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

[6days]

47 million years and still doing it (New scientist)
or
“Turtles fossilised in sex embrace” (BBC)
or
copulating vertebrates fossilized “in flagrante delicto”(Nature)
or 47 million years and still doing it (New scientist)
or
“Turtles fossilised in sex embrace” (BBC)
or
copulating vertebrates fossilized “in flagrante delicto”(Nature)
or
Coitus Interruptus: Ancient Turtle Sex Fossilized (LiveScience)
or
Caught in the act: the first record of copulating fossil vertebrates (Biology Letters)
http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2012/06/15/rsbl.2012.0361.full

or, how about....
"there really is no reason to enter the fossil record while you are mating" Lead researcher, Walter Joyce

Nine pairs of fossilized turtles have been found 'doing it'.
Observations
1. A catastrophic event (flood) must have rapidly buried these turtles in sediment before they had a chance to cease and desist.
2. Fossilization happened rapidly. They are extremely well preserved.
3. Thousands of exquisitely preserved fossils are in the same area including "insects and feathers (birds) that still have hints of their original colors.”
4. The turtles are very similar to turtles that exist today, (the Carettochelys insculpta) although the fossilized ones are much larger.

The observations are all expected within the creation / flood model. God's Word is absolute truth, and the world around us supports His Word.

 

[Wick Stick]

The last time we visited the zoo, the turtles were having sex. They're loud.

I guess it all comes back to the Tortoise and the Hare. Rabbits may be uber-fertile, but turtles... man they just keep going and going and going... energizer picked the wrong mascot.

What we learned today: turtles are freaks.

Jarrod

 

[Derf]

47 million years and still doing it (New scientist)
or
“Turtles fossilised in sex embrace” (BBC)
or
copulating vertebrates fossilized “in flagrante delicto”(Nature)
or 47 million years and still doing it (New scientist)
or
“Turtles fossilised in sex embrace” (BBC)
or
copulating vertebrates fossilized “in flagrante delicto”(Nature)
or
Coitus Interruptus: Ancient Turtle Sex Fossilized (LiveScience)
or
Caught in the act: the first record of copulating fossil vertebrates (Biology Letters)
http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2012/06/15/rsbl.2012.0361.full

or, how about....
"there really is no reason to enter the fossil record while you are mating" Lead researcher, Walter Joyce

Nine pairs of fossilized turtles have been found 'doing it'.
Observations
1. A catastrophic event (flood) must have rapidly buried these turtles in sediment before they had a chance to cease and desist.
2. Fossilization happened rapidly. They are extremely well preserved.
3. Thousands of exquisitely preserved fossils are in the same area including "insects and feathers (birds) that still have hints of their original colors.”
4. The turtles are very similar to turtles that exist today, (the Carettochelys insculpta) although the fossilized ones are much larger.

The observations are all expected within the creation / flood model. God's Word is absolute truth, and the world around us supports His Word.

So that's what the turtle club was all about! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iSUheLv5Awg

 

[Tyrathca]

Nine pairs of fossilized turtles have been found 'doing it'.
Observations
1. A catastrophic event (flood) must have rapidly buried these turtles in sediment before they had a chance to cease and desist.

Except that's not how floods work..... And certainly not how a global flood with enough water to cover mountain peaks kilometers above see level would work (too much water not enough dirt, they'd be washed away and tossed around in a veritable churning tsunami of water and debris before it diluted by more and more water and things sank to the bottom (by which point the turtles aren't likely to be still mating)

Whatever killed them had to do so rapidly while imparting little kinetic energy to them ie. not a flood of water. Explanations might be rapidly covered by something viscous perhaps but the best explanation is probably the one in the journal - that they were suffocated/poisoned by gases. Whatever the explanation it doesn't fit with a catastrophic (highly kinetic) event like a flood.

2. Fossilization happened rapidly. They are extremely well preserved.

They weren't exposed to aerobic conditions for long enough for bacteria to start decaying it enough. That gives a fairly variable definition of "rapidly"

3. Thousands of exquisitely preserved fossils are in the same area including "insects and feathers (birds) that still have hints of their original colors.”

Very interesting then that this is a somewhat unique fossil location then if this is to be expected from a global flood.... Wouldn't a global flood predict that same conditions should be wide widespread across much of the world and not only in a specific area with species from a specific time period already claimed by evolutionists?

4. The turtles are very similar to turtles that exist today, (the Carettochelys insculpta) although the fossilized ones are much larger.

And?

The observations are all expected within the creation / flood model. God's Word is absolute truth, and the world around us supports His Word.

Except they're not. If this were the case you should expect it to be repeated throughout the fossil record yet this is clearly a very unusual and rare event outside the normal conditions most fossils were formed in. Wouldn't a global flood create relatively uniform conditions for fossilisation throughout most of the world? Instead: "We therefore confirm that these animals indeed perished while mating and that they are the only known vertebrate fossils to be preserved in the act of mating."

 

[Jose Fly]

If you actually read the paper, you find that 6days is taking quite a bit of "license" with other people's work.

First, the site is part of a deep, volcanic freshwater lake that was anoxic at the bottom, with those bottom layers showing very fine deposition and preservation, which indicates a very calm, undisturbed environment. Hardly consistent with a global flood.

Also (as Tyrathca noted), how did turtles in mid-copulation die in the flood, remain together during the flood, and somehow stay together long enough to be preserved together in the mating position? Remember, according to our local creationists, during the flood entire continents were racing across the earth's surface, mountain ranges were forming, and new sea floors were forming.

It's funny to watch creationists try and take the hard work of actual scientists and try and after-the-fact, try and jam it into their religious beliefs. Of course it's only funny when it's not my work....I'm sure the scientists who published this paper wouldn't be all that thrilled to find out how creationists have been misusing their work.

 

[Predi]

1. A catastrophic event (flood) must have rapidly buried these turtles in sediment before they had a chance to cease and desist.

I'm not an expert at all, but it seems to make sense to me. Let me say right now my faith would definitely survive if Darwin was right! I don't believe in evolution for what I think is scientific reasons.

I tried to find a really scientific explanation on how coil formed, and I never could. The most common explanation - that trees and other plants and animals just died, in time got covered, then the pressure etc... seems very foolish too me and is not observed in the nature.

Unless there was no bacteria when the coal was formed :crackup:

Did anyone hear a man-made stuff was found inside coil that allegedly was millions of years old? I'm not sure how reliable this info is though.

 

[6days]

1. A catastrophic event (flood) must have rapidly buried these turtles in sediment before they had a chance to cease and desist.

Except that's not how floods work..... And certainly not how a global flood with enough water to cover mountain peaks kilometers above see level would work

These fossils absolutely fit the Biblical flood model. As the fountains of the deep broke open, volcanic activity would be occurring around the globe. Rolling walls of waterborne sediment instantly buried and preserved many marine creatures around the world. (And even a small percentage of land animals and birds were preserved). The typical explanation of layers of sediment being laid down over millions of years does not fit the fossil evidence. Jellyfish and many other soft bodied organisms do not sink to the ocean floor and wait millions of years to be covered in sediment.

Whatever killed them had to do so rapidly while imparting little kinetic energy to them ie. not a flood of water. Explanations might be rapidly covered by something viscous perhaps but the best explanation is probably the one in the journal - that they were suffocated/poisoned by gases. Whatever the explanation it doesn't fit with a catastrophic (highly kinetic) event like a flood.

The journal article mentions several examples of fossils found elsewhere in the world that fit the Biblical model of rapid burial in sediment. " Particularly famous examples include fish that choked on large prey items or dinosaurs that died while fighting or while brooding their nests". Actually billions of fossils worldwide show evidence of rapid burial in waterborne sediment.

2. Fossilization happened rapidly. They are extremely well preserved.

They weren't exposed to aerobic conditions for long enough for bacteria to start decaying it enough. That gives a fairly variable definition of "rapidly"

Jellyfish decompse into a blob in days. Preservation of softbodied organisms like jellyfish require rapid burial. Dead jellyfish, fish, whales etc are eaten and torn apart by scavengers. Oxidation finishes the process of destroying all evidence of the organism. Fossilization is evidence of some event that preserved and protected dead creatures.

3. Thousands of exquisitely preserved fossils are in the same area including "insects and feathers (birds) that still have hints of their original colors.”

Very interesting then that this is a somewhat unique fossil location then if this is to be expected from a global flood.... Wouldn't a global flood predict that same conditions should be wide widespread across much of the world and not only in a specific area with species from a specific time period already claimed by evolutionists?

Turtles fossilized while 'doing it' is unique, but similar fossil graveyards exist in many locations around the world.

4. The turtles are very similar to turtles that exist today, (the Carettochelys insculpta) although the fossilized ones are much larger.

And?

Its interesting for a couple reasons. We see the same kinds of creatures then and now. And, we often see that pre-flood creatures and plants were larger and even more magnicent than in todays world.

The observations are all expected within the creation / flood model. God's Word is absolute truth, and the world around us supports His Word.

Except they're not.

I'm not surprised you reject evidence that fits the Biblical model.

Wouldn't a global flood create relatively uniform conditions for fossilisation throughout most of the world?

Perhaps in your tranquil flood model. However, the Bible tells of a flood that destroyed the earth. We see the evidence in uplifted mountains, submarine canyons and turtles caught in the act.

 

[Derf]

If you actually read the paper, you find that 6days is taking quite a bit of "license" with other people's work.

First, the site is part of a deep, volcanic freshwater lake that was anoxic at the bottom, with those bottom layers showing very fine deposition and preservation, which indicates a very calm, undisturbed environment. Hardly consistent with a global flood.

Also (as Tyrathca noted), how did turtles in mid-copulation die in the flood, remain together during the flood, and somehow stay together long enough to be preserved together in the mating position? Remember, according to our local creationists, during the flood entire continents were racing across the earth's surface, mountain ranges were forming, and new sea floors were forming.

It's funny to watch creationists try and take the hard work of actual scientists and try and after-the-fact, try and jam it into their religious beliefs. Of course it's only funny when it's not my work....I'm sure the scientists who published this paper wouldn't be all that thrilled to find out how creationists have been misusing their work.

I suppose both options could be tested, as long as we don't mind sacrificing a few turtle couples.

At least, I think it could be tested. How easy is it to introduce toxic gases in enough quantities quickly enough to kill the turtles before they could fully separate after coitus?

Or dump loads of sediment on top of them and see if they can separate before they suffocate? Most turtles dig well, so I wouldn't think the flood demise makes as much sense as the toxins...

...unless there were other factors. Other factors might include excess heat (which might kill the animals quickly as well as help to solidify the sediments, but might leave evidence in the fossils), which is likely with many Noachian flood models, or excess volcanism, which is also included in many N. flood models (see http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/tamu-massif-largest-single-volcano-erupted-during-noahs-flood/). Extreme pressure might also prevent movement, and help with the fossilization. So whoever does the dump-loads-of-sediment part of the experiment, make sure it's several thousand feet worth.

So it may be that in this particular case, we can't separate the yeas and nays--it could be from the flood, or it could be from something else.

One interesting part of the article is that these mating couples are unique among all vertebrate fossils. ALL vertebrate fossils. So if, as creationists, we believe that most fossils formed during the flood or in the decades afterward, what is unique about these particular vertebrates that they got caught in the act, and no others did in the whole world of turtles and other vertebrates during this world-wide flood. The same question is valid for evolutionists to answer--how can only this one area of the world, for a geologically short amount of time, contain the only coitally-connected vertebrate fossils compared to multiple millions of years of vertebrate presence on earth?

 

[Jose Fly]

Or dump loads of sediment on top of them and see if they can separate before they suffocate? Most turtles dig well, so I wouldn't think the flood demise makes as much sense as the toxins...

Remember, during this flood creationists have entire continents racing across the globe, volcanoes erupting, sea floors forming, and all sorts of cataclysmic events going on. Throw in massive walls of saturated sediment crashing around, and you see why it's ridiculous to say such events led to these fossil specimens being preserved mid-coitus.

Also, remember what I pointed out earlier....the area these fossils were found in was a freshwater volcanic lake, complete with layers at the bottom that show annual bloom-death cycles of algae. This annual layering at the bottom where the fossils are found actually provides a great opportunity to document and study the evolutionary history of life. It allows paleontologists to order fossils from the site chronologically over long periods of time.

...unless there were other factors. Other factors might include excess heat (which might kill the animals quickly as well as help to solidify the sediments, but might leave evidence in the fossils), which is likely with many Noachian flood models, or excess volcanism, which is also included in many N. flood models (see http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/tamu-massif-largest-single-volcano-erupted-during-noahs-flood/). Extreme pressure might also prevent movement, and help with the fossilization. So whoever does the dump-loads-of-sediment part of the experiment, make sure it's several thousand feet worth.

That site is hilarious. I love how it says...

So we have to reinterpret these ‘dates’ that geologists have assigned. 145 million years equates to about halfway through the Flood. The Flood occurred about 4,500 years ago.​

If that's the level of analysis you're holding up as being equivalent to actual science, I'll just let that speak for itself.

So it may be that in this particular case, we can't separate the yeas and nays--it could be from the flood, or it could be from something else.

Only on religious internet forums. Nowhere else is this whole flood thing taken at all seriously.

And let's not mince words here....flood geology is 100% absolutely irrelevant in the earth and life sciences, and has been so for at least the last 200 years. No private industry, government agency, or scientific organization utilizes flood geology. None.

 

[Derf]

Remember, during this flood creationists have entire continents racing across the globe, volcanoes erupting, sea floors forming, and all sorts of cataclysmic events going on. Throw in massive walls of saturated sediment crashing around, and you see why it's ridiculous to say such events led to these fossil specimens being preserved mid-coitus.

Yes, massive walls of saturated sediment--that's why I suggested the sediment dumping--in large amounts.

But to the other things, no matter how much cataclysm was occurring, there will be some areas with more and some areas with less activity. To broadbrush the flood scenario as a one-size-destroys-all-evenly is myopic at best.

Also, remember what I pointed out earlier....the area these fossils were found in was a freshwater volcanic lake, complete with layers at the bottom that show annual bloom-death cycles of algae. This annual layering at the bottom where the fossils are found actually provides a great opportunity to document and study the evolutionary history of life. It allows paleontologists to order fossils from the site chronologically over long periods of time.

The article gave no indication of evidence of annual bloom-death cycles in-situ with the fossils in question. And the authors seemed to dismiss the idea of that being the cause:

The rich accompanying fauna of freshwater aquatic animals, a complete lack of cyanobacterial fossils, and the absence of layers with mass accumulations [9,10] furthermore speak against poisonous surface waters. ... The mating pairs from Messel are therefore more consistent with a stratified, volcanic maar lake with inhabitable surface waters and a deadly abyss.

That site is hilarious. I love how it says...

So we have to reinterpret these ‘dates’ that geologists have assigned. 145 million years equates to about halfway through the Flood. The Flood occurred about 4,500 years ago.​

If that's the level of analysis you're holding up as being equivalent to actual science, I'll just let that speak for itself.

the point was to show the volcanism included in flood models. No comment on the rest of the site's contents, as I haven't read much of it. But you should be proud of someone that stands by his model in the face of overwhelming evidence against it, given your allegiance to Darwinism

Only on religious internet forums. Nowhere else is this whole flood thing taken at all seriously.

That's because you immediately label anything about the flood as religious, so it's a self-fulfilling indictment. And therefore not of any real use except as a way to gull the gullible.

And let's not mince words here....flood geology is 100% absolutely irrelevant in the earth and life sciences, and has been so for at least the last 200 years. No private industry, government agency, or scientific organization utilizes flood geology. None.

I disagree. There is quite a bit of creationist industry--and growing. Take a look at the creationist museums popping up all over. That would count as a private industry.

But seriously, ID'ers say the same thing about common descent biology--that nobody really uses its tenets to do anything except get more grant money. I know you'll disagree--I've seen your disagreement before. But I think they make a solid case.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes, massive walls of saturated sediment--that's why I suggested the sediment dumping--in large amounts.

And somehow the turtle pairs stayed right together. Ok then....

But to the other things, no matter how much cataclysm was occurring, there will be some areas with more and some areas with less activity. To broadbrush the flood scenario as a one-size-destroys-all-evenly is myopic at best.

Actually, the scenarios described here previously would boil the oceans away and evaporate the atmosphere, so it's all a moot point anyways.

The article gave no indication of evidence of annual bloom-death cycles in-situ with the fossils in question.

That's because it's a long ago established part of the baseline of the area.

And the authors seemed to dismiss the idea of that being the cause:

No, they're talking about hypotheses for why so many animals died there and citing the lack of layers of "mass accumulations" of fossils as contradicting the notion that the lake's surface was poisonous. IOW, they're saying "If the surface waters were poisonous, then everything that drank from the lake would die and we would expect to see mass layers of fossils at the bottom of the lake. We don't."

That's because you immediately label anything about the flood as religious

Well.....yeah. It's a religious belief that stems from ancient Hebrew and Babylonian theology.

I disagree. There is quite a bit of creationist industry--and growing. Take a look at the creationist museums popping up all over. That would count as a private industry.

Well, I guess if you want to count tourism as "private industry", then you can do that. It puts flood geology on the same level as bigfoot hunting and UFO's. However I was thinking more in terms of actual science.

But seriously, ID'ers say the same thing about common descent biology--that nobody really uses its tenets to do anything except get more grant money. I know you'll disagree--I've seen your disagreement before. But I think they make a solid case.

They're demonstrably wrong. I've shown how evolutionary common ancestry is the entire basis for the field of comparative genomics, which is how we discern genetic function.

 

[6days]

And somehow the turtle pairs stayed right together.

A good deduction!

Actually, the scenarios described here previously would boil the oceans away and evaporate the atmosphere

Many geolgists say the "scenario described" is the best explanation for the evidence.

No, they're talking about hypotheses for why so many animals died there and citing the lack of layers of "mass accumulations" of fossils as contradicting the notion that the lake's surface was poisonous.

Secular explanations that reject the best explanation. The animals were rapidly buried in waterborn sediment.

Well.....yeah. It's a religious belief that stems from ancient Hebrew and Babylonian theology.

You forgot to mention "and supported by physical evidence".

They're demonstrably wrong. I've shown howevolutionary common ancestry is the entire basis for the field of comparative genomics, which is how we discern genetic function.

And I have shown how that is false yet you keep repeating it.

 

[Jose Fly]

Many geolgists say the "scenario described" is the best explanation for the evidence.

How many?

The animals were rapidly buried in waterborn sediment.

And how did that waterborne sediment from a global flood manage to create annual layers showing regular patterns of algae blooms and die-offs?

And I have shown how that is false yet you keep repeating it.

You and I both know you're lying, and we both know you'll never show where you did anything like that nor will you re-state this rebuttal.

In fact, I guarantee that you'll do neither.

 

[Alate_One]

Even if we magically accepted 6days' magical interpretation of the evidence it's yet another example of cherry picking. Because we found turtles fossilized in a mating embrace a few times that means there was a global flood and the earth is 6000 years old.

No "creation model" or "global flood model" can explain the fossils found in a wide variety of preservation environments, states of preservation, fossils sandwiched between layers of rock with gentler conditions, like coral growth or creatures walking across sand dunes. Then there's the DNA evidence showing pseudogenes and organisms with very similar DNA but very different appearances and other organisms with very dissimilar DNA and similar appearances (rats and mice). Then we have biogeography - hummingbirds found only in the new world and the plants adapted to them with relatives in other parts of the world adapted to other pollinators.

The patterns of life and the rocks around us scream old earth and evolution. Christians and most educated people accepted the earth had changed over very long periods of time long before Darwin was around. It's not rocket science, the evidence is everywhere.

It's as if because the S's in many announcements of escaped slaves are written like "F's" that means slavery in the US is a hoax and it never happened.

Of course there's perfectly legitimate explanations for the above, just as there are for the mating turtles which make a lot more sense than any outlandish conspiracy theory.

 

[George Affleck]

See what use guys is missin is dat turtles does evryting vera...vera...vera...slow.

 

[6days]

How many?

Many.

And how did that waterborne sediment from a global flood manage to create annual layers showing regular patterns of algae blooms and die-offs?

It didn't.

You and I both know you're lying, and we both know you'll never show where you did anything like that nor will you re-state this rebuttal.

You and I both know you are forgetful....unless you have forgotten that.
Discerning genetic function relies on comparitive genomics, homology, mutation rates etc. Your belief about common ancestry is irrelevant...and sometimes a hindrance to science causing wrong conclusions.

In fact, I guarantee that you'll do neither

pfffft.... evolutionists and their guarantees

 

[6days]

See what use guys is missin is dat turtles does evryting vera...vera...vera...slow.

Yes... 47 million years and still doin' it.

 

[Tyrathca]

Many.

10's, 100's, 1000's? Are any named Steve?

It didn't.

Where can I find the disproof of how the observed layering could be caused by annual deposits and the flood geologists description of how a global food would cause it and what features/results should we expect to find because of that?

No? I thought as much.

You and I both know you are forgetful....unless you have forgotten that.

Then why not humour the rest of us and show how smart you've already been?

Or are you becoming more and more like Stripe and pretending you've said things you haven't?

Discerning genetic function relies on comparitive genomics, homology, mutation rates etc. Your belief about common ancestry is irrelevant...and sometimes a hindrance to science causing wrong conclusions.
pfffft.... evolutionists and their guarantees

And yet here you are fulfilling that guarantee.

 

[patrick jane]

So far, as a casual observer, 6days is winning the debate hands down.

 

[6days]

10's, 100's, 1000's? Are any named Steve?

How many does it take to make it correct? 10's? 100's, 1000s? Evolutionists often think science is popular opinion.

Where can I find the disproof of how the observed layering could be caused by annual deposits and the flood geologists description of how a global food would cause it and what features/results should we expect to find because of that?

Perhaps ask Jose... It's his (and now yours) strawman.