Coitus Interruptus... Flirty Turtles, Fossils and the Flood

[Stripe]

In your case it applies.

By the law of averages, eventually I had to be right saying that about someone.

 

[Jose Fly]

Given that the Messel site is repeatedly described as "well laminated" by geologists (meaning that it shows very distinct, fine annual layering as evidenced by repeated seasonal algal blooms and die-offs), one has to wonder how any flood...let alone a global one...produced such features.

Oh, but if 6days and Stripe tell us it was produced by a global flood, then I guess that's just what happened.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Where did I ever say that you claimed floods make fossils?

You implied that I think floods make fossils and ignoring everything I've said.

We know why you're desperate to rail against a straw man, something that by definition cannot be done rationally.

You should look up the definition of straw man. You seem to have difficulty learning from your mistakes.

They are what is necessary in this case.

It's called evidence. We know why you'd rather talk about something — anything — else.

Evidence of fossil formation? You're not even wrong. Congratulations!

How did water, sediment, and cement get together to cover the turtles? Inquiring minds want to know.

And yet it is the fundamentals of the science.

We know why you want to keep as far away as possible from those.

Fossil formation? Yeah, so. You're making an issue over something on which we don't disagree. Why?

You think a flood buried the turtles?

You truly don't know how floods work, do you. Here's a hint: They don't make fossils.

And the expert at taking quotes out of context strikes again!

Are you trying to claim the sediment (and "cement") somehow just mixed with water through some as yet undisovered process? Please propose a process that might do this so we can see if it fits the evidence. We also must be able to exclude alternative possibilities.

By the way, right here you at least tacitly admit that a flood made these fossils.

Really? That was what you understood from a means (a flood) of combining water with sediment? Reading. It's fundamental.

I'm prepared to look at the evidence without a particular story in mind. It's you that keeps demanding we bring our beliefs into it.

6days claims that a global flood was the mechanism that brought water, sediment, and a binding agent together to cover the turtles. I asked if a local flood was ruled out. He avoided answering that to say that the biblical flood was not a local flood.

What mechanism brought water, sediment, and "cement" together to bury the turtles? Magic?

You seem more comfortable when it's people telling stories rather than evidence being analyzed.

I feel comfortable with people answering my questions instead of using every linguistics tactic imaginable to avoid answering them.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Silent Hunter]

Hunter.....I don't often quote Stripe on this, but in your case it applies..."evolutionists can't read". You are fabricating something that was not said, nor argued.

Really? Have you or have you not been arguing that a global flood is the mechanism that combined water, sediment, and "cement" to bury the turtles?

I will ask again. . . Is it not possible that a local flood was the means by which water, sediment, and "cement" combined to cover the turtles?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Silent Hunter]

Answered by Stripe. Floods do not normally cause fossils. You need an event where organisms are rapidly buried and preserved in immense amounts of waterborne sediment.

:chuckle:

Does your "event" absolutely rule out a localized flood?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Jose Fly]

I will ask again. . . Is it not possible that a local flood was the means by which water, sediment, and "cement" combined to cover the turtles?

Look at what I posted earlier today. These aren't flood deposits....at all.

 

[Stripe]

You implied that I think floods make fossils and ignoring everything I've said.

Nope.

However: "Everyone seems agreed (with the exception of you) that a flood (of water) caused the turtles to be covered in sediment. What we are not in agreement on is [whether] or not the flood was global (ala the so-called "Genesis" flood)."

Weird, huh, how you are seeking so eagerly to talk about the semantics of who said what.

How did water, sediment, and cement get together to cover the turtles?

Great question!

First, we need a source for all those things. A common source would be most likely.

What mechanism do you think could bring water, sediment, and cement together to bury the turtles? Magic?

 

[Silent Hunter]

Nope.

However: "Everyone seems agreed (with the exception of you) that a flood (of water) caused the turtles to be covered in sediment. What we are not in agreement on is weather or not the flood was global (ala the so-called "Genesis" flood)."

Weird, huh, how you are seeking so eagerly to talk about the semantics of who said what.

I fail to see the point of your objection. Perhaps if you take me out of context again or did more to explain yourself your objection would be clearer.

That the turtles became fossilzed or how the fossilization ocurred has never been an issue for me nor have I discussed it outside of your persistence in making it a talking point.

Great question!

I'm glad you think so. I've been asking it for about the last 20 posts and I'm wondering when one of you will get around to answering it.

[Qupte]First, we need a source for all those things. A common source would be most likely.[/quote]:idunno: it's your hypothesis.

What mechanism do you think could bring water, sediment, and cement together to bury the turtles? Magic?

Yeah, you quoted the question correctly. Do you have an answer?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

I fail to see the point of your objection.

You made an accusation that wasn't true. What were you expecting — people to lie down when you belittle them?

Perhaps if you take me out of context again or did more to explain yourself your objection would be clearer.

Out of context? You mean this: "Everyone seems agreed that a flood caused the turtles to be covered in sediment"?

That the turtles became fossilzed or how the fossilization ocurred has never been an issue for me nor have I discussed it outside of your persistence in making it a talking point.

What are you doing in a thread concerned with that very issue? :troll:

 

[Silent Hunter]

You made an accusation that wasn't true.

What wasn't true? That the turtles were covered in sediment or that almost everyone agrees that the mechanism that buried the turtles was a great quantity of water mixed with sediment (a flood)?

What were you expecting — people to lie down when you belittle them?

Really? You think someone is going to do something to take over what is your stock and trade?

Perhaps you can point to the EXACT phrase that you find offensive.

Out of context? You mean this: "Everyone seems agreed that a flood caused the turtles to be covered in sediment"?

The turtles weren't covered in sediment? Are you saying that that didn't happen?

What are you doing in a thread concerned with that very issue?

I wonder why you are so caught up in a non-issue. That the turtles fossilized is not in disagreement. Perhaps you can explain how the fossilization process is important to HOW the turtles were buried to begin the process. Again, how did water, sediment, and cement get together to cover the turtles.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

What wasn't true?

You just called me on an objection and now you don't know what it was?

Are you illiterate, or just plain ole stupid?

The turtles weren't covered in sediment? Are you saying that that didn't happen?

:chuckle:

Anything. You'll say anything.

Anything to avoid the evidence.

Perhaps you can explain how the fossilization process is important to HOW the turtles were buried to begin the process.

You need water, sediment and cement. Those things are not easy to get all in the right place at the right time.

How did water, sediment, and cement get together to cover the turtles.

Great question! :up:

It's more likely than not that the three items were sourced by the same event.

 

[Silent Hunter]

You just called me on an objection and now you don't know what it was?

I think I called you an "exception" to those who agree that a flood caused the turtles to be covered in sediment. Other than that :idunno:. You've never been all that great at explanations.

Are you illiterate, or just plain ole stupid?[/]I've been wondering how long it would take before you started with your name-calling shtick. Now I know.

Anything. You'll say anything.

Anything to avoid the evidence.[/]What "evidence" is being avoided?

Water mixed with sediment and a binding agent buried the turtles, the turtles became fossilized.

I just enjoy old news.

What we don't know is HOW the turtles were buried in sediment? Was it a flood or some other mechanism? If it was a flood was it global or local.

We also don't know how long ago the "event" occurred.

Hurry please, enquiring minds want to know your answer.

You need water, sediment and cement. Those things are not easy to get all in the right place at the right time.

It probably isn't as hard as you'd like everyone to believe, but, please, continue.

Great question!

Well, of course it is, that's why I've been asking it pretty much since my first post on the thread, somewhere about post #217. Look at where we are now! Nowhere.

How much longer do you suppose we'll be camped here before you get around to supplying your best answer?

It's more likely than not that the three items were sourced by the same event.

... and that event was? :drumroll:

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

.. and that event was?

You're not very good at this, are you?

I'm not interested in pushing an idea; I'm interested in looking at the evidence and eliminating ideas by establishing what was necessary. It's called science.

Do you agree with the notion that it was more likely than not a single overriding cause that supplied the water, sediment and cement?

 

[Silent Hunter]

You're not very good at this, are you?

It's quite obvious that I'm better at it than you.

What exactly have we accomplished?

You've been arguing that fossils are an important piece of evidence and I've explained to you that they aren't at all relevant when it comes to HOW the turtles were first buried.

Now, if you want to continue down this not even wrong rabbit trail feel free to do it alone.

I'm not interested in pushing an idea; I'm interested in looking at the evidence and eliminating ideas by establishing what was necessary. It's called science.

The turtles were buried in sediment. The turtles fossilized by a recognized process. If I say again that we don't disagree with how fossils are formed would you put this not even wrong argument of yours to pasture?

Do you agree with the notion that it was more likely than not a single overriding cause that supplied the water, sediment and cement?

Yeah, it could have been a flood... :duh:

Do you have another idea?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

You've been arguing that fossils are an important piece of evidence and I've explained to you that they aren't at all relevant when it comes to HOW the turtles were first buried.

They are what you look at to find out how.

What were you going to use other than the evidence?

Would you put this not even wrong argument of yours to pasture?

What argument? I've been presenting the fundamentals. You can't argue with those.

What we have are turtles frozen in rock, requiring that water, sediment and cement were in play.

Yeah, it could have been a flood.

Nope.

Floods don't work like that.

 

[Silent Hunter]

They are what you look at to find out how.

Nope. The fossils are evidence of the animal or plant that was buried. To understand HOW the plant or animal was buried it is necessary to analize the surrounding rock in which the fossil is/was found (although the type of plant or animal can sometimes be a helpful clue).

What were you going to use other than the evidence?

:idunno: What would you use? And why would you use as evidence something that is obviously irrelevant to what you are trying to figure out?

What argument?

I've been waiting to use this... creationists hate reading. They enjoy quoting out of context though.

Nope.

Floods don't work like that.

... and your earth-shattering hypothesis ... will probably continue to remain a closely guarded secret.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Silent Hunter]

This is new...

I've been presenting the fundamentals. You can't argue with those.

When have I denied your "fundamentals"? Be specific.

We should have been beyond how fossils form at post #220, yet here we are going over something that was never in dispute... again. :sigh:

What we have are turtles frozen in rock, requiring that water, sediment and cement were in play.

Is this new information that we haven't discussed before? If not, why do you keep bringing it up except to goad me into writing something that you can potentially take to the mods (something for which you are well known for btw)?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[6days]

Yeah, it could have been a flood... :duh:

Not just any flood.... It could have been a flood where the earth was torn open covering organisms in massive amounts of waterborne sediment.

 

[6days]

We should have been beyond how fossils form at post #220, yet here we are going over something that was never in dispute... again. :sigh:

Scientific journals often have articles supporting the Biblical creation model which includes the global flood. (Although the evolutionary based journals of course interpret evidence from their world view). For example, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, has an article of a worldwide pattern of fossils.
2012, Mechanism for Burgess Shale-type preservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Gaines, R. R.

When a creature dies in the ocean its carcass is normally consumed by other animals, and bacteria, very rapidly. Special conditions must exist for something to become fossilized. And we seldom if ever find something in ocean sediment that is in the process of being fossilized. Yet, throughout the world we have some areas where sea creatures have been almost perfectly preserved in fossil form, including soft tissue. Here in Canada, we have an area called Burgess shale with abundant fossilized sea creatures with even eyes and intestines preserved.

So, paleontologists wonder why fossils have such remarkable preservation in areas like Burgess shale in Canada,,,Chengjiang Shale in China and other areas. Researcher Gaines Gaines says, "My initial hypothesis was validated by a consistent and worldwide pattern." And this pattern included "rapid entombment of soft-bodied organisms in sediments" . .He also assumes the conditions that must have existed in a "global ocean". The author also says a cause would be "rapid entombment" by "bottom-flowing density currents."
Besides the journal, also see
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-03/uosd-mfb030712.php

If Noahs flood really happened one of the evidences would be billions of dead things rapidly buried in layers of sediment found throughout the world including marine fossils in the mountain ranges. And what is the evidence? As described in many journals... we find billions of dead things well preserved due to rapid burial and found throughout the world... and we do find marine fossils even in the highest mountains.

Dr. Gary Parker wrote:
I’ve mentioned that, because of the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence, many evolutionists are now calling themselves neo-catastrophists. They want nothing to do with old-fashioned catastrophism (Noah’s Flood!), but they agree that most layers of fossil-bearing rock were produced rapidly and broadly by flooding on a catastrophic scale

 

[Silent Hunter]

Not just any flood.... It could have been a flood where the earth was torn open covering organisms in massive amounts of waterborne sediment.

Great news! You're not even wrong! Congratulations!

I don't dispute that a flood can cause massive amounts of sediment to be moved and deposited in such a way that creatures can be entombed within it.

You've said that the turtles are evidence of a global flood (do I need to cite post #'s where you've done so?).

What you need to do now is convince me that a local flood could not possibly be responsible for what we see in the geologic record.

Are you up to it?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk