gseeker and PW's paleontology fun times!

[painted wolf]

Just a fun thread to discuss paleontology, the fossil record and evolution.

Since I'm starting the thread I guess it's up to me to pick the first subject so here it goes:

We have rocks identified by how they are formed into three basic categories... Igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic. We can pretty easily distinguish them and the processes behind their formation.

Is this something we can start out with as a point of agreement?

wa:do

 

[gseeker]

I agree with that, again each type is created or rather altered through a process creating one from another. An intelligent design for an on going process if you will.

 

[secret2]

I agree with that, again each type is created or rather altered through a process creating one from another. An intelligent design for an on going process if you will.

What the bleep is 'type'?

 

[Man of Faith]

I agree with that, again each type is created or rather altered through a process creating one from another. An intelligent design for an on going process if you will.

hahaha you said created.

 

[Man of Faith]

Man this thread is going slow, I hope the evolutionists can keep up.

 

[Orias]

Yay for created stones?

Who do layers of the onion have to do with evolution or creation?

 

[McBell]

I agree with that, again each type is created or rather altered through a process creating one from another. An intelligent design for an on going process if you will.

Each type of what?

Please define type.

 

[gseeker]

Each type of stone, metamorphic, igneous, and sedimentary. Thought it was pretty well explained in the first question posted by wolf.

 

[Krok]

Man this thread is going slow, I hope the evolutionists can keep up.

Err, geologists study rocks. Biologists study evolution.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Err, geologists study rocks. Biologists study evolution.

Well, some creationists believe that everyone who isn't a creationist is an evolutionist. They commonly say "evolutionists believe the Universe started with the big bang". Quite fun.

 

[gseeker]

Err, geologists study rocks. Biologists study evolution.

Actually each scientific study can provide information to other scientific studies. Paleontology, biology, microbiology, ecology, anthropology, ect each contribute to the theory of evolution.

 

[painted wolf]

I agree with that, again each type is created or rather altered through a process creating one from another. An intelligent design for an on going process if you will.

Ok... so if we look at a strata of rocks we can tell what kinds of rocks are present and get a general idea of what rocks were laid down when.

I say general because I realize it's a little more involved than this due to deformation, intrusions and uplift.

Fossils form primarily in sedimentary rocks but can also form in rocked created by volcanic ash.

We can identify if a sedimentary rock was formed as a still lake-bed, ocean sediment, drying mud or slumped sand dune. Each one has a unique structure.

And now for some paleontology from the biology end.

Like with rocks we can identify bones and tell what sorts of creatures they come from. The more bones we have the more certain we can be, but some key bones are extremely distinctive.

Vertebrates are also bilaterally symmetrical, so if I have one arm that isn't obviously traumatized I have a pretty certain idea what the other arm looks like and so on.

How are these... still good?

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Err, geologists study rocks. Biologists study evolution.

And Paleontologists are required to know both.

Paleontology is an interdisciplinary science if not the most interdisciplinary science. Looking for old bones is just one small part of it.

wa:do

 

[gseeker]

Ok... so if we look at a strata of rocks we can tell what kinds of rocks are present and get a general idea of what rocks were laid down when.

I say general because I realize it's a little more involved than this due to deformation, intrusions and uplift.

Fossils form primarily in sedimentary rocks but can also form in rocked created by volcanic ash.

We can identify if a sedimentary rock was formed as a still lake-bed, ocean sediment, drying mud or slumped sand dune. Each one has a unique structure.

And now for some paleontology from the biology end.

Like with rocks we can identify bones and tell what sorts of creatures they come from. The more bones we have the more certain we can be, but some key bones are extremely distinctive.

Vertebrates are also bilaterally symmetrical, so if I have one arm that isn't obviously traumatized I have a pretty certain idea what the other arm looks like and so on.

How are these... still good?

wa:do

Yes and no. First you have to consider the state of the earth when first created. Obviously with intelligent design and a new earth that earth would have to substain life, that means biological earth and features of erosion for growing plant life. Change is also not a constant. I've seen stalagmites form over a period of five years and hard sedimentary rocks form over a period of ten years much faster than is supposed. It is dependent on mineralization and concentration as well as environmental factors. Other thanneeding to point that out your statement is correct. Also keep in mind fossil identification is dependent on the size of the fossil, and the condition of the sample.

 

[Krok]

Ok... so if we look at a strata of rocks we can tell what kinds of rocks are present and get a general idea of what rocks were laid down when.

I say general because I realize it's a little more involved than this due to deformation, intrusions and uplift.

Fossils form primarily in sedimentary rocks but can also form in rocked created by volcanic ash.

We can identify if a sedimentary rock was formed as a still lake-bed, ocean sediment, drying mud or slumped sand dune. Each one has a unique structure.

And now for some paleontology from the biology end.

Like with rocks we can identify bones and tell what sorts of creatures they come from. The more bones we have the more certain we can be, but some key bones are extremely distinctive.

Vertebrates are also bilaterally symmetrical, so if I have one arm that isn't obviously traumatized I have a pretty certain idea what the other arm looks like and so on.

How are these... still good?

wa:do

Still good to me.

 

[Krok]

And Paleontologists are required to know both.

Paleontology is an interdisciplinary science if not the most interdisciplinary science. Looking for old bones is just one small part of it.

wa:do

That's true. Geologists study rocks. Biologists study evolution. Paleontologists study rocks and fossils, they need to know about geology and biology.

 

[Krok]

Yes and no. First you have to consider the state of the earth when first created....

No, in science you consider the empirical, verifiable evidence first. After that you can draw conclusions about the formation of the earth.

That's why creationism, and it's later off-shoot, named ID, is not science. They do it the other way round. In the process they ignore all the evidence not fitting into their interpretation of their holy books. Then they tell untruths about everything. As you, gseeker, has shown repeatedly.

 

[Krok]

Actually each scientific study can provide information to other scientific studies. Paleontology, biology, microbiology, ecology, anthropology, ect each contribute to the theory of evolution.

That's true. That's why each and every natural science provides more and more evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution. Independently. The fact remains that geologists study rocks and biologists study evolution.

 

[painted wolf]

Yes and no. First you have to consider the state of the earth when first created. Obviously with intelligent design and a new earth that earth would have to substain life, that means biological earth and features of erosion for growing plant life.

Intelligent design says nothing about geology... it's purely a biomolecular hypothesis.

But even granting a freshly created Earth, the rock cycle would start irregardless. Those first layers would be without fossils as the Earth is needed before life can be put on it.

IMHO the creationist "Apparent age" argument implies a creator/designer that is intentionally trying to deceive us into thinking things are older than they in fact are. The New Earth would have to be "new" not artificially aged.

Change is also not a constant. I've seen stalagmites form over a period of five years and hard sedimentary rocks form over a period of ten years much faster than is supposed. It is dependent on mineralization and concentration as well as environmental factors.

Yes, but don't these processes still leave indications that they happen quickly... in the molecular structure of the rocks themselves. Larger crystal structures and layers... that sort of thing.

Other thanneeding to point that out your statement is correct. Also keep in mind fossil identification is dependent on the size of the fossil, and the condition of the sample.

Indeed. Though size isn't a factor unless you are talking about fragments of larger fossils.
We can identify fossils at millimeter sizes, usually of exceptionally small invertebrates.

wa:do

 

[outhouse]

someone has been ducking the YEC missinformation. Guess who??


yet you seem him dancing around it with comments like this

I've seen stalagmites form over a period of five years and hard sedimentary rocks form over a period of ten years much faster than is supposed

your quote "hard" is a percieved word. Concrete dries hard overnite, yet it is not "hardrock"