What do you do with missing evidence? Like the global dirth of mid Jurassic fossils

[sooda]

Dearth does not mean none.

He is an engineer and a creatinist, and he has patents. Thus, in his mind, he cannot be wrong on any subject.

I come from a family of engineers.. MIT and Ga Tech.

How about cretinist rather than creationist?

 

[whirlingmerc]

I've picked out some very small obvious mistake,
carefully chosen to be irrelevant to either side of
the discussion, and tried to get a concession of error.
I never have succeeded.

an utter inability to admit to even trivial error.

Twined with that is the mandate for intellectual
dishonesty; it is simply impossible to be both
an informed and intellectually honest yec.

A rare insight, that your acquaintance is aware
of his cannot-be-wrong problem. Perhaps
he will recover.

I admit being wrong quite frequently
However in this case there is a documented global dearth of evidence in the mid Jurassic of fossils
despite the great claimed length of time and agreed on by many non creationists

 

[sooda]

@whirlingmerc

Jurassic Period fossils

Image: louisvillefossils.blogspot.com
The Jurassic Period, 201 – 145 million years ago. The Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous periods make up the Mesozoic Era, the age of giant reptiles and dinosaurs. The Jurassic Coast is famous for fossils of Jurassic aged marine life.
Earth history and the Jurassic Coast - Jurassic Coast
jurassiccoast.org/about/what-is-the-jurassic-coast/earth-history-and-the-jurassic-coast/

la Brea Tar Pits is full of Jurassic period fossils.. You know that East Dover is the Jurassic Coast, don't you?

1. The Geology of the White Cliffs and the formation of the ...
   www.dadonline.eu/updates/the-geology-of-the-white-cliffs-and-the-formation-of-the-channel
   Dover is world famous for its iconic geological feature – The White Cliffs – of gleaming Chalk rock, the very symbol of England, and, likewise, the poem ‘Dover Beach’, with its opening line…“The sea is calm tonight, the tide is full and the moon lies fair upon the Strait…” by …
   
   
2. How were the white cliffs of Dover, England, formed? - The ...
   Papertrell : re-imagining books answer book...
   T he white cliffs of Dover are composed of a variety of protist fossil shells, including coccolithophores (a type of algae) and foraminiferans. Their process of formation took millions of years: After these protists died, their shells were deposited on the bottom of the ocean in a fine gray mud;

 

[Audie]

I admit being wrong quite frequently
However in this case there is a documented global dearth of evidence in the mid Jurassic of fossils
despite the great claimed length of time and agreed on by many non creationists

Lets say it is so that there is a lower incidence of
fossils from that period than for comparable ones.

So what? Is this a matter of some deep importance?

At what point does something become a
"dirth"? One percent fewer? 6.387%

Did you take into account that fossils may
be there in great numbers but if the strata
are not exposed at the surface, you wont see
them?

This whole thing seems silly and pointless.

 

[sooda]

Lets say it is so that there is a lower incidence of
fossils from that period than for comparable ones.

So what? Is this a matter of some deep importance?

At what point does something become a
"dirth"? One percent fewer? 6.387%

Did you take into account that fossils may
be there in great numbers but if the strata
are not exposed at the surface, you wont see
them?

This whole thing seems silly and pointless.

Its a dopey claim without merit.

1. Jurassic Period | Climate, Plants, Animals, & Facts ...
   www.britannica.com/science/Jurassic-Period
   Jurassic Period, second of three periods of the Mesozoic Era. Extending from 201.3 million to 145 million years ago, it immediately followed the Triassic Period (251.9 million to 201.3 million years ago) and was succeeded by the Cretaceous Period (145 million to 66 million years ago).
   
   
2. Jurassic Period Facts: Dinosaurs, Mammals, Plants
   www.livescience.com/28739-jurassic-period.html
   The Jurassic Period was the second segment of the Mesozoic Era. It occurred from 199.6 to 145.5 million years ago, following the Triassic Period and preceding the Cretaceous Period.
   

 

[Audie]

Its a dopey claim without merit.

1. Jurassic Period | Climate, Plants, Animals, & Facts ...
   www.britannica.com/science/Jurassic-Period
   Jurassic Period, second of three periods of the Mesozoic Era. Extending from 201.3 million to 145 million years ago, it immediately followed the Triassic Period (251.9 million to 201.3 million years ago) and was succeeded by the Cretaceous Period (145 million to 66 million years ago).
   
   
2. Jurassic Period Facts: Dinosaurs, Mammals, Plants
   www.livescience.com/28739-jurassic-period.html
   The Jurassic Period was the second segment of the Mesozoic Era. It occurred from 199.6 to 145.5 million years ago, following the Triassic Period and preceding the Cretaceous Period.

your cut n paste though does not address
whether it is dopey.
i wanted to know what possible reason he
even had for bringing the subject up, much
as I do not expect a reason.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I admit being wrong quite frequently
However in this case there is a documented global dearth of evidence in the mid Jurassic of fossils
despite the great claimed length of time and agreed on by many non creationists

There is only a "dearth" of terrestrial fossils. And that is not unreasonable. Right now we would have the same. There are few areas where what would be terrestrial fossils being deposited today. It takes a different depositional environment than exists now.

 

[sooda]

There is only a "dearth" of terrestrial fossils. And that is not unreasonable. Right now we would have the same. There are few areas where what would be terrestrial fossils being deposited today. It takes a different depositional environment than exists now.

Consider the White cliffs of Dover.

 

[Audie]

Consider the White cliffs of Dover.

Neither of you is making a lick of sense.

 

[sooda]

Neither of you is making a lick of sense.

Jurassic period. I am too tired to mess with morons. Later.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Neither of you is making a lick of sense.

During the specific time period that The OP spoke of there are relatively few fossils of land based life. Also known as terrestrial fossils. There are still plenty of sea based, or marine fossils from that time period.

Right now we are still technically in an "ice age" since we have ice sheets on Antarctica and Greenland. If those were melted, and if the seas were a bit warmer there would be more inland seas and some of those environments would be more conducive to the forming of land based animal fossils than we see today. I cannot personally name any areas where we would get such fossils. Wait! Thought of one. Areas like the La Brea tar pits come to mind. But that is an exceptionally small percentage of the land area.

 

[Audie]

During the specific time period that The OP spoke of there are relatively few fossils of land based life. Also known as terrestrial fossils. There are still plenty of sea based, or marine fossils from that time period.

Right now we are still technically in an "ice age" since we have ice sheets on Antarctica and Greenland. If those were melted, and if the seas were a bit warmer there would be more inland seas and some of those environments would be more conducive to the forming of land based animal fossils than we see today. I cannot personally name any areas where we would get such fossils. Wait! Thought of one. Areas like the La Brea tar pits come to mind. But that is an exceptionally small percentage of the land area.

All lakes are ephemeral. All are sedimentary basins.

 

[Audie]

Jurassic period. I am too tired to mess with morons. Later.

Ya got tired and were not making sense. No prob,
we all get like that. laters...

 

[Subduction Zone]

All lakes are ephemeral. All are sedimentary basins.

Yes, but they do not necessarily end up in the geologic column. Being above sea level the entire lack may be eroded away, including deposits, before being covered by other sediments. Also lakes do not tend to have the right conditions for preserving terrestrial life. In most of them deposition is too slow. Large lakes, with massive deposits, such as the one that made the Green River formation tend to only have fish in them as well since land based life will avoid deeper waters. I forgot the exact figure, but when it comes to fossils well over 90% are marine. Terrestrial fossils are extremely rare. Most land based species probably do not leave any fossil record. For example we are lucky, at least fossil-wise, that our ancestors left the forests. They did leave a record on dry land in areas. Those again are rather rare, many of them are found only because they are geologically recent. The branch that produced chimps have left almost no fossils since damp forest land may be one of the worst environments for fossils. We have a good record of our recent past but none at all for chimps and bonobos. Not finding land based fossils for a period of time is not that big of an issue. Now if there was a lack of marine fossils for a period of time where we expects such then he might have a point.

 

[Audie]

Yes, but they do not necessarily end up in the geologic column. Being above sea level the entire lack may be eroded away, including deposits, before being covered by other sediments. Also lakes do not tend to have the right conditions for preserving terrestrial life. In most of them deposition is too slow. Large lakes, with massive deposits, such as the one that made the Green River formation tend to only have fish in them as well since land based life will avoid deeper waters. I forgot the exact figure, but when it comes to fossils well over 90% are marine. Terrestrial fossils are extremely rare. Most land based species probably do not leave any fossil record. For example we are lucky, at least fossil-wise, that our ancestors left the forests. They did leave a record on dry land in areas. Those again are rather rare, many of them are found only because they are geologically recent. The branch that produced chimps have left almost no fossils since damp forest land may be one of the worst environments for fossils. We have a good record of our recent past but none at all for chimps and bonobos. Not finding land based fossils for a period of time is not that big of an issue. Now if there was a lack of marine fossils for a period of time where we expects such then he might have a point.

As many Miocene and Oligocene mammals as I have seen
lacustrine deposits, I'd have to say you are quite mistaken,
and may not want to try to give me lessons in geology

 

[Subduction Zone]

As many Miocene and Oligocene mammals as I have seen
lacustrine deposits, I'd have to say you are quite mistaken,
and may not want to try to give me lessons in geology

I would like a link on that please.

 

[Audie]

I would like a link on that please.

At University, I had a most interesting friend whose
family ranch in Wyoming and interest in geology had
a considerable influence on a mostly-Chanel-and-
Gucci sort of city girl.

A link to my personal experience in the badlands.
No.

Sorry-ah, but if you wish to pursue this, you are on
your own.

You might, tho, for something easy look up
the the fossil quarry at agate nebraska, where
the burial site was a drying waterhole in a
seasonal river across tropical plains.

The cretaceous seabed under the great plains
is, you know, mostly buried under a considerable
depth of outwash from the rockies.

 

[Astrophile]

Consider the White cliffs of Dover.

The White Cliffs of Dover are Cretaceous, not Jurassic.

 

[Astrophile]

I admit being wrong quite frequently
However in this case there is a documented global dearth of evidence in the mid Jurassic of fossils
despite the great claimed length of time and agreed on by many non creationists

I have just looked up the British Regional Geology Handbooks for Eastern England, Central England, and the Hampshire Basin. Each of these handbooks devotes more than ten pages to the Middle Jurassic, with lists of fossils (mostly marine invertebrates, with some plant fossils).

Also the book British Mesozoic Fossils (published by the Natural History Museum) describes the fossils of the Inferior Oolite ('rich in brachiopods and bivalve molluscs') and contemporary non-marine beds ('abound with fossil plants'), the Cornbrash Formation ('abundant brachiopods, bivalve molluscs, sea urchins and other fossils'), and the Oxford Clay Formation ('numerous ammonites', 'a wealth of vertebrate fossils, especially plesiosaurs and ichthyosaurs', 'coral reefs with their associated reef-dwelling assemblage of molluscs and sea urchins'). More than half of the book consists of drawings of Jurassic fossils.

None of these books mentions 'a global dearth of Middle Jurassic fossils', and the descriptions and drawings in the Regional Geology Handbooks and in British Mesozoic Fossils give no indication of any dearth of Middle Jurassic fossils in Britain.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have just looked up the British Regional Geology Handbooks for Eastern England, Central England, and the Hampshire Basin. Each of these handbooks devotes more than ten pages to the Middle Jurassic, with lists of fossils (mostly marine invertebrates, with some plant fossils).

Also the book British Mesozoic Fossils (published by the Natural History Museum) describes the fossils of the Inferior Oolite ('rich in brachiopods and bivalve molluscs') and contemporary non-marine beds ('abound with fossil plants'), the Cornbrash Formation ('abundant brachiopods, bivalve molluscs, sea urchins and other fossils'), and the Oxford Clay Formation ('numerous ammonites', 'a wealth of vertebrate fossils, especially plesiosaurs and ichthyosaurs', 'coral reefs with their associated reef-dwelling assemblage of molluscs and sea urchins'). More than half of the book consists of drawings of Jurassic fossils.

None of these books mentions 'a global dearth of Middle Jurassic fossils', and the descriptions and drawings in the Regional Geology Handbooks and in British Mesozoic Fossils give no indication of any dearth of Middle Jurassic fossils in Britain.

He got his basic facts wrong. Either because he used a creationist source or because he read only a headline. There are plenty of marine fossils from that time period. There is only a lack of terrestrial fossils from that subdivision of the Jurassic. Why he thinks this is significant escapes me.