Question for Creationists

[Meow Mix]

Your OP states that there is an order of complexity in the strata and now you are back-tracking, that's fine.

Clarifying isn't back-tracking, but indeed that's fine. Neither here nor there.

Plants and animals lived in different evological zones. For example, tigers don't live in the water, but fish do. We wouldn't expect to find plants or animals in certain parts of the geological column as much as we wouldn't expect to find a rabbit fossil in the ocean.

"There are many geological, behavioral, and physiological factors expected to affect the sorting of animals into strata during a flood as described in the Bible, such as evological zonation, hydrological sorting and liquefaction, differential escape, biogeographic zonation, and tetonic activity." "The fossils in the geological column demonstrate this expected trend. The first organisms to be buried were the bottom dwelling creatures, followed by free-swimming marine life forms, cold blooded, then warm-blooded, and then humans. It is obvious that organisms possess varying abilities to survive environmental stress (i.e. cold blooded animals such as reptiles are extremely sensitive to temperature fluctuations, and amphibian will die upon contact with salt water)."
Fossil sorting - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

That's ridiculous, why are different plants found in different strata then? Do all flowering plants, from smallest to largest, uproot and float just the same? I really want to know how anyone can really believe this, please tell me there is better justification for creationist rationalization.

Also what about flying organisms and arboreal organisms? Mountain organisms? Why aren't ALL of them found higher up in the strata if it was rapid?

 

[Man of Faith]

Stratas form over time.

The reason you can't see or agree with the evidence is because of this right here. Your assumption is that stratas form over long periods of time. My assumption is they formed during a global flood. There are many instances of fossils being found in the "wrong" column, so much so that famed Victorian philosopher Herbert Spencer commented on the illogicity of the geologic column in his appropriately-named essay, Illogical Geology.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The reason you can't see or agree with the evidence is because of this right here. Your assumption is that stratas form over long periods of time.

It's not an assumption. It's an accepted fact in the scientific field of geology.

There are many instances of fossils being found in the "wrong" column, so much so that famed Victorian philosopher Herbert Spencer commented on the illogicity of the geologic column in his appropriately-named essay, Illogical Geology.

Name some examples, then.

Also, Herbert Spencer was a Darwinist.

 

[Autodidact]

The reason you can't see or agree with the evidence is because of this right here. Your assumption is that stratas form over long periods of time. There are many instances of fossils being found in the "wrong" column, .

Really? Name ten.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Wow that's really relevant to modern science. Quoting a Victorian (i.e. 120 plus years ago) philosopher (which is not a science).

 

[evolved yet?]

How did the freshwater fish survive in the salt water ocean?

 

[DeitySlayer]

Er more importantly...how did deepsea species which EXPLODE under the lessened pressure higher up the ocean survive when the ocean was shallower and the pressure lesser?

 

[Autodidact]

Your OP states that there is an order of complexity in the strata and now you are back-tracking, that's fine.




Plants and animals lived in different evological zones. For example, tigers don't live in the water, but fish do. We wouldn't expect to find plants or animals in certain parts of the geological column as much as we wouldn't expect to find a rabbit fossil in the ocean.

"There are many geological, behavioral, and physiological factors expected to affect the sorting of animals into strata during a flood as described in the Bible, such as evological zonation, hydrological sorting and liquefaction, differential escape, biogeographic zonation, and tetonic activity." "The fossils in the geological column demonstrate this expected trend. The first organisms to be buried were the bottom dwelling creatures, followed by free-swimming marine life forms, cold blooded, then warm-blooded, and then humans. It is obvious that organisms possess varying abilities to survive environmental stress (i.e. cold blooded animals such as reptiles are extremely sensitive to temperature fluctuations, and amphibian will die upon contact with salt water)."
Fossil sorting - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Why would warm-blooded creatures expect to be found higher than cold-blooded?

O.K. so what we actually find doesn't conform with that at all. "Free-swimming marine life forms" such as dolphins are in higher strata than cold-blooded organisms such as extinct reptiles.

In short, the fossil record does not match this description at all. The hypothesis has been disproved. FAIL

So again why are older flying organisms in older strata than newer ground-dwelling organisms? Why are flowers always higher than extinct ferns?

 

[Autodidact]

The reason you can't see or agree with the evidence is because of this right here. Your assumption is that stratas form over long periods of time. My assumption is they formed during a global flood. .

Yes, you're quite right, that is your problem right there. Ours is not an assumption, it is a conclusion based on the evidence, which is the opposite of an assumption. Yours is an assumption, and an incorrect one.

But this would be a great place for all those "creation scientists" to actually do science! They assert that strata form quickly, many thousands of them in just a few days. So they should be able to duplicate that process and produce a few thousand strata in a year or so, thereby giving their hypothesis support. I wonder why they haven't done so, don't you?

Maybe it's because if they failed to do so, they would have disproven their own hypothesis, and they don't want to take the chance?

 

[Autodidact]

The reason you can't see or agree with the evidence is because of this right here. Your assumption is that stratas form over long periods of time. My assumption is they formed during a global flood. There are many instances of fossils being found in the "wrong" column, so much so that famed Victorian philosopher Herbert Spencer commented on the illogicity of the geologic column in his appropriately-named essay, Illogical Geology.

And since actual Geology stopped in the 18th century, we haven't learned anything at all since then.

 

[David M]

I was reading through the article Odin linked and i found something interesting.

They formed a hypothesis, made a prediction, and tested it! Holy crap! This is huge! Hell, if you ignore all the other geological information indicating the contrary it's even a reasonable conclusion. If we can get them to keep doing that they'll eventually figure out what really happened and stop with this nonsense!

Thing is that is the one piece of evidence you would not expect to see if there was a global flood.

Said flood is supposed to have laid down huge numbers of sedimentary layers, to do that it has to erode something at a higher altitude - that being these very mountains.

So either the mountains were higher and already contained the fossils which were then exposed (in which case we need even more times as much water as exists on the earth) or the fossils were laid down by a flood that deposited the sediment on the mountains (without filling any intervening landscape) plus enough extra sediment for the fossil-bearing sediment to turn into rock, this sediment would then need to be eroded, it still needs something even higher than the current mountains and so deeper flood with more of that water that we don't have enough of.

Any argument that the mountains were raised post-flood is garbage, firstly you stll need enough time for the fossil bearing sedimet to become rock, also rapid uplift leaves fractures and features that we do not see in these mountains and finally uplift at the rate that would be required would cause such devastating earthquakes the some of the civilaisations around then would have noticed.

 

[Christian Doc]

I will declare from the outset that I am a bible believing creationist.

My scientific background include science A levels, Pharmacology degree, medical degree. Read around the topic extensively during university.

Started out as an evolutionist during A levels. When studying biochemistry at uni (as part of above degrees), there was no answer for irreducible complexity (ref Behe's work - Darwin's black box) and when studying medicine the theory of evolution just didn't sit with the genetics that I studied. Mutations are always loss of information resulting in loss of function. The "best" that evolutionists could come up with was sickle trait - which causes sickle cell disease with some protection against malaria. However, this again is LOSS of information.


I have read through the thread so far and the big assumption that you are all making is that Geology has PROVEN that sedimentary rock takes millions/billions of years to form.

See the above --
"But this would be a great place for all those "creation scientists" to actually do science! They assert that strata form quickly, many thousands of them in just a few days. So they should be able to duplicate that process and produce a few thousand strata in a year or so, thereby giving their hypothesis support. I wonder why they haven't done so, don't you?

Maybe it's because if they failed to do so, they would have disproven their own hypothesis, and they don't want to take the chance?"



However, this is just not the case. The eruption of Mt St.Helen has PROVEN that fine sedementary rock can be deposited in a matter of hours. Large amounts of sedementary rock has been laid down and even massive canyons have been formed. THis all within the lifetime of many of us here (I however was very young!!) If you don't believe me, check it out - Mt St Helens produced a miniature grand canyon in the space of a couple years.

Thus, the assumption that the geology has proven that sedementary rock takes billions of years to form is quite ludicrous and needs to be re-evaluated in light of the evidence that we have.

It was acceptable previously to think this - it is no longer acceptable. With new evidence, theories must be adjusted.



I am a believer in a global flood. I think it is important to emphasise that with any global flood there would be massive tectonic plate movement and this would unleash massive volcanic activity - making Mount St.Helens look like a party cracker! Thus, the amount of material being deposited in a short space of time could account for a large percentage of the fossil record.

If you think the global flood would only involve water, then it does not explain the entire global flood. However, if you factor in volcanic activity, massive tectonic plate movement etc --> then it becomes a little easier to understand.


As an aside to the above, I find it humourous the number of tv programs I see where something like this happens - "What we see here is evidence of sea animals living here, therefore this area would have been a sea."

Talk about not being able to see the forest for the trees.


Hope that I have at least shown that there is evidence for what Creationists say.

What evidence do you have that the strata took hundreds of millions of years?

 

[Autodidact]

I will declare from the outset that I am a bible believing creationist.

My scientific background include science A levels, Pharmacology degree, medical degree. Read around the topic extensively during university.

Started out as an evolutionist during A levels. When studying biochemistry at uni (as part of above degrees), there was no answer for irreducible complexity (ref Behe's work - Darwin's black box) and when studying medicine the theory of evolution just didn't sit with the genetics that I studied. Mutations are always loss of information resulting in loss of function. The "best" that evolutionists could come up with was sickle trait - which causes sickle cell disease with some protection against malaria. However, this again is LOSS of information.


I have read through the thread so far and the big assumption that you are all making is that Geology has PROVEN that sedimentary rock takes millions/billions of years to form.

See the above --
"But this would be a great place for all those "creation scientists" to actually do science! They assert that strata form quickly, many thousands of them in just a few days. So they should be able to duplicate that process and produce a few thousand strata in a year or so, thereby giving their hypothesis support. I wonder why they haven't done so, don't you?

Maybe it's because if they failed to do so, they would have disproven their own hypothesis, and they don't want to take the chance?"



However, this is just not the case. The eruption of Mt St.Helen has PROVEN that fine sedementary rock can be deposited in a matter of hours. Large amounts of sedementary rock has been laid down and even massive canyons have been formed. THis all within the lifetime of many of us here (I however was very young!!) If you don't believe me, check it out - Mt St Helens produced a miniature grand canyon in the space of a couple years.

Thus, the assumption that the geology has proven that sedementary rock takes billions of years to form is quite ludicrous and needs to be re-evaluated in light of the evidence that we have.

It was acceptable previously to think this - it is no longer acceptable. With new evidence, theories must be adjusted.



I am a believer in a global flood. I think it is important to emphasise that with any global flood there would be massive tectonic plate movement and this would unleash massive volcanic activity - making Mount St.Helens look like a party cracker! Thus, the amount of material being deposited in a short space of time could account for a large percentage of the fossil record.

If you think the global flood would only involve water, then it does not explain the entire global flood. However, if you factor in volcanic activity, massive tectonic plate movement etc --> then it becomes a little easier to understand.


As an aside to the above, I find it humourous the number of tv programs I see where something like this happens - "What we see here is evidence of sea animals living here, therefore this area would have been a sea."

Talk about not being able to see the forest for the trees.


Hope that I have at least shown that there is evidence for what Creationists say.

What evidence do you have that the strata took hundreds of millions of years?

I'm going to put it right out there. As far as your description of your background--I don't believe you. I accuse you of lying. I don't believe that you're a doctor, that you have studied Biology or ever understood or accepted evolution.

You did not respond to the question. Why are the older, more primitive, extinct species always in the bottom, older layers of rock, while the newer species, such as mammals, are always in the newer layers. Whether you agree with geology that the layers represent millions of years, or think they took five minutes, why are all the pterodactyls lower than all the moles? Why are all the giant ferns lower than all the flowers? For that matter, why are the giant ferns lower than the naked mole-rats, that live underground? How would a flood accomplish that?

 

[Sunstone]

I'm sure this one has been done before but not in my lifetime on this board.

Can creationists please explain why we find biological life stratified in an undeniable order of complexity from oldest strata to newer strata?

For instance, why no flowering plants in the cretaceous or before? If it was because of a flood, did they all uproot and run uphill?

The devil did it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I will declare from the outset that I am a bible believing creationist.

My scientific background include science A levels, Pharmacology degree, medical degree. Read around the topic extensively during university.

Started out as an evolutionist during A levels. When studying biochemistry at uni (as part of above degrees), there was no answer for irreducible complexity (ref Behe's work - Darwin's black box)

Irreducible complexity has already been disproved. Scientists removed several of it's components and found it was fully functional as a type-two secretory system (The Flagellum Unspun). To date, there has been not a single successful or supported claim for the existence of any irreducibly complex biological system.

and when studying medicine the theory of evolution just didn't sit with the genetics that I studied.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to call you either a liar or deluded on this one. Evolution's strongest supporting evidence is genetics.

Mutations are always loss of information resulting in loss of function. The "best" that evolutionists could come up with was sickle trait - which causes sickle cell disease with some protection against malaria. However, this again is LOSS of information.

Are you really a medical student? This is, simply, flat-out false. Mutations have been observed to cause an increase information in the genome: CB102: Mutations adding information

I have read through the thread so far and the big assumption that you are all making is that Geology has PROVEN that sedimentary rock takes millions/billions of years to form.

They don't have to, they just did.

See the above --
"But this would be a great place for all those "creation scientists" to actually do science! They assert that strata form quickly, many thousands of them in just a few days. So they should be able to duplicate that process and produce a few thousand strata in a year or so, thereby giving their hypothesis support. I wonder why they haven't done so, don't you?

Maybe it's because if they failed to do so, they would have disproven their own hypothesis, and they don't want to take the chance?"



However, this is just not the case. The eruption of Mt St.Helen has PROVEN that fine sedementary rock can be deposited in a matter of hours. Large amounts of sedementary rock has been laid down and even massive canyons have been formed. THis all within the lifetime of many of us here (I however was very young!!) If you don't believe me, check it out - Mt St Helens produced a miniature grand canyon in the space of a couple years.

Are you suggesting that all the sedimentary layers of the earth were created in a couple of years? How many volcanoes do you think earth has?

Thus, the assumption that the geology has proven that sedementary rock takes billions of years to form is quite ludicrous and needs to be re-evaluated in light of the evidence that we have.

No, it doesn't. It is a well established fact of geology that the sedimentary layers of the earth's crust formed over millions of years. Your "volcano" evidence is no different to me spilling a bottle of water and saying "this proves that oceans can be formed in a matter of seconds! We need to seriously re-evaluate the evidence!"

No, it doesn't need to be reevaluated. The evidence has been tried, tested and verified millions of times over and the fact remains. The fact that sedimentary layers can form rapidly (in extremely isolated incidents) does nothing to refute the mountain of evidence in favor of the conclusion that the vast majority of the earth's sedimentary layers did not.

It was acceptable previously to think this - it is no longer acceptable. With new evidence, theories must be adjusted.

Except this isn't evidence of anything.

I am a believer in a global flood. I think it is important to emphasise that with any global flood there would be massive tectonic plate movement and this would unleash massive volcanic activity - making Mount St.Helens look like a party cracker! Thus, the amount of material being deposited in a short space of time could account for a large percentage of the fossil record.

Now just demonstrate that a global flood happened.

If you think the global flood would only involve water, then it does not explain the entire global flood. However, if you factor in volcanic activity, massive tectonic plate movement etc --> then it becomes a little easier to understand.

In what way?

As an aside to the above, I find it humourous the number of tv programs I see where something like this happens - "What we see here is evidence of sea animals living here, therefore this area would have been a sea."

Talk about not being able to see the forest for the trees.

What are you talking about?

Hope that I have at least shown that there is evidence for what Creationists say.

Actually, you haven't. All you've done is try to present evidence that is contrary to the established theories - you have yet to present a single piece of evidence of creation.

What evidence do you have that the strata took hundreds of millions of years?

Geochronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

The devil did it.

some do believe this.

 

[Autodidact]

See the above --

"But this would be a great place for all those "creation scientists" to actually do science! They assert that strata form quickly, many thousands of them in just a few days. So they should be able to duplicate that process and produce a few thousand strata in a year or so, thereby giving their hypothesis support. I wonder why they haven't done so, don't you?

Maybe it's because if they failed to do so, they would have disproven their own hypothesis, and they don't want to take the chance?"

However, this is just not the case. The eruption of Mt St.Helen has PROVEN that fine sedementary rock can be deposited in a matter of hours. Large amounts of sedementary rock has been laid down and even massive canyons have been formed. THis all within the lifetime of many of us here (I however was very young!!) If you don't believe me, check it out - Mt St Helens produced a miniature grand canyon in the space of a couple years.

Thus, the assumption that the geology has proven that sedementary rock takes billions of years to form is quite ludicrous and needs to be re-evaluated in light of the evidence that we have.

Really? Then I suppose you will have no problem producing the many peer-reviewed, published and fascinating scientific articles detailing the many layers of sedimentary--not volcanic--rock produced by this volcanic explosion?

What evidence do you have that the strata took hundreds of millions of years?

The Mt. St. Helens volcanic strata? They didn't.

 

[Autodidact]

Christian:

What is your hypothesis for how we get many different species of organisms? Exactly how are you saying God created all the different species we see?

 

[Christian Doc]

Autodidact - I am surprised by your open accusation of lying.

I do not know how you want me to prove that I am a doctor and also have a degree in Pharmacology. I can assure you that I do. I have a 2:1 from a well known university in London.

But, I shall continue on despite the unnecessary slur on my honesty.


You should respond to me putting forward evidence that large amounts of geological strata was formed in hours!


Back to your question.

First thing to note - your question is phrased in a way that ASSUMES you are right. A sign that you are not entirely objective in this, an unfortunate mindset if you are saying that you are being scientific.

If you re-read what I said you will notice that I am suggesting that multiple large volcanic eruptions could account for large depositions of strata.

The flood account records months of global flood - which would also suggest months/years of tectonic activity with multiple deposits = multiple occurances of burials.

Everytime these occured, potentially different ecosystems would be buried - they could be transported large distances.

So, where they are buried does not necessarily equate with where they lived. But it is suggestive that they are buried in close proximity with what they lived with.


In terms of the examples you have given, do you want to provide exact examples of this order? i.e. particular excavations that gave such layering? It is difficult to comment on such a general statement that lacks any concrete examples - just a few examples is what I ask for.

And then we can discuss whether a global flood with the mechanisms I have suggested could account for the appearances or not. I suspect that actually you may not be able to imagine quite was going on at the time of the global flood.


But here is another question for you - how were fossils formed?

The creationist argument is clear - they were buried rapidly during the global flood.

How do you account for them?

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

tortoises are found higher than, say, a raptor or T-rex.

The tortoises lived in a different place then the T-Rex.

The T-Rex eat coconuts before the fall of Adam and Eve. They could only live were there were palm trees. I think T Rex was a beach bum.