flowering plants and the Flood

I have posted this question at regular intervals and have so far not been given an explanation of how it can be explained with a Creation model:Why do we only find fossils of flowering plants in more recent geologic layers?We don't find a single flowering tree, plant, or grass in the lower layers. What mechanism could possibly have sorted flowering plants separately, without exception, even though the density of a given flowering tree would be the same as a similar non-flowering tree, or the density of a given flowering plant would be the same as a similar non-flowering plant?Even if a mechanism could be identified, then why, according to a Creationist model of the Flood, would flowering plants be in the particular layers in which they appear?

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
I have posted this question at regular intervals and have so far not been given an explanation of how it can be explained with a Creation model:

​

Why do we only find fossils of flowering plants in more recent geologic layers?

​

We don't find a single flowering tree, plant, or grass in the lower layers. What mechanism could possibly have sorted flowering plants separately, without exception, even though the density of a given flowering tree would be the same as a similar non-flowering tree, or the density of a given flowering plant would be the same as a similar non-flowering plant?

​

Even if a mechanism could be identified, then why, according to a Creationist model of the Flood, would flowering plants be in the particular layers in which they appear?

---

Since you brought it up....here's some news from our paleopeopleCheersjoe Meert

The last time I researched this topic I discovered that flowering plant pollen had been discovered in
cmbrian rocks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ksc:
The last time I researched this topic I discovered that flowering plant pollen had been discovered in
cmbrian rocks.

---

The discovery of the earliest flowering plant was just announced earlier this week, it's age estimated at about 125 million years. It appears to be most closely related to the modern water lily.The Cambrian ended about 500 million years ago, well before the first flowering plants.--Percy

"The last time I researched this topic I discovered that flowering plant pollen had been discovered in
cmbrian rocks."
--I had used this argument some time ago, however, I would have to wonder why assuming that this claim is valid, pollen would be found and not the flowering plant itself of any kind. I must say, there is no known depositional model I know of to account for angiosperm sorting. It must be placed on an order of existence, not hydrodynamic sorting as this would be the only usable process to place on angiosperms. The claims of pollen being found in the hakatai shale is much too sketchy to be used, I believe that moose gave me a good article on this. Basically, you would have to figure out what would cause there to be insufficient angiosperms existing for deposition until you reach cretaceous sediment deposition. I unfortunately do not know enough about Angiosperms and Gymnosperms to have the information to come to a conclusion.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-04-2002]

Cool article, Joe. Very neat, thanks for posting the link.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"The last time I researched this topic I discovered that flowering plant pollen had been discovered in
cmbrian rocks."
--I had used this argument some time ago, however, I would have to wonder why assuming that this claim is valid, pollen would be found and not the flowering plant itself of any kind. I must say, there is no known depositional model I know of to account for angiosperm sorting. It must be placed on an order of existence, not hydrodynamic sorting as this would be the only usable process to place on angiosperms. The claims of pollen being found in the hakatai shale is much too sketchy to be used, I believe that moose gave me a good article on this. Basically, you would have to figure out what would cause there to be insufficient angiosperms existing for deposition until you reach cretaceous sediment deposition. I unfortunately do not know enough about Angiosperms and Gymnosperms to have the information to come to a conclusion.

---

Well, you know that there aren't any flowering plants found below a certain level in the fossil record.Since you have all along claimed that the Flood caused the sorting we see in the geologic column, it would seem that this is a huge logical inconsistency for you and a major problem with your claim. If you became an expert on all plants, it still wouldn't change the location of the emergence of flowering plants in the geologic column.This obvious evidence is devastating to your argument that the Flood caused the sorting of the fossils, and you know it but can't admit it, so you retreat to "I don't know enough to come to a conclusion."You certainlly do know enough to come to a conclusion. You just aren't allowed to come to it because your religion says that the Flood happened, so you must set aside any evidence which refutes it.Make no mistake, this is exactly what you are doing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ksc:
The last time I researched this topic I discovered that flowering plant pollen had been discovered in
cmbrian rocks.

---

First of all, the pollen that was found was from local plant life existing now. Pollen is really small, you know, and it gets everywhere, including deep down in cracks in rocks. I am afraid that this is, once again, an exaple of Creationists accepting any "evidence" which seems to support their claims, no matter how shoddily it was collected or how incompetent the people collecting it are.Second, what about the plants? Where are the fruit trees and other flowering trees, grasses, and cacti in the lower layers? If there was a Flood, why were flowering and non-flowering plants separated at all? Why do we not find any fossil floweing plants below a certain level in the Geologic column?

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
First of all, the pollen that was found was from local plant life existing now. Pollen is really small, you know, and it gets everywhere, including deep down in cracks in rocks. I am afraid that this is, once again, an exaple of Creationists accepting any "evidence" which seems to support their claims, no matter how shoddily it was collected or how incompetent the people collecting it are.

​

Second, what about the plants? Where are the fruit trees and other flowering trees, grasses, and cacti in the lower layers? If there was a Flood, why were flowering and non-flowering plants separated at all? Why do we not find any fossil floweing plants below a certain level in the Geologic column?

​

---

Forgive my inquisitiveness as I know little geology, but: How do scientists explain the findings of tree trunk fossils covering multi-layers of geological strata ?
And how small must small be to allow pollen and/or other 'microscopic' fossils to settle in lower strata layers?
Would not this 'settling' phenomenon you propose seem to invalidate the geological time schemes proposed by evolutionists as well?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
Forgive my inquisitiveness as I know little geology, but: How do scientists explain the findings of tree trunk fossils covering multi-layers of geological strata?

---

Polystrate fossils are not a problem unless you can find one that spans the Cambrian to Devonian Periods, for instance. Mainstream geology does not deny that some layers are deposited rapidly. It just denies that ALL layers are deposited rapidly.

quote:

---

And how small must small be to allow pollen and/or other 'microscopic' fossils to settle in lower strata layers?

---

Pollen is extremely small. That's why conventional air filters are so ineffective in removing pollen grains for your forced air heating system. They are like dust ... virtually everywhere, especially when you do not take extreme care in avoiding or removing them. Most contamination probably occurs in handling the rock samples, but basically, anywhere that air or water can enter a rock, pollen will follow.

quote:

---

Would not this 'settling' phenomenon you propose seem to invalidate the geological time schemes proposed by evolutionists as well?

---

No, because the "settling" has occurred after the rocks were lithified and then fractured; or even after the samples were collected. If the pollen were there when the rocks were deposited that would be a different story, but you will read that the pollen found in the Hakatai Shale was completely unreplaced by minerals, undeformed by compaction, and not discolored by heat or time. You will also read that the pollen found in the Hakatai is from modern plants extant in the Grand Canyon today. Do you think that the depositional/climatic environment of today is identical to that of the depositional environment of the Precambrian marine shales at the same location?Usually, it is a trivial task to determine contamination by modern pollen, even without making the a priori assumption of evolution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by edge:
Do you think that the depositional/climatic environment of today is identical to that of the depositional environment of the Precambrian marine shales at the same location?

​

Usually, it is a trivial task to determine contamination by modern pollen, even without making the a priori assumption of evolution.

---

--I detect an a priori assumption of someone’s mutational scheme here (in shales at least). Thanks for your honesty that such assumptions really exist.--Might we negate the a priori assumption of mutationalistic phenomenon c/w geological strata-ages, etc., for a minute. especially in the grand canyon area, which has suffered considerable reproach by mutationalists and creationists alike?--The pollen, if un-fossilized, would probably decompose over a few years or peradventure, centuries (I don’t know), making them recent contaminants, regardless. But fossilized pollen, would it still such a ‘trivial’ task as you stated.
--Also, if there were cracks in the ‘lithified’ strata allowing water and/or air leaks, were they not big and small with some extensions to the lowest strata (i.e., in undiscovered areas), too? Would not numerous other ‘contaminations’ of life-forms be found (as yet undiscovered) in these lowest strata?

"Well, you know that there aren't any flowering plants found below a certain level in the fossil record."
--Not that I know of, and I would, no doubtedly, tend to agree."Since you have all along claimed that the Flood caused the sorting we see in the geologic column, it would seem that this is a huge logical inconsistency for you and a major problem with your claim."
--By my current knowledge, yes its detrimental."If you became an expert on all plants, it still wouldn't change the location of the emergence of flowering plants in the geologic column."
--Of course it wouldn't, however if you were an 'expert on all plants' you would have much more of a capacity to determine reasons for this observation, such as seasonal growth or even density in wooded trees."This obvious evidence is devastating to your argument that the Flood caused the sorting of the fossils, and you know it but can't admit it, so you retreat to "I don't know enough to come to a conclusion."
--Please schrafinator, I have done a far cry from 'retreating'. As I have pointed out as well as has been agreed with by edge on the topic of radioisotopes, it is highly necessary to understand processes which may just have a high degree of merit on the question."You certainlly do know enough to come to a conclusion. You just aren't allowed to come to it because your religion says that the Flood happened, so you must set aside any evidence which refutes it."
--Percipient stated something similar in still the same post.

quote:

---

Percipient: what you already know about fossils, geologic layers and radiometric dating is more than sufficient to understand that the earth is a very ancient place

---

--He also made the assertion that stated that I did not 'even indicate an understanding of them', so I would assume that he was making a point which basically stated that you need not to understand the details to see that the earth is a very ancient place. Which, schrafinator was incorrect.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-06-2002]

--I can agree with edge on the hakatai shale findings of pollen. I can also recall from the article which I was refering to in my post #5 that the pollen that was found still had considerable yellow pigment, rather than the other findings of pollen in sedimentary deposits which are black(ish?). That is, if memory serves me well.------------------