The Dilemma of the Geological Layers and their Fossil Contents

[noguru]

I already mentioned the alternative scientific theory in an earlier post.

Yes, but I asked you to explain the evidence in the light of your model. That evidence being abundant dinosaur fossils below the K-T boundary, scarce dinosaur fossils above, and previously unseen fossilized pollen above the layer. Your evasiveness is not ignored.

I thought it obvious that a major event like a global flood could trigger periods of intense volcanic activity, either part way through or afterwards or perhaps even both.

How is that obvious? What evidence do you have that flooding causes volcanic activity?

 

[noguru]

Is there any evidence of surface erosion on the KT boundary? Land animal intrusion?

Erosion? Yes. Land animal intrusion? I don't know.

Why don't you research this yourself? When did I become your research assistant?

 

[Yorzhik]

Erosion? Yes. Land animal intrusion? I don't know.

Why don't you research this yourself? When did I become your research assistant?

I have looked into it. But from what I can tell there is no wind/rain erosion and it doesn't look like land animals have messed with it.

 

[The Barbarian]

The Hell Creek formation in North America has the closest thing I know of. There are fossil roots of various plants below the K-T boundary, then the layers of ejecta, and then fossils of ferns (the "fern spike" found so often above the layer).

Ferns often are the first plants to colonize burned out land.

There wasn't much moving around during the fallout from the impact; most animals were apparently looking for cover.

 

[noguru]

I have looked into it. But from what I can tell there is no wind/rain erosion and it doesn't look like land animals have messed with it.

I don't think you really want to know. Because it will pulvarize your self-esteem.

Be that as it may, can you explain the other evidence under the light of your YEC model? Can you explain how under the K-T boundary there is an abundance of dinosaur fossils, on top they become scarce? And that on top of the layer we find this fossilized pollen that is non existant underneath the the K-T layer? Did those types of pollen run faster for higher ground than the dinosaurs and the pollen that exists below them?

 

[bob b]

It seems that they already are.

New Study

Here is a recent study, completed last year.

Last year

The studies you linked to are local. They do nothing to explain the horizontal sediment layers which extend hundreds if not thousands of miles.

Before the ocean had been thoroughly explored in the 50s and 60s it had been expected that such layers would have accumulated at the sea bottoms over millions of years (because they are sedimentary, meaning water laid), but detailed exploration of the oceans showed this to not be the case. Thus the dilemma.

 

[noguru]

Yes, but I asked you to explain the evidence in the light of your model. That evidence being abundant dinosaur fossils below the K-T boundary, scarce dinosaur fossils above, and previously unseen fossilized pollen above the layer. Your evasiveness is not ignored.



How is that obvious? What evidence do you have that flooding causes volcanic activity?

Bump!

 

[PlastikBuddha]

The studies you linked to are local. They do nothing to explain the horizontal sediment layers which extend hundreds if not thousands of miles.

Before the ocean had been thoroughly explored in the 50s and 60s it had been expected that such layers would have accumulated at the sea bottoms over millions of years (because they are sedimentary, meaning water laid), but detailed exploration of the oceans showed this to not be the case. Thus the dilemma.

References? I've been searching but I'm not seeing anything unexpected about the sedimentary layers of rock on the ocean's bottom.

 

[Yorzhik]

The question of whether geological layers are vast should be answered fairly easily if we find tracks of sedimental layers that are the same which are above and below the KT boundary.

And to answer the question of why we don't find certain things above and below the boundary, I'm not sure. I would theorize it has to do with the sequence of events at the time of the flood together with hydraulic sorting.

Also, you have to be careful if paleontologists are giving you your information. Because the discipline hinges on following the evolutionary party line in order for them to keep their jobs. Thus some information about dinosaur bones in wrong places might just never get publicized. A more trustworthy source has to publish before we can be sure, in general, what can be found where, in the sedimentary layers.

 

[The Barbarian]

The question of whether geological layers are vast should be answered fairly easily if we find tracks of sedimental layers that are the same which are above and below the KT boundary.

What do you mean by that? You mean we should only see sandstone on one side or the other? Why? Or if not, what do you mean?

And to answer the question of why we don't find certain things above and below the boundary, I'm not sure. I would theorize it has to do with the sequence of events at the time of the flood together with hydraulic sorting.

Since the fossil record shows no sign of "hydraulic sorting", that wouldn't be very useful. Unless you have a unique definition. What do you think that phrase means, and how could we test it?

Also, you have to be careful if paleontologists are giving you your information. Because the discipline hinges on following the evolutionary party line in order for them to keep their jobs. Thus some information about dinosaur bones in wrong places might just never get publicized.

Hmm... that would mean hundreds of thousands of people over several hundred years have managed to keep a highly complex conspiracy completely secret, except you know about it. Right. :noid:

Of course, there are uncounted millions of sites, many on private property. And anyone can dig. Just one bunny rabbit in undisturbed Cambrian deposits would blow the cover off your "secret conspiracy."

But it never happens. I think I know why.

 

[noguru]

The question of whether geological layers are vast should be answered fairly easily if we find tracks of sedimental layers that are the same which are above and below the KT boundary.

? Your point is? Are you saying they are not vast, or they are vast?

And to answer the question of why we don't find certain things above and below the boundary, I'm not sure. I would theorize it has to do with the sequence of events at the time of the flood together with hydraulic sorting.

A better word than "theorize" would be "hypothesize". Yes, but you are questioning the naturalistic explanation. So you should be able to explain this evidence better in the light of the model you are proposing. If you can't, you are just blowing smoke.

Also, you have to be careful if paleontologists are giving you your information. Because the discipline hinges on following the evolutionary party line in order for them to keep their jobs. Thus some information about dinosaur bones in wrong places might just never get publicized. A more trustworthy source has to publish before we can be sure, in general, what can be found where, in the sedimentary layers.

So we should be careful of paleontologists but not of you? :shut:

 

[bob b]

So we should be careful of paleontologists but not of you? :shut:

Gould gave their game away when he revealed "the trade secret of paleontology".

 

[noguru]

Gould gave their game away when he revealed "the trade secret of paleontology".

You give your game away daily. Given a choice between you and Gould I have more confidence in his honesty and integrity than yours.

But you just don't get it, because you can't see past your own ego.

 

[bob b]

You give your game away daily. Given a choice between you and Gould I have more confidence in his honesty and integrity than yours.
But you just don't get it, because you can't see past your own ego.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

 

[noguru]

Flattery will get you nowhere.

There's that bloated ego again. :chuckle:

 

[Yorzhik]

What do you mean by that? You mean we should only see sandstone on one side or the other? Why? Or if not, what do you mean?

Why study the sedimentary layers on either side of the KTB? Is that what you are asking?

Since the fossil record shows no sign of "hydraulic sorting", that wouldn't be very useful. Unless you have a unique definition. What do you think that phrase means, and how could we test it?

Hydraulic sorting would be things sorted in water by the various factors that govern how things move in fluid according to fluid dynamics.

Hmm... that would mean hundreds of thousands of people over several hundred years have managed to keep a highly complex conspiracy completely secret, except you know about it. Right. :noid:

No, it isn't a conspiracy. It's just a worldview.

Of course, there are uncounted millions of sites, many on private property. And anyone can dig. Just one bunny rabbit in undisturbed Cambrian deposits would blow the cover off your "secret conspiracy."

But it never happens. I think I know why.

Again, there is no conspiracy. But the worldview of the gatekeepers of that science, at this point, would frown on publishing rabbits in the Cambrian deposits. And frowns from those people would mean you don't get paid anymore.

And, by the way, there have been a number of private digs that do find OOParts. Do you believe any of them are credible?

 

[Yorzhik]

? Your point is? Are you saying they are not vast, or they are vast?

I think they would be vast. It would be good if science could look into it.

A better word than "theorize" would be "hypothesize". Yes, but you are questioning the naturalistic explanation. So you should be able to explain this evidence better in the light of the model you are proposing. If you can't, you are just blowing smoke.

No, I don't think we'll find too much in the flood that isn't explained through natural means.

So we should be careful of paleontologists but not of you? :shut:

Quite. I don't have the influence they do, and they have proven themselves unworthy of their position.

 

[The Barbarian]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian
What do you mean by that? You mean we should only see sandstone on one side or the other? Why? Or if not, what do you mean?

Why study the sedimentary layers on either side of the KTB? Is that what you are asking?


Barbarian asks:
Since the fossil record shows no sign of "hydraulic sorting", that wouldn't be very useful. Unless you have a unique definition. What do you think that phrase means, and how could we test it?

Hydraulic sorting would be things sorted in water by the various factors that govern how things move in fluid according to fluid dynamics.

So you're saying that (for example) we should see different shapes at different levels, or organisms of different densities?

Barbarian on the notion that people are hiding the truth:
Hmm... that would mean hundreds of thousands of people over several hundred years have managed to keep a highly complex conspiracy completely secret, except you know about it. Right.

No, it isn't a conspiracy. It's just a worldview.

But a worldview wouldn't be effective in hiding the truth. To make this one work, there would have to be an active conspiracy to hide all the evidence.

Barbarian observes:
Of course, there are uncounted millions of sites, many on private property. And anyone can dig. Just one bunny rabbit in undisturbed Cambrian deposits would blow the cover off your "secret conspiracy."

But it never happens. I think I know why.

Again, there is no conspiracy. But the worldview of the gatekeepers of that science, at this point, would frown on publishing rabbits in the Cambrian deposits. And frowns from those people would mean you don't get paid anymore.

And yet there are creationists who publish. And anyone could write a book about such a finding. But no one ever does. Guess why.

And, by the way, there have been a number of private digs that do find OOParts. Do you believe any of them are credible?

Sounds like a testable claim. Most of them that I've seen involve folding (bending of the rock strata so that older rock overlays younger rock) which was documented by geologists, or similar things.

Another problem is documentation. Scientists, keep detailed records and photographs of things they find, showing exactly where they were removed from the matrix, including in situ photographs. Material not so documented is not useful, because the data is lost.

There are creationists who keep good records, but so far as I have seen, they've found nothing that would be contrary to science.

But I haven't seen all of them. Let's see what you have.

 

[Yorzhik]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian
What do you mean by that? You mean we should only see sandstone on one side or the other? Why? Or if not, what do you mean?

Why study the sedimentary layers on either side of the KTB? Is that what you are asking?

Your question did not follow logically as an answer to mine so I asked for clarification. I guess I need to treat you more like a child.

Aren't there sedimentary layers on either side of the KTB?

Barbarian asks:
So you're saying that (for example) we should see different shapes at different levels, or organisms of different densities?

However the science of fluid dynamics dictates in the context of a worldwide flood. I image shapes and densities would be factors among a host of others.

But a worldview wouldn't be effective in hiding the truth. To make this one work, there would have to be an active conspiracy to hide all the evidence.

Sure it is. There was no conspiracy to have an earth centered model of the universe. There was no evidence that Galileo could not have access to or gather. But an incorrect view reigned in science for a long time regardless.

Barbarian observes:
Of course, there are uncounted millions of sites, many on private property. And anyone can dig. Just one bunny rabbit in undisturbed Cambrian deposits would blow the cover off your "secret conspiracy."

But it never happens. I think I know why.



And yet there are creationists who publish. And anyone could write a book about such a finding. But no one ever does. Guess why.



Sounds like a testable claim. Most of them that I've seen involve folding (bending of the rock strata so that older rock overlays younger rock) which was documented by geologists, or similar things.

Another problem is documentation. Scientists, keep detailed records and photographs of things they find, showing exactly where they were removed from the matrix, including in situ photographs. Material not so documented is not useful, because the data is lost.

There are creationists who keep good records, but so far as I have seen, they've found nothing that would be contrary to science.

But I haven't seen all of them. Let's see what you have.

Translation, "I won't believe it anyway. At least not until a scientist, whose livelihood depends on not finding it, finds it anyway." Good luck with that.

 

[The Barbarian]

Your question did not follow logically as an answer to mine so I asked for clarification. I guess I need to treat you more like a child.

You need to simply tell us what you mean. This one:

The question of whether geological layers are vast should be answered fairly easily if we find tracks of sedimental layers that are the same which are above and below the KT boundary.

You still haven't said what you meant by this. Do you mean that (for example) sandstone occurs on both sides of the boundary? Or what?

Aren't there sedimentary layers on either side of the KTB?

If not, evolutionary theory has a lot of explaining to do.

Barbarian asks:
So you're saying that (for example) we should see different shapes at different levels, or organisms of different densities?

However the science of fluid dynamics dictates in the context of a worldwide flood. I image shapes and densities would be factors among a host of others.

So explain how you think it would be different, and how we can test that idea.

Barbarian obsreves:
But a worldview wouldn't be effective in hiding the truth. To make this one work, there would have to be an active conspiracy to hide all the evidence.

Sure it is. There was no conspiracy to have an earth centered model of the universe. There was no evidence that Galileo could not have access to or gather. But an incorrect view reigned in science for a long time regardless.

Actually, when the evidence was discovered, almost everyone went over to the Heliocentric model. Although the civil authorities wanted Copernicus's books edited, most of them were not. By Galileo's time, people knew. He merely put the finishing touches on the theory.

Barbarian on all the claims of evidence supporting Yorzhik:
But I haven't seen all of them. Let's see what you have.

Translation, "I won't believe it anyway. At least not until a scientist, whose livelihood depends on not finding it, finds it anyway."

Nope. Just show us the evidence. You're back to the "evil scientific conspiracy" stuff again. If you have no evidence for your beliefs, surely you can see that people aren't going to believe them.

Why not just admit you don't have any evidence?