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

[Jose Fly]

Many.
It didn't.

Well, we haven't seen a cat turn into a dog, but we've seen 6days devolve into Stripe. Oh well.

Discerning genetic function relies on comparitive genomics, homology, mutation rates etc.

Which is based on evolutionary common ancestry.

Your belief about common ancestry is irrelevant...and sometimes a hindrance to science causing wrong conclusions.

Except that it predicts genetic function to a 96% degree of accuracy.

pfffft.... evolutionists and their guarantees

And once again I was right. You neither showed where you posted this rebuttal, nor did you re-state it.....because it never existed in the first place and you were just lying.

 

[Tyrathca]

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

You said "many geologists", I'm try to find out what your weasel words actually meant. There is no number that makes it correct, but there are numbers that make your comment look silly and even disingenuous.

 

[6days]

Discerning genetic function relies on comparitive genomics, homology, mutation rates etc.

Which is based on evolutionary common ancestry.

You are mistaken. You are trying to shoehorn evidence to fit your false belief system. The evidence from comparitive genomics better fits the belef in a common designer.

Dr. Jean Lightner explains "
The difference is in the starting assumptions. (Common Designer vs common ancestry). Evolutionists believe all life shares common ancestry. The conflict between morphological data and genetic data has caused some serious upheaval in current taxonomy. If common ancestry were true, this would certainly not be expected. We have chosen to recognize that God created separate kinds. We anticipate that clear discontinuity (systematic differences) should still be apparent in the descendants of the Ark kinds. In some cases at higher taxonomic levels, the conflict between morphological and molecular data appears to be indicating this type of discontinuity. There are many more issues and details involved, but they will be discussed in the subsequent papers.

"For those who believe it lacks scientific rigor, I encourage them to read the scientific literature and see the issues evolutionists face as they try explain the patterns seen within their worldview. The data does not "neatly fit" the common descent scenario, even though evolutionists consistently interpret it within that paradigm. There is no scientific reason to restrict oneself to that paradigm, at least if we are seeking the most realistic explanation of what happened in the past as opposed [to] just one that assumes there is no Creator"

 

[6days]

You said "many geologists", I'm try to find out what your weasel words actually meant. There is no number that makes it correct....

Fair enough comment Ty...but, that seems to contradict your previous comment questioning how many were named Steve....implying you were impressed by popular opinion. Re. how many..... I don't know, but many. We could argue that 100 is, or isn't "many". Likewise we could make the same arguments for 10,000.

 

[Stripe]

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?

This is a key question, and an issue that is typically ignored by Darwinists. When a fossil is dug up, most of the work is spent telling tales of what the thing allegedly evolved from, while issues of forensics — what should be first on the list to investigate: How the thing died — are ignored.

In this case, the necessary conditions to rockify a turtle are:

• Lots of water,
• Lots of sediment,
• Lots of cement,
• Rapid deposition, and
• Removal of the water.

Of course, evolution is completely irrelevant for such an investigation, while a flood — though not one we would ever see today — seems the No. 1 candidate.

Arguments that a global flood would be too violent to allow such an assemblage to settle are just the reactions of those desperate to deny the idea any credence. The answer to that problem is pretty simple, though complex in its applications: Liquefaction.

The issue of why a turtle and not some other creature likewise is fairly easy to explain: Turtles can function normally both on land and in water. Thus, when swamped, they would be able to continue on with life. A rat, say, would have other issues on his mind given the situation he would be facing in a column of liquefacted sediment.

So the discussion should rationally advance by considering the evidence (two entwined turtles) and conceding the necessary factors (water, seds, cement and timing), or by showing how those things are not required.

 

[Tyrathca]

Fair enough comment Ty...but, that seems to contradict your previous comment questioning how many were named Steve....implying you were impressed by popular opinion.

Project Steve is a parody attempting to mock creationists who try and claim many scientists agree with them (by highlighting just how few their many is, and thus how silly their appeal to numbers is)

Re. how many..... I don't know, but many. We could argue that 100 is, or isn't "many". Likewise we could make the same arguments for 10,000.

So you don't know even roughly how many it is, not even within several orders of magnitude. It could be less than 100 worldwide for all you know.

So your appeal to "many geologists" agreeing with you was empty and meaningless.

 

[Stripe]

Project Steve is a parody attempting to mock creationists who try and claim many scientists agree with them (by highlighting just how few their many is, and thus how silly their appeal to numbers is) So you don't know even roughly how many it is, not even within several orders of magnitude. It could be less than 100 worldwide for all you know. So your appeal to "many geologists" agreeing with you was empty and meaningless.

Darwinists love talking about how many people agree with them; it's their No. 1 means of avoiding the evidence.

 

[Tyrathca]

Darwinists love talking about how many people agree with them; it's their No. 1 means of avoiding the evidence.

And creationists love talking about people who agree with them, it's their No. 1 means of avoiding the lack of research by creationists.

 

[Jose Fly]

You are mistaken.

So the people who actually work in the field of comparative genomics don't know their own field? When they say it's all entirely based on evolutionary common ancestry which allows them to predict genetic function to a 96% degree of accuracy, they're......lying? Completely ignorant of their own profession?

Dr. Jean Lightner explains

:rotfl:

A retired veterinarian? So after seeing actual comparative geneticists say that evolutionary common ancestry is the basis for their entire field, your response is "Nuh uh....this retired creationist vet, who's never done one iota of work in comparative genomics, says it isn't"?

Hilarious 6days....positively hilarious. :rotfl:

 

[Stripe]

And creationists love talking about people who agree with them, it's their No. 1 means of avoiding the lack of research by creationists.

Nope. Evidence and necessary factors, remember?

We have turtles frozen in stone, which makes five demands on what happened.

 

[Stripe]

So the people who actually work in the field of comparative genomics don't know their own field? When [URL="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK20255/"]they say it's all entirely based on evolutionary common ancestry[/URL] which allows them to [URL="http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010045"]predict genetic function to a 96% degree of accuracy[/URL], they're......lying? Completely ignorant of their own profession?:rotfl:A retired veterinarian? So after seeing actual comparative geneticists say that evolutionary common ancestry is the basis for their entire field, your response is "Nuh uh....this retired creationist vet, who's never done one iota of work in comparative genomics, says it isn't"Hilarious 6days....positively hilarious. :rotfl:

Darwinists love talking about people's qualifications; anything to avoid a rational discussion over evidence.

 

[Alate_One]

You are mistaken. You are trying to shoehorn evidence to fit your false belief system. The evidence from comparitive genomics better fits the belef in a common designer.

Dr. Jean Lightner explains "
The difference is in the starting assumptions. (Common Designer vs common ancestry). Evolutionists believe all life shares common ancestry. The conflict between morphological data and genetic data has caused some serious upheaval in current taxonomy. If common ancestry were true, this would certainly not be expected.

Not true at all. What DNA elucidates is convergence.

We have chosen to recognize that God created separate kinds. We anticipate that clear discontinuity (systematic differences) should still be apparent in the descendants of the Ark kinds. In some cases at higher taxonomic levels, the conflict between morphological and molecular data appears to be indicating this type of discontinuity. There are many more issues and details involved, but they will be discussed in the subsequent papers.

And this isn't reflected in the data. If there were set created kinds, we would expect to see genetic patterns fall into neat boxes, with little to no gradation between "kinds". But that isn't what we see at all. Instead the genetic data grades across what would be considered species boundaries. Nor does the genetic data perfectly line up with morphology, which is NOT unexpected in evolution. DNA differences are more influenced by divergence time than physical and behavioral differences. A chihuahua looks very little like a wolf, yet it's DNA is almost identical. A few differences give it a very different behavior and appearance.

Conversely, mice and rats look very similar, but genetically speaking they are far more different from one another than cows are from whales. Those numbers are facts and there's no good young earth creationist explanation for them.

 

[Stripe]

Darwinists hate sticking to the topic.

 

[patrick jane]

Darwinists hate sticking to the topic.

Whom are you ?

 

[Stripe]

Whom are you ?

Your worst nightmare.

 

[Tyrathca]

Nope. Evidence and necessary factors, remember?

We have turtles frozen in stone, which makes five demands on what happened.

Evidence remember? When you have some for what the conditions were like in the flood, especially its viscosity, speed of spread and sediment deposition rate such that we can see it didn't behave like a regular flood and could kill, and bury the turtles mid-copulation without snatching then apart let me know.

Surely creationists have done research on the geology and physics of such a thing. This should be testable and very useful knowledge for many fields too.

 

[Stripe]

Evidence remember?

Yip. Turtles frozen in rock.

It's the title of the thread. :up:

When you have some for what the conditions were like in the flood, especially its viscosity, speed of spread and sediment deposition rate such that we can see it didn't behave like a regular flood and could kill, and bury the turtles mid-copulation without snatching then apart let me know.

Well, no. You're demanding a model, which would then need evidence.

The model has been introduced. Try to engage sensibly.

Surely creationists have done research on the geology and physics of such a thing. This should be testable and very useful knowledge for many fields too.

Yep. :thumb:

However, you're still dodging.

Evidence: Turtles.
Necessary conditions: Water, dirt, cement.

 

[George Affleck]

At the Messel site there were 9 pairs of fossilized mating turtles; not just one pair. They were all found at different locations and different elevations in the same vicinity.

One pair of turtles dying simultaneously, floating down hundreds of feet to a lake bed (assuming negative buoyancy) and being covered with mud and silt, still in the same position, and achieving near perfect fossilization is remarkably unlikely. For this to happen to nine pairs approaches impossible odds.

A question for evolutionists: Was this a one time event or were these nine separate miracles?

 

[Alate_One]

At the Messel site there were 9 pairs of fossilized mating turtles; not just one pair. They were all found at different locations and different elevations in the same vicinity.

One pair of turtles dying simultaneously, floating down hundreds of feet to a lake bed (assuming negative buoyancy) and being covered with mud and silt, still in the same position, and achieving near perfect fossilization is remarkably unlikely. For this to happen to nine pairs approaches impossible odds.

A question for evolutionists: Was this a one time event or were these nine separate miracles?

You could, I don't know, actually read the paper linked in the OP:

The preservation of mating pairs has important taphonomic implications for the Messel Pit Fossil Site, as it is unlikely that the turtles would mate in poisonous surface waters. Instead, the turtles initiated copulation in habitable surface waters, but perished when their skin absorbed poisons while sinking during into toxic layers. The mating pairs from Messel are therefore more consistent with a stratified, volcanic maar lake with inhabitable surface waters and a deadly abyss.

In other words, the fossil pit was formed from a volcanic death trap that caught multiple victims over a long time period and not just mating turtles. Nothing miraculous about that. This gives a detailed description of the fossil site

How does a global flood explain multiple pairs of turtles all being found in a small area? The flood was supposedly violent and should have scattered them widely, not dropped them all into a single pit. A global flood wouldn't create a handful of really good fossil sites with very different assemblages of creatures in each one, it should create great fossil sites everywhere in more or less the same kind of rock everywhere.

 

[Stripe]

The fossil pit was formed from a volcanic death trap that caught multiple victims over a long time period and not just mating turtles. Nothing miraculous about that.

Nice story. However, you left out the important bits.

How does a global flood explain multiple pairs of turtles all being found in a small area?

For a start, it provides a mechanism to explain volcanism.

The flood was supposedly violent and should have scattered them widely, not dropped them all into a single pit. A global flood wouldn't create a handful of really good fossil sites with very different assemblages of creatures in each one, it should create great fossil sites everywhere in more or less the same kind of rock everywhere.

How about this: While I try to find the details missing from your story, how about you read up on flood dynamics. :up: