ps418

Thank you for taking my bait. That's the answer I suspected you had in mind. Unfortunately for your proposed explanation, the hypothesis that Noah's Flood deposited the geologic record is plainly and demonstrably wrong. That being the case, you do not have any explanation for the distribution of fossils in the geologic record.

However, I'm going to give you a fair chance to prove me wrong. In my next post, I will give you several thoroughly documented biostratigraphic "case studies," and you can explain to me how the Flood explains the distribution of fossils in the geologic record.

I'll start out with two simple but unequivocal lines of evidence refuting the flood theory: dessication cracks and evaporites. Even someone with little or no knowledge of the subject, such as yourself, can see plainly that neither could form during a subaqeous global deluge.

A few more observations unequivocally refuting the flood "theory" include <a href="http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/forests.htm" target="_blank">fossil forests </a>, <a href="http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/paleosols.htm" target="_blank">stacked paleosols</a>, <a href="http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/eggs.htm" target="_blank">dinosaur nests</a>, <a href="http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/aigcoal.htm" target="_blank">coal deposits</a>, <a href="http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/sap.htm" target="_blank">weathering mantles</a>, <a href="http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/hg.htm" target="_blank">marine hardgrounds</a>, <a href="http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/iso.htm" target="_blank">isotopic sorting</a>, and <a href="http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/reef.htm" target="_blank">fossil reefs,</a> among many others. If you disagree, then take your pick from any of the arguments above, and we can discuss it in detail.

You guys (most or all) believe that a layer strata is X amount of years. I see the evidence from Mount St Helen as evidence that shows error in popular dating methods.

Well, you're in error. Your claim that "the evidence from Mount St Helen as evidence that shows error in popular dating methods" is complete nonsense, and demonstrates that you have no idea how geologic formations are dated. I've read several papers on the geologic effects of St Helens, including those written by YECs Austin, Coffin, and others, and I can say outright that the evidence from St Helens poses no such challenge. Before I go on this particular subject, perhaps you could explain the logic behind your statement.

More later,

Patrick

[ December 07, 2001: Message edited by: ps418 ]</p>

wonderbread

Good post. Once again you swat flies using a cannon.

Dr.GH

Well, Patrick could also be said to open creationist watermellon with an axe. Good job.

ps418

Now for some concrete examples of the arrangement of fossils in the geologic record. Any hypothesis purporting to explain the geologic record must explain these basic data. In His Name , I would like you to enlighten us as to how "flood geology" explains this data, at least in principle.

Example 1: Neogene marine microfossils

Planktonic marine protists make excellent index fossils, since they have wide distributions but short time ranges. Foraminifera and coccoliths are widely used index fossils. There are a gazillion varieties of them in the geologic record. They're not randomly mixed-up, and they're not hydraulically or ecologically sorted either, but they do occur in a definite successional order.

Glenn Morton has a page listing some information on the subject. See <a href="http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/micro.htm" target="_blank">Microfossil Stratigraphy Presents Problems for the Flood. </a> Glenn uses the Gulf of Mexico as a reference section. Below is a list of bethic forams, planktonic forams, and nannofossils in the order they are found in Neogene sediments in the Gulf of Mexico:

AGE m.y.
0.10 Globoratalia flexusa acme
0.25 Pseudoemiliania lacunosa A
0.50 "Globorot, truncatulinoides coil change R/L"
0.55 Pseudoemiliania lacunosa B
0.60
0.80 P. lacunosa variety
1.02 Sphaeroidinella dehiscens acme A P. lacunosa C
1.19 Geophyrocapsa large
1.35 Hyalinea balthica Helicosphaera sellii
1.45 Angulogerina B
1.55 Sphaeroidinella dehiscens acme B. Calcidiscus macintyrei
1.95 Discoaster brouweri
2.02 Cristellaria S
2.10 Globorotalia crassiformis Discoaster brouweri A
2.20 Globorotalia menardii coil change L/R
2.25 Lenticulina 1
2.30 Globorotalia miocenica Discoaster pentaradiatus
2.55 Discoaster surculus
3.00 Globorotalia multicamerata
3.09 Globoquadrina altispira Discoaster tamalis
3.12 Sphaeroidinellopsis seminulina
3.47 Sphenolithus abies
3.58 "Globorot, margaritae"
3.64 Reticulofenestra pseudoumbilica
4.18 Globigerina nepenthes
4.30 Sphenolithus abies B
4.38 "Buliminella 1/Tex. mexicana Amaurolithus tricorniculatus
4.90 Globigerinoides mitra Ceratolithus acutus
5.10 Textularia X
5.10 G. menardi coil change R/L
5.20 Discoaster A
5.30 Discoaster quinqueramus
5.92 Discoaster B
6.00 Discoaster Berggrenii
6.15 Robulus E
6.38 Discoaster C
6.91 Bigenerina A
7.27 Discoaster neohamatus/calcaris
7.40 Discoaster loeblichii
7.50 Catinaster mexicanus
7.60 Cristellaria K
7.80 Cyclammina 3
8.80 Bolivina thalmannii Globorotalia lenguaensis Discoaster prepentaradiatus
9.10 Discorbis 12 Discoaster bollii
9.40 Discoaster hamatus
9.50 Textularia L
9.90 Catinaster coalitus
10.80 Bigenerina 2 Globorotalia mayeri
10.85 Cibicides carstensi
10.95 Uvigerina 3
11.00 Coccolithus miopelagicus
11.90 Globorotalia fohsi robusta Discoaster kugleri acme
12.00 Textularia W
12.80 Globorotalia fohsi fohsi
12.82 Discoaster sanmiguelensis
12.85 Bigenerina humblei
13.55 Cristellaria 1 Globorotalia fohsi barisanensis
13.60 Sphenolithus heteromorphus
14.80 Praeorbulina glomerosa Sphenolithus heteromorphus acme
14.90 Cibicides opima
15.47 Amphistegina B Helicosphaera ampliaperta
15.60
15.85 Robulus L
16.39 Camerina 1/Robulus mayeri
16.77 Gyroidina 9
17.00 Catapsydrax stainforthi
17.08 Sphenolithus belemnos
17.10 Catapsydrax dissimilis
17.30 Cristellaria A
18.20 Marginulina ascensionensis
18.30 Discoaster calculosus
19.50 Discoaster sanudersi
20.20 Siphonina davisi
21.50 Cristellaria R
22.90 Helicosphaera recta
23.90 Dictyococcites bisecta
24.00 Globigerina ciperoensis
24.00 Robulus A
24.20 Discorbis gravelli
24.30 Globigerina sellii
24.35 Heterostegina sp.
24.50 Cibicides jeffersonensis
24.60 Bolivina perca
24.75 Sphenolithus ciperoensis
25.05 Marginulina idiomorpha
25.25 Marginulina vaginata
25.95 Marginulina howei
26.50 Textularia 14
26.60 Camerina A
27.10 Miogypsinoides A
27.50 Sphenolithus distentus
27.75 Cibicides hazzardi
28.10 Cyclammina A
28.60 Marginulina texana
29.00 Bolivina mexicana
29.40 Sphenolithus predistentus
29.70 Nonion struma
29.90 Nodosaria blanpiedi
30.40 Textularia seligi Globigerina ampliapertura
30.60 Discoaster tani nodifer
32.20 Textularia warreni
32.30 Cibicides mississippiensis Reticulofenestra umbilica
32.40 Loxostoma B
32.80 Ericsonia formosa

The important point, as Morton points out, is that this arrangement of microfossils is found not only in the Gulf of Mexico, but over hundreds of thousands of square kilometers in the oceans. For instance, off New Jersey:

Discoaster. brouweri
D.pentaradiatus
D.surculus D. tamalis
Sphenolithus abies
Reticulofenestra pseudoumbilicus
Ceratolithus acutus
Discoaster quinqueramus
Discoaster berggrenii
Discoaster Loeblichiii
Discoaster Bollii

And the Phillipines:

Globorotalia truncatulinoides
Sphaeroidinella dehiscens
Globorotalia menardii
Globoquandrina altispira
Globigerina nepenthes
Globorotalia fohsi robusta
Globorotalia fohsi fohsi
Globigerina ciperoensis

And elsewhere. While each location may have its own unique fossils in addition to these, the order of these zonal fossils is striking. "Evolutionists" have a simple explanation for such patterns -- new species of forams and coccoliths have been appearing and disappearing, since they first appeared on earth.

These microfossils are only one of many examples that could be used to make the same point, for instance Jurassic ammonites and Ordovician conodonts and Cambrian trilobites, etc.

What I would like for you to explain, In His Name,
is how 6-day special creation and/or flood geology explains such patterns, which are ubiquitous in the geologic record.

Patrick

[ December 07, 2001: Message edited by: ps418 ]</p>

Pantera

Dear Santa

Patrick has been a very good boy this year. For Christmas please could he have a new dictionary - one which includes the word "overkill".

P.S. Hey Patrick - we installed a new smilie just for you!

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

ps418

In His Name,

I have another example to share with you, which I am reposting from a previous post. This example uses Ordovician graptolites as illustration of the way in which fossils are arranged within the geologic record.

Graptolites are an extinct form of tiny colonial organisms now thought to be related to the hemichordates. Their remains are particularly abundant in Ordovician and Silurian sediments. They disappear from the fossil record in the early Carboniferous. Some where benthic, living attached to a substrate, and some were planktonic, floating in the water column. Their "skeletons" were composed of a chitin-like protein, which is often found as carbonized impressions on bedding planes. The actual graptolite animals lived in tiny tubes called thecae.


Now, on to the test case. Cuffey writes:

" . . . the development of Ordovician graptolite biostratigraphy in North America provides a good case study of biostratigraphic methods based on faunal succession (Berry, 1977), and one that is independently testable (Goldman et al., 1994; Mitchell et al., 1994). Fifteen graptolite biozones have been recognized, defined, and refined by nearly a century of detailed work. Based on superpositional order, the same succession of graptolite species and zones is recognized in New York (Ruedemann, 1904, 1908, 1912, 1925, 1947; Berry, 1962, 1963, 1970; Mitchell et al., 1994; Goldman et al., 1994), Quebec (Riva, 1969, 1974), Newfoundland (Kindle & Whittington, 1958; Whittington & Kindle, 1 963), west Texas (King, 1937; Berry, 1960; Bergstrom, 1978), Yukon (Jackson, 1964; Jackson & Lenz, 1962), and east-central Alaska (Churkin & Brabb, 1965).

"Moreover, isolated localities with only short stratigraphic sections can be compared with portions of the zonation defined elsewhere (Ross & Berry, 1963). No assumption of evolution was made. The fact that this same succession occurs repeatedly in different regions all over North America, and that the succession can be independently verified by anyone willing to recollect the localities, leads to the conclusion that geochronologic correlation based on biostratigraphy is valid."

The refs can be found in Cliff Cuffey's excellent article,
<a href="http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_00.htm" target="_blank">The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation"</a>

Coragyps

And, IHN, lest you think that this succession of microfossils in the Gulf of Mexico are merely some academic waste of taxpayer's money, , may I point out that the wells that supply much of the natural gas in the US are drilled by watching which of these little critters show up in the drilled-up rock. Our old friend Bolivina mexicana, for example, shows up at about 15,000 feet subsurface just west of Rayne, Louisiana. The Monceaux #1 was drilled to look for "Bol mex", and produced 25 million cubic feet of gas per day when it found it. M. texana just wouldn't have been the same.

MrDarwin

Patrick, since I rather doubt that IHN (or any other creationist for that matter) is going to address this, let me play devil's advocate (or is it Christ's advocate in this case?).

The various organisms on the bottom are simply those that are the most sensitive to disturbance, e.g., reduced oxygen levels, reduced light, increased turbidity, influx of fresh water, etc. such as would be associated with a global flood. Tougher and more tolerant organisms succumbed in the oceans, one by one, in the same succession worldwide as conditions worsened during the course of the flood.

The floor is yours.

ps418

The only problem with that explanation and others like it is that fossils are not sorted in the geologic record according to ecological sensitivity. Nor are they sorted according to size, density or hydrodynamic characteristics. Nor are they sorted by ecological zonation or differential escape ability.

Indeed, that's why the graptolites, ammonites, brachiopods, molluscs, forams and coccoliths are good examples to illustrate my point -- in these cases we're considering a succession of genera and species that clearly were similar in terms of ecological sensitivity, size, density or hydrodynamic characteristics, and ecological zonation. Although these organisms have distinct morphological characteristics that make them distinguishable as seperate genera and species, they don't possess characteristics that would account for the precise sorting we see.

Let me give another vivid example. Radiolara and diatoms are both forms of marine protistans. They are roughly the same size. Both have tests (shells) made of silica. There are trillions and trillions of each in the fossil record, and therefore there must have been trillions and trillions of them in the preflood ocean. Yet while radiolarans appear in the Cambrian, diatoms do not appear until the mid-Mesozoic.

But let me put some more icing on the cake -- whereas radiolara are dominantly planktonic, living near the water surface, many diatoms are benthic, leaving on the sea floor. So, the actual distribution of diatoms and radiolara is precisely the reverse of what just about any flood sorting mechanism would predict.

I could go on, but let me give just one more example. There are gazillions of rugose and tabulate corals in the fossil record. There are also gazillions of scleractinian corals in the fossil record. Yet the rugosa and tabulata are present only in Paleozoic strata, while the scleractinians ar present only from the Mesozoic onwards.

I'm not aware of any "flood sorting mechanism" that is not flatly contradictory to the actual distribution of fossils in the geologic record.


Patrick

Coragyps

In amplification of Patrick's posts, it's also worth noting that the sediment column in S. Louisiana is at least five miles thick. These 8000 meters are BORING sequences of delta/shallow ocean sediments, sometimes sandier, sometimes shaly. I find it rather difficult to imagine the Mississippi River bringing down that much sediment in the Flood Year, particularly when it would have to know to bring sand one day, silt the next, clay the third..... And to sort Bol mex from Marg tex at the same time? I don't think so.