Interesting find that further shows the relation between dinosaurs and birds

[Greg Jennings]

Yes... this is the pod of whale fossils I previously mentioned. They found whales up to about 40' long (13 meter) in a single layer of diatomite sedimentary rock. This type of sediment normally takes hundreds of years to accumulate a centimeter. The evidences of the rapid deposition are many...lack of bioturbation... lack of barnacle build-up, and wormholes.... and the remarkably pristine condition of even softer*tissue like the baleen.

This was what you were talking about? How can you twist things so much and still feel good about yourself? Because you're lying for God, I guess?

300 whales isn't a pod. That is about 10 times bigger than any whale pod we've ever seen in modern times. That's years, maybe centuries or millennia worth of whale skeletons gathering slowly on the ocean (or bay, or brackish lake, or whatever other body of water) floor.

Greg, the rapid burial was not "via natural, everyday processes ".
The authors admits that "current depositional models do not account for the volume of diatomaceous sediments". They say the pristine condition leads them to the conclusion the whales were rapidly buried within weeks or months at the most.

It doesn't say the boldnened words. Quit making things up. And if you were halfway educated in these matters, you'd understand it's not suggesting anything of the sort.

Why is it surprising to you that a previous depositional model got updated? Updates to previously existinginfo literally happens in science EVERY SINGLE DAY. That's because science doesn't care about confirming to creation myth, they care about getting it right.

The authors suggest this happened in shallow embayments since other creatures were found with the whales such as penguins and sloths.

Where does the study say that? Did you make something else up now?

Yes... high tension wires fell on wet ground. No, its not normal for things to be fossilized in hours.

So why act like it is? You mislead Michael, among (perhaps?) others

But as I said, fossilization requires the correct conditions, and not thousands of years. For example there have been human artifacts fossilized under normal conditions such as a hat and a bag of flour.

And surely you can provide some sort of documentation for this one, can't you? Or am I just supposed to take your word for it, like you wanted me to here when asked for that electric fossil study......

??? haaaaa. You make me smile. I said nothing about a study. I said I seen a root that had been fossilized in hours.

Ok, well A) you're gonna need to prove that and B) if that's is correct (which I do think it is) then, as you admitted above, it has nothing to do with how real fossils are created.

After all, part of the definition of a fossil is that it must be "naturally preserved."

Great! Then you 'know' fossilization normally requires RAPID burial. Things that float to the bottom of the ocean are eaten...bones and all.

I'm sorry, but how do you think those whales got there? According to the study, that I provided you and will provide at the end of this post again, their bodies did EXACTLY that. I can forgive you not knowing this, but more ancient whales were not nearly as fatty as modern species. Sinking was a bit easier. However, whales still sink today sometimes.

"These taphonomic and sedimentary features suggest that rapid burial due to high diatom accumulation."

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with phytoplankton deposition, but it's the kind of thing they leads to chalk deposits, among many other things. The study clearly concludes that these whales were buried as the diatom skeletons accumulated around them.

The buried whales provide awesome evidence of a catastrophic event, rapid burial..... not slow gradual processes. The Bible mentions such an event.

The authors of the study strongly disagree with you, and they are actually educated in what they are studying, whereas you are not.

"...rapid burial due to high diatom accumulation, in part by lateral advection into protected, shallow embayments, is responsible for the superb preservation of these whales"

"..whales within ∼1.5 km2 of surveyed surface were not buried as an event,.."

I swear they put those boldnened words in there just to try and make it clear to creationists that this wasn't evidence of a flood.

Did they say there was a catastrophic event? No, you are just making things up to fit your favorite bedtime story.

Not to mention, in the rough waters of a flood, why would there be a 80 m thick deposit of purely one type of microorganism? There would be other sediments mixed in, there would be HEAVY bioturbation (which you incorrectly believe to have something to do with bones) where instead we see NONE.


Here is the study. I strongly encourage anyone to read it so they can see 6days' truth-twisting in action: http://m.geology.gsapubs.org/content/32/2/165.abstract

 

[Stuu]

Making things up exposes how desperate you are to avoid a discussion of the evidence.

So you mean talking explicitly about relevant evidence shows I am running from it.

That makes about as much sense as your conspiracy theory of an impossible wooden boat carrying the entire genetic diversity of all land-based life. And, presumably two huge aquaria for all the saltwater and freshwater fauna intolerant to changes in salinity, turbulence and massive increases in particulate concentration. Did they all march on two-by-two?

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

So you mean talking explicitly about relevant evidence shows I am running from it.

Yep. I posted a substantive review of OP including lines of evidence we could consider and you are ranting about anything but, because Darwinists hate evidence. They hate it.

 

[Stuu]

Yep. I posted a substantive review of OP including lines of evidence we could consider and you are ranting about anything but, because Darwinists hate evidence. They hate it.

By all means, then, share a link to your so-called evidence.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

By all means, then, share a link to your so-called evidence.Stuart

Darwinists hate reading.

 

[Stuu]

Darwinists hate reading.

Have you read Richard Dawkins's The Blind Watchmaker? I particularly liked reading that.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

Have you read Richard Dawkins's The Blind Watchmaker? I particularly liked reading that.Stuart

It's clear you are solely here to be a troll.

:troll:

 

[Stuu]

It's clear you are solely here to be a troll.

:troll:

great post

 

[Greg Jennings]

Darwinists hate reading.

The classic Stripe reply when he can't provide what he claims to have :rotfl:

 

[Lon]

Happy to articulate your thoughts so accurately.

I can explain why there is no photograph of Washington in existence.

You haven't explained why there is no photograph of your god on the bible. Did your god die in 1799, before the advent of photography?

Stuart

Well, I can't have an intelligent conversation with you then. Not that it didn't look all kinds of dumbed-down snarky to begin with... I'll pass as long as you insist on the road more travelled. -Lon

 

[ok doser]

You haven't explained why there is no photograph of your god on the bible.

tell me the name of one - just one - of your ancestors from 2000 years ago

there's only 1,208,925,800,000,000,000,000,000 of them, surely you can name one

 

[Stuu]

tell me the name of one - just one - of your ancestors from 2000 years ago

there's only 1,208,925,800,000,000,000,000,000 of them, surely you can name one

There aren't that many ancestors, because of cousin marriage and so forth. Large numbers of those 'different' ancestors are actually the same people.

Anyway, the Emperor Hadrian is an ancestor of mine from 2000 years ago.

You can pick pretty much anyone alive at the time who had children, and grandchildren etc. Everyone at that time is either an ancestor of everyone alive today, or of no-one alive today.

Not sure what this has to do with there being no photograph of your god on the front of your book of talking snakes. Care to explain?

Stuart

 

[6days]

That's years, maybe centuries or millennia worth of whale skeletons gathering slowly on the ocean (or bay, or brackish lake, or whatever other body of water) floor.

Evolutionists always like millions and millions...centuries...millennia.
However the evidence is rapid burial. The authors of the secular article say "The most viable explanation for whale preservation seems
to be rapid burial, fast enough to cover whales 5–13 m long and ;50
cm thick within a few weeks or months, to account for whales with
well-preserved bones and some soft tissues. Such burial requires dia-
tom accumulation rates at least three to four orders of magnitude faster
than is usual in the ocean today—centimeters per week or month, rather
than centimeters per thousand years"

Greg, the rapid burial was not "via natural, everyday processes " as you claimed.
The authors admits that "current depositional models do not account for the volume of diatomaceous sediments". They say the pristine condition leads them to the conclusion the whales were rapidly buried within weeks or months at the most.

It doesn't say the boldnened words (within weeks or months at most) . Quit making things up. And if you were halfway educated in these matters, you'd understand it's not suggesting anything of the sort.

Greg, you seem to get angry easily when you are wrong.
The whales were not buried "via natural everyday processes" as you claimed.* (They said the opposite)

The authors suggest this happened in shallow embayments since other creatures were found with the whales such as penguins and sloths.

Where does the study say that? Did you make something else up now?

Good... So you now agree that these whales were not at the bottom of the ocean as you claimed. The article says the opposite of what you claimed.

Also....instead of getting angry and making snarky comments, about other creatures found you could use google.
The article says "Vertebrate fossils in the Pisco Formation include sharks, fish, tur-
tles, seals, porpoises, ground sloths, penguins, and whales"

But as I said, fossilization requires the correct conditions, and not thousands of years. For example there have been human artifacts fossilized under normal conditions such as a hat and a bag of flour.

And surely you can provide some sort of documentation for this one, can't you?

Yes, of course... but you should try use google a little more often.
http://dl0.creation.com/articles/p003/c00358/petrified-flour-lge.jpg
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/rapid-fossils-rapid-petrifaction.htm

Great! Then you 'know' fossilization normally requires RAPID burial. Things that float to the bottom of the ocean are eaten...bones and all.

I'm sorry, but how do you think those whales got there? According to the study, that I provided you and will provide at the end of this post again, their bodies did EXACTLY that. I can forgive you not knowing this, but more ancient whales were not nearly as fatty as modern species. Sinking was a bit easier. However, whales still sink today sometimes.

Greg Greg..... You should read the article, and use google.*
You did not read the article... You only read the abstract. You can read the full article here... https://www.researchgate.net/public...2_Fossil_Whales_and_diatom_accumulation_rates

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with phytoplankton deposition, but it's the kind of thing they leads to chalk deposits, among many other things. The study clearly concludes that these whales were buried as the diatom skeletons accumulated around them.

The key word is RAPIDLY..... The article says "Such burial requires diatom accumulation rates at least three to four orders of magnitude faster than is usual in the ocean today—centimeters per week or month, rather than centimeters per thousand years". Another key phrase the article uses to describe this is "UNIQUE CONDITIONS".
The flood model provides those unique conditions.*

The buried whales provide awesome evidence of a catastrophic event, rapid burial..... not slow gradual processes. The Bible mentions such an event.

The authors of the study strongly disagree with you, and they are actually educated in what they are studying, whereas you are not.

You should have read the article Greg. They agree that the whales were rapidly buried and preserved. They discuss it was a unique condition. They admit it was something different than what we see in modern times.*

Not to mention, in the rough waters of a flood, why would there be a 80 m thick deposit of purely one type of microorganism? There would be other sediments mixed in, there would be HEAVY bioturbation (which you incorrectly believe to have something to do with bones) where instead we see NONE.

It would serve you well to do some research to try understand what you are arguing both for, and against.

Here is the study. I strongly encourage anyone to read it so they can see 6days' truth-twisting in action: http://m.geology.gsapubs.org/content/32/2/165.abstract

Wow... You really went off on just the abstract and a false belief system.

The fossilized whales, sloths, turtles etc suggest a very unique and catastrophic event. The global flood is the best fit for the evidence.

 

[Stuu]

Well, I can't have an intelligent conversation with you then. Not that it didn't look all kinds of dumbed-down snarky to begin with... I'll pass as long as you insist on the road more travelled. -Lon

So you can't explain why there is no photograph of your god on the front of its book of talking donkeys, or indeed any photograph of it.

Almost like it is not really there...

Stuart

 

[6days]

So you can't explain why there is no photograph of your god on the front of its book of talking donkeys, or indeed any photograph of it.

Question: Can you explain why you believe in oxygen without a photograph of it?
Answer: I don't need a photograph to see the evidence. I not only believe in oxygen, but I KNOW it exists.
Faith is the EVIDENCE of things not seen.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Evolutionists always like millions and millions...centuries...millennia.
However the evidence is rapid burial. The authors of the secular article say "The most viable explanation for whale preservation seems
to be rapid burial, fast enough to cover whales 5–13 m long and ;50
cm thick within a few weeks or months, to account for whales with
well-preserved bones and some soft tissues. Such burial requires dia-
tom accumulation rates at least three to four orders of magnitude faster
than is usual in the ocean today—centimeters per week or month, rather
than centimeters per thousand years"
Greg, you seem to get angry easily when you are wrong.
The whales were not buried "via natural everyday processes" as you claimed.* (They said the opposite)

Good... So you now agree that these whales were not at the bottom of the ocean as you claimed. The article says the opposite of what you claimed.

Also....instead of getting angry and making snarky comments, about other creatures found you could use google.
The article says "Vertebrate fossils in the Pisco Formation include sharks, fish, tur-
tles, seals, porpoises, ground sloths, penguins, and whales"


Yes, of course... but you should try use google a little more often.
http://dl0.creation.com/articles/p003/c00358/petrified-flour-lge.jpg
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/rapid-fossils-rapid-petrifaction.htm




Greg Greg..... You should read the article, and use google.*
You did not read the article... You only read the abstract. You can read the full article here... https://www.researchgate.net/public...2_Fossil_Whales_and_diatom_accumulation_rates
The key word is RAPIDLY..... The article says "Such burial requires diatom accumulation rates at least three to four orders of magnitude faster than is usual in the ocean today—centimeters per week or month, rather than centimeters per thousand years". Another key phrase the article uses to describe this is "UNIQUE CONDITIONS".
The flood model provides those unique conditions.*

You should have read the article Greg. They agree that the whales were rapidly buried and preserved. They discuss it was a unique condition. They admit it was something different than what we see in modern times.*

It would serve you well to do some research to try understand what you are arguing both for, and against.

Wow... You really went off on just the abstract and a false belief system.

The fossilized whales, sloths, turtles etc suggest a very unique and catastrophic event. The global flood is the best fit for the evidence.

This is too long to reply to piece by piece.


The article does say "buried in weeks to months" and mentions the fauna that you did. I did not have access to the full pdf and assumed you also did not. There, I was wrong.

However, nothing in this study jives with your global flood at all. The reason that penguins and giant sloths are found in the same formation as the whales (NOTE: not next to or even close to the whales, just in the same rock formation) is that, from fossils, we know they inhabited the South American coastal regions. In fact I think one species of penguins still does. None of the other organisms found is terrestrial, and in even a large regional flood, you'd expect a giant armadillo/big cat/primitive horse skeleton or two in South America. The only truly terrestrial creature seen in the formation is the sloth, which could have gotten there any number of ways, but my personal guess would be a storm surge that drowned it (that being said, modern sloths are good swimmers. Slow, but good)

From your link here: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/rapid-fossils-rapid-petrifaction.htm

Now this is the definition of a shaky source. But even so, it says the boot itself wasn't fossilized. It also says that these rapid fossilization processes are well understood and don't pose a threat to modern science. It says that, not me.
Do you have a credible source (.edu or .org) that talks about the rapid fossilization of a boot or flour bag? That would be more helpful than a blogger or a picture

I don't recall the study using the word "unique" but they did say that the circumstances were not commonly found today. The authors concluded that because of a nutrient-rich period (as evidenced by previous studies) diatoms were in bloom excessively. This of course means that many more were accumulating than would be in non-bloom periods. Combine that with the authors find that the skeletal elements of these diatoms had not dissolved at the same rate as they would today due to different oceanic chemistry at the time, this increased deposition is well understood. The conclusion of the study makes that pretty clear. There isn't a mystery here anymore, as far as those who actually did the research are concerned. And they are the ones who would stand to benefit from this if it did show something crazy

On that note, you are seizing on the fact that rates at the time of this deposition were higher than we normally see today. I suggest you do a quick review of the fossil record regarding when algal blooms were going on. During these periods, there were increased numbers of phytoplankton, which obviously means there was greater phytoplanktonic deposition. During the formation of the Pisco formation, as the article says, one of these periods of bloom was occurring.


If, as you suggest, this is such fantastic evidence for a global flood......then why do those who study the material completely disagree with you? Are you saying that you, with your nonexistent education in these fields, know how to better interpret phytoplanktonic accumulation rates than experts in those fields?

There is no issue here for anybody who isn't a creationist. And creationists are well known for their rationale and careful attention to evidence right? :chuckle:

 

[Stuu]

Question: Can you explain why you believe in oxygen without a photograph of it?
Answer: I don't need a photograph to see the evidence. I not only believe in oxygen, but I KNOW it exists.
Faith is the EVIDENCE of things not seen.

I have seen oxygen. It is blue and is attracted to the poles of a magnet in the liquid state. There are many photographs of that.

Again, I'm not sure what that has to do with the complete lack of any photographs of your god. Is it shy?

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

The classic Stripe reply when he can't provide what he claims to have :rotfl:

Evidence. Which was provided. :up:

 

[Stuu]

The classic Stripe reply when he can't provide what he claims to have :rotfl:

It's one thing for us to engage in idle speculation about how different things would be if there had been a global flood within the past 5000 years. But the YECs here aren't capable of understanding just how radically different the planet would appear if it was really true.

Of course for cherry-pickers, there is correlation between evidence and history when it suits them.

Stuart

 

[6days]

The article does say "buried in weeks to months" and mentions the fauna that you did. I did not have access to the full pdf and assumed you also did not. There, I was wrong.

Not just wrong but ignorant.*
Ex.
Greg: "Because you're lying for God, I guess?"
So, it was truth?

Greg:"It doesn't say the boldnened words." But the article did say what I had said?

Greg: "Quit making things up.
So, it was actually you who made things up?

Greg: ". I strongly encourage anyone to read it so they can see 6days' truth-twisting in action" However you had not read the article yourself!

Greg: "Did you make something else up now?" Nope

Greg: "And if you were halfway educated
Ad hominem defintion "An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their arguement or opinion. Ad hominems are used by immature and/or unintelligent people because they are unable to counter their opponent using logic and intelligence." (Urban dictionary)

However, nothing in this study jives with your global flood at all.

Actually it is quite consistent with the flood model. You continue arguing against things you don't understand.

Now this is the definition of a shaky source.

Attacking the source is bordering on ad hominem.

But even so, it says the boot itself wasn't fossilized.

What boot? You asked for info on a hat and a bag of flour being fossilized.

It also says that these rapid fossilization processes are well understood and don't pose a threat to modern science. It says that, not me.

Yes... it was you who seemed to doubt that fossilization can happen rapidly.

Do you have a credible source (.edu or .org) that talks about the rapid fossilization of a boot or flour bag?

You can go see them for yourself...Blue Spring Heritage Center
1537 Co Rd 210, Eureka Springs, AR 72632
bluespringheritage@gmail.com

I don't recall the study using the word "unique"

They did.....
The article says "Thus, some set of unique conditions existed in
coastal Peru to permit such unusual preservation"

On that note, you are seizing on the fact that rates at the time of this deposition were higher than we normally see today.

Ha... Yes, there was some unique condition that rapidly buried whales protecting the bodies from oxidation and scavengers. The whales were not fossilized at the bottom of and ocean as you suggest but instead the secular opinion was that sediments were deposited above storm wave base.

I suggest you do a quick review of the fossil record regarding when algal blooms were going on.

From a guy who has been consistently wrong on everything about fossils, you aren't really in a position to start suggesting others review things.
BTW... The article*suggests that normal conditions would take thousands of years...yet some unique condition buried these whales and other animals in just weeks. The Bible provides the unique situation that would have rapidly buried and preserved billions of dead things everywhere on earth.