicated them in the origination of such unrelated species. And they then stay within their “kinds.”


Honestly, sharing the same genetic structure, could just as well be evidence that all Families(?) / Orders(?) of creatures were designed by one Creator, using the same genetic DNA blueprint! And they diversified from there.

The Cambrian Explosion and the Fossil record both tend to support this conclusion, whether you deny it or not.

But I know that you have a lot of faith in the creative power of ToE.

First off, no, you cannot claim that some observation supports your beliefs unless you can form them as a proper testable hypothesis. This appears to be beyond the abilities of any creationist. In the sciences one must put one's money where one's mouth is so to speak.

Second as to 'kinds" no creationist has come up with a working definition of what a kind is yet. You can wave your hands, but in all of them they tend to shoot themselves in the foot.


But maybe, just maybe, you are in on some key creationist discovery. Please tell us what you testable hypothesis of creationism is. Please tell us how one can determine if two separate populations of animals are the same kind or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is a massive misrepresentation. It both ignores most of the genetic evidence but also ignores all the other evidence. As far as genetics goes the it's not just that organisms share genes, that really wouldn't do and wouldn't convince anybody.

If you were right about that being the extent of the evidence, you'd be right to dismiss it. This is why creationists always have to misrepresent what the evidence is, and can never deal with the real evidence. If you genuinely think that organisms sharing genes is all the evidence we have from genetics, then you either haven't done your homework, you have been lied to, or you've learnt from somebody else who hasn't done their homework or has been lied to.

In genetics, it's the exact nature of the differences, as much as the similarities, that's important, as well as non-functional, mutated genes and the exact differences between those. There is also statistical evidence from the differences.

As a small example, humans still have a mutated version of a gene for making egg yoke, that is left over from our egg laying ancestors.

Also:

Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Evolution from DNA Sequences

We demonstrate quantitatively that, as predicted by evolutionary theory, sequences of homologous proteins from different species converge as we go further and further back in time. The converse, a non-evolutionary model can be expressed as probabilities, and the test works for chloroplast...

journals.plos.org

What observational or experimental test could distinguish between these two hypotheses?

I see that I was late to the party. I am not the only one that saw through @Hockeycowboy 's empty claims.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, sediments are made up of pieces of rock that have been eroded and redeposited. So sediment could be totally made up of eroded and redeposited lava, but it is not "lava" itself.

Wikipedia is a better source for general scientific knowledge:

"Sediment is a naturally occurring material that is broken down by processes of weathering and erosion, and is subsequently transported by the action of wind, water, or ice or by the force of gravity acting on the particles. For example, sand and silt can be carried in suspension in river water and on reaching the sea bed deposited by sedimentation; if buried, they may eventually become sandstone and siltstone (sedimentary rocks) through lithification."

Sediment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm not going to argue this with you. National Geographic says that sediment can consist of lava, and lava is molten rock that flows.

 

[YoursTrue]

First off, no, you cannot claim that some observation supports your beliefs unless you can form them as a proper testable hypothesis. This appears to be beyond the abilities of any creationist. In the sciences one must put one's money where one's mouth is so to speak.

Second as to 'kinds" no creationist has come up with a working definition of what a kind is yet. You can wave your hands, but in all of them they tend to shoot themselves in the foot.


But maybe, just maybe, you are in on some key creationist discovery. Please tell us what you testable hypothesis of creationism is. Please tell us how one can determine if two separate populations of animals are the same kind or not.

What "observation" shows that lava is NOT sediment?