Fossils and the Flood II

[juliod]

OK. The first thread has wandered off in every direction except the one I was asking about.

This isn't a question about strata, or whether the flood actually happened, etc.

The question is: Why have the creation "scientists" not demonstrated the rapid fossilization mechanisms that must exist if the flood story is true?

Real science says that minerlization processes happen generally over a long period of time. By creation theory (if there was one) all the mechanism of fossil formation must take place over short periods of time.

The flood lasted only a year, and thereafter the land masses were no longer submerged. In high areas the sediment layer would have been very thin. Whatever process there was, it would have had to take effect over the year of the flood.

So why has it not been demonstrated?

The demonstration would be a) easy, and b) convincing.

Place a dead animal in a tank with some sediment. Let it settle out and apply whatever pressure, temperature, or whatever else the nonexistant creation "model" demands. Open the tank in 12-18 months and show that your recover a perfect fossile. Easy.

It's so easy that we can assume that the reason it has not been done is that it doesn't work. I.e. Creationism is already known to be false.

DanZ

[Nyril]

Diamonds are believed to have formed quickly, but a long time ago. Not, over a long period of time. Rather, they are thought to have been formed by a quick release of hot gas. This creates the temperature and pressure window that is necessary.

This is incorrect.

I personally am not convinced they are old because there really isn't a way to date them. It's really an open area of science..no one can figure out why or really how they form.

Diamonds form when a continental plate undergoes subduction and is in essence, "squished" by another plate. Over millions of years the temperature and pressure increase on the plate as it gets lower and lower in the mantle, and graphite (due to it's physical properties) changes structure to form diamonds because diamonds are more stable at higher temperatures and pressures.

The thing you need to understand is that we don't get diamonds from the plates that are below several miles of dirt and such, what happens is that some event (could be an eruption, could be an Earthquake, could be one of a thousand things) breaks the crust above the diamonds and the compressed rock is brought to the surface.

Now, the reason we know this well enough to say it is true, is because we can simulate the temperatures and pressures found under the Earth and create our own artificial diamonds.

The misconception here is that diamonds are in some way shape or form special, but they're not, they're just changing their phase. In the same way you can boil water at room temperature by lowering the pressure (this is a great experiment to do by the way), you can make diamonds by shifting the temperature and pressure in the other direction.

[micatala]

I am not a YEC and don't believe in a global flood. I do have a question about the following, though.

You misunderstand the point. Your flood chronology requires a series (i.e. more than a few) of fossilization mechanisms that work on the time scale of 12 months.

Dead animals laid down by the flood would have remained under water for about 12 months, and then the waters receeded. The process will have stopped at that point. Many fossils are at or near the surface (i.e. they are not subject to any special forces of pressure or temperature).

It seems to me you are assuming that fossilization cannot take place after the waters have receded. What is the basis for this assumption? Couldn't a cataclysm of whatever sort (watery or not) bury an animal, after which it fossilizes over some more lengthy period of time?

Out of all the clearly defined sedimentary layers which one is supposed to be due to this "Flood"? Of course these cliffs are supposed to date from the middle Jurassic, while others to the West are early. So the Flood would be where in relation to this?

QED's picture would seem to me to show a piece of data harder for a YEC to explain.

[Aximili23]

Nyril, thanks for the info on diamond formation. It's nice to learn things in forums.

But it is true that scientific academia is by and large not willing to consider that their presuppositions might be wrong, even though they use terms like "it's not well understood" or "as yet undiscovered". It's very sad to me, because that is not how science should be.

This statement is misleading. When scientists use the term "not well understood" or "as yet undiscovered", the are usually referring to current topics of research; for example, certain genetic mechanisms behind embryonic development or the onset of cancer. Scientists never use such terms to describe well-established theories in science, such as evolution or the atomic theory of chemistry, because, well, these ARE understood/discovered. The only debate is in the fine details of how such processes occur.

The scientific academia are actually quite willing to change their views on most theories, provided that the changes/revisions/objections are backed by rigorous evidence presented through peer-review. You see examples of theories being discarded in favor of better ones all the time. But you're correct that scientists are rarely willing to listen to objections regarding extremely well-studied, throughly grounded theories, such as (again) evolution or atomic theory. But this is only because these theories are SO well-supported by evidence, and have been for so long, that the chance of their being wrong are minimal. Furthermore, as far as evolution goes, the objections proposed by creationists have repeatedly been demonstrated to be empty, and based on religious convictions rather than science. So the skepticism that mainstream science has for creationism is both understandable and justified.

[Aximili23]

It seems to me you are assuming that fossilization cannot take place after the waters have receded. What is the basis for this assumption? Couldn't a cataclysm of whatever sort (watery or not) bury an animal, after which it fossilizes over some more lengthy period of time?

The reason for this assumption has been discussed a bit in other threads. Basically, creationists hold that all land species now living on Earth arise from "microevolution" of the species that were carried on the Ark, during the Flood of only a few thousand years ago. The enormous biological diversity that we see today thus demands that an incredibly rapid pace of microevolution must have taken place within the last few thousand years. This microevolution should, if creationists are correct, be present in the fossil record. Of course, it isn't.

Some creationsts (such as our own YEC) respond by saying that all fossils now existing were only formed in the Flood, that you need such a flood (i.e., a God-caused global one) to form fossils. To these creationists, no fossils were formed or can be formed after the Flood.

Which takes us to Juliod's challenge to creationists to demonstrate how fossils can be created under conditions similar to a flood. If creationists are correct, then we have a falsifiable prediction: fossils form within a short span (12-18 months, in Juliod's challenge) under Flood conditions. If no such fossil can be formed, than the creationist model is incorrect.

[juliod]

It seems to me you are assuming that fossilization cannot take place after the waters have receded. What is the basis for this assumption? Couldn't a cataclysm of whatever sort (watery or not) bury an animal, after which it fossilizes over some more lengthy period of time?

Its not an assumption, but a consequence of creationist "geology". Many fossils (all the easily accessible ones) are found at or near the surface. Since creationism does not allow for any mechanism to bring them to the surface by plate techtonics, they must have been at the surface at the end of the flood.

And since they were at the surface since the flood they haven't been exposed to any extreme environmental effects. In other words, the fossilization process must have been complete during the flood.

DanZ

[micatala]

It seems to me you are assuming that fossilization cannot take place after the waters have receded. What is the basis for this assumption? Couldn't a cataclysm of whatever sort (watery or not) bury an animal, after which it fossilizes over some more lengthy period of time?


Its not an assumption, but a consequence of creationist "geology". Many fossils (all the easily accessible ones) are found at or near the surface. Since creationism does not allow for any mechanism to bring them to the surface by plate techtonics, they must have been at the surface at the end of the flood.

Well, then it seems to be an assumption of (at least some?) creationist geologists. Again, I am not arguing for YEC, but am interested in reducing the number of 'straw man' arguments. Do creationist geologists actually make this assumption, or is this a position you are attributing to them based on your reading of their position? If it isn't really necessary for them to make this assumption, then the argument isn't really going to go anywhere. From YEC's previous post, I don't think he is making this assumption.

Yes, I would guess most fossils are found 'at the surface' but I would guess not all. Also, even in only the few thousand year time span allowed by YEC, there could have been some amount of erosion of surface layers, so that some fossils that were buried deeply around the time of the hypothesized flood could now be at the surface.

Are 'extreme environmental effects' required for fossilization?

I apologize if this has all been covered in another thread. Point me elsewhere as appropriate.

[gabbro]

Please go check out a physical geology textbook. They will all describe diamonds as having been formed in the middle of stable cratons (continents). The body of thought does not have them formed in subductions zones. The deposits are never found near subduction zones. A lot of minerals are formed this way, but not diamonds.

Check out this web site. It has animations and everything about how diamonds are thought to have formed

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/mms/diam/diamtext_e.htm

There are many more web sites out there. Diamonds are fascinating. National Geographic had a great layout a few years back.

[Nyril]

Good information. You're quite right, the african plate is relatively stationary, I was thinking of gneiss (say, "nice").

[Samurai Tailor]

Well, then it seems to be an assumption of (at least some?) creationist geologists. Again, I am not arguing for YEC, but am interested in reducing the number of 'straw man' arguments. Do creationist geologists actually make this assumption, or is this a position you are attributing to them based on your reading of their position? If it isn't really necessary for them to make this assumption, then the argument isn't really going to go anywhere. From YEC's previous post, I don't think he is making this assumption.

It is not an assumption or a position per se, but, as stated, a "consequence" of the foundational claims of flood geology. It need not be explicitly stated in order to be an issue.

Yes, I would guess most fossils are found 'at the surface' but I would guess not all. Also, even in only the few thousand year time span allowed by YEC, there could have been some amount of erosion of surface layers, so that some fossils that were buried deeply around the time of the hypothesized flood could now be at the surface.

It does not matter. Flood geology does not get out of having to account for the difficult examples just because it can account for some easier ones.

Are 'extreme environmental effects' required for fossilization?

Presumably. Otherwise, we might expect to find many more fossils than we do.

[Aximili23]

Again, I am not arguing for YEC, but am interested in reducing the number of 'straw man' arguments. Do creationist geologists actually make this assumption, or is this a position you are attributing to them based on your reading of their position? If it isn't really necessary for them to make this assumption, then the argument isn't really going to go anywhere. From YEC's previous post, I don't think he is making this assumption.

Just to demonstrate that this isn't a strawman argument, this is to show that at least one creationist, YEC in fact, did categorically state that fossils are only formed by the flood. These can all be found in the Creation model thread:

the creationist understand that the fossils were a by-product of the flood. In other words, no flood...no fossils.

Just what part of...there needed to be a flood to form fossils in our geological colum...and there was no world wide flood after Noahs Flood don't you understand???