Fossil sorting for simple

simple wrote:
"how a flood could order the fossils? ..
Walt's book deals with that, citing lab
experiments, etc. He also mentions a
process, like in earthquakes, called
liquefaction. In a worldwide scenario,
he denser mammals would fall in a
certain order."The liquefaction theory is readily refuted by layering and specific sedimentary structures of the strata, which Walt Brown claims were produced by liquefaction. It is simply impossible for liquefaction to produce climbing ripple lamination, trough cross-bedding, planar sets of foreset bedding, fossil animal burrows, and many other sedimentary structures and the complex interbedding of different layers of sediments observed within sedimentary rocks. It is nothing short of a miracle that liquefaction could produce all of these sedimentary structures and interbedding of the different layers containing these sedimentary structures such that they perfectly mimic, without any differences, the bedding and sedimentary structures that rivers, waves, turbidity currents, glaciers, contour currents, and many other depositional processes have been documented to produce in modern environments by innumerable studies. The fact of the matter is that these laboratory experiments have never succeeded in producing anything that replicated the complex types of sedimentary bedding and structures seen in the real world. Skeptical Young earth creationists need, in the laboratory, to try to create climbing ripples, epsilon cross-bedding, and a layer of sediments having all of the physical properties of a fossil soil using his liquefaction process. If they did, they would find that it is impossible to do and discover that Walt Brown's claims about what liquefaction can do is nothing more than religious fiction lacking any basis in reality.In terms of actual "sorting", I would like an explanation how hydraulic sorting can explain the relative zonation of microfossils, i.e. foraminfera, palynomorphs, radiolarians, diatoms, conodonts, cocoliths, and so forth, that are too small to have been affected by hydraulic sorting during the flood. This is nicely discussed in "September: Fish Fossils: In a thread debating the historicity of the Genesis flood, Keith Littleton dismisses claims that the fossil record of fishes shows evidence of widespread catastrophic deposition, and points out facts about mammalian and foraminiferan fossil records that a global flood cannot explain." at:The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: September 2002In that letter, Mr. Littleton, a member of a small "cabal" of Gulf Coast geologists having fun with debunking Young Earth creationists, wrote:"What I would like Young Earth creationists to explain
is why microfossils which lived in the same ocean are
so nicely stratified according to age. First go read
"Microfossil Stratigraphy Presents Problems for the
Flood" by Glenn R. Morton at:http://home.entouch.net/dmd/micro.htm "I would make one change in the above paragraph by changing the phrase "nicely stratified according to age" to "nicely stratified according to relative depth".Mr. Littleton continued:"He gives a few of innumerable examples where
foraminifera and other microfossils are found in the
same stratigraphic sequence over large areas, even
world-wide. A person cannot explain this in terms of
either location or habitat zonation. Since they are
essentially the same size and weight, hydraulic sorting
cannot be used as an explanation. The only explanation
is that the foraminifera are found neatly zoned by
depth is because they lived at different times as the
strata accumulated.The Young Earth creationist global flood model cannot
account for vertical distribution of microsfossils as
illustrated in the "MMS GOMR Resource Evaluation
Paleontological Laboratory, Biostratigraphic Chart."
with a link at "Scientific and Technical Papers of the
Gulf of Mexico OCS Region" at:http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/whatsnew/papers/papers.html "NOTE: On that page the chart is listed as:Witrock, Robert B., Anton R. Friedmann, James J.
Galluzzo, Leslie D. Nixon, Paul J. Post, and
Katherine M. Ross, MMS Biostratigraphic Chart
of the Gulf of Mexico Offshore Region, Jurassic
to Quaternary, revised May 2003.Mr.Littleton continued:"This chart can be downloaded from:http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/whatsnew/papers/biochart.pdf
OCS BBS, OCS Offshore Gulf of Mexico Oil & Gas BOEM GOM DataThis chart shows the vertical sequence in which all
over the entire northern Gulf of Mexico how over a
100 different microfossils occur within a pile
sediments over 15,000 to 20,000 feet thick. In
oil well after oil well and in surface exposure
after surface exposure, the sequence of microfossils
shown in this chart can be found. For example,
Hyalina "B" is always found in the sediments above
the sediments containing Angulogerina "A." It, in
turn, overlies sediments containing Cristellaria
"S", Globorotalia miocenica and Globorotalia
menardii , and Bolivina imporcata. These
microfossils are found above sediments containing
Lenticulina 1, Cassidulina "L", and Saracenaria "H".
In addition, the geologic periods also occur in
the same order in oil well after oil well as
well as in surface exposures. Hydraulic sorting
cannot explain this vertical distribution of
microfossils as Glenn argues on his web page."Again, Glen Morton's web page is:http://home.entouch.net/dmd/micro.htmYours,Bill Birkeland[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 02-04-2004]

> I'm sure you would! -- but why not talk to your
>superiors and try and get'm to work up a little
>courage and have it out with Walt? YELLOW?Given that nothing prevents Walt from joining this message board and answering the questions being posed, maybe Mr.simple can talk to Walt Brown and convince him "work up a little courage" and answer some the questions being asked here about his ideas in his own words. Nothing prevents Walt from having out with the people on this message board, except his backbone, or lack of it.Young Earth creationists prefer verbal debates because in debates, theatrics and showmanship count more than facts. Also, in debates, it is far easier for a person to misstate and misrepresent the facts and even fabricate falsehoods without the opposing person having the time to make the audience aware of the misinformation and falsehoods being offered them as evidence.When the rules are such that Walt Brown can't practice the "Gish Gallop" and other unscientific tactics and his opposition has the time to refute his claims and contest the validity of what he provides as either proof or evidence, he is the one who gets cold feet and refuses to debate as noted in the July 2002 Feedback at:TalkOrigins Archive - Feedback for July 2002Walt Brown cold feet at debating, when theatrics and showship are minimized is discussed in "Walt Brown's Pseudochallenge" at;Walt BrownThe counter at this web page shows that Walt Brown has refused to debate for over 1186 days at this time.Also, Walt brown has been challenged to submit an article about his Hydroplate theory to the the peer-reviewed journal Gondwana Research. again, he has also developed a severe case of cold feet and has refused to do this.The unscientific tactics used in debates by Young Earth creationists, and why they like them, are discussed in "Debating Creationists: Some Pointers" at:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debating/globetrotters.htmlIn this article, it is stated:"Creationist debaters (at least the nationally-
prominent ones) are masters at presenting
these half-truth non-sequiturs that the audience
misunderstands as relevant points. These
can be very difficult to counter in a debate
situation, unless you have a lot of time. And
you never have enough time to deal with
even a fraction of the half-truths or plain
erroneous statements that creationists can
come out with. Even if you deal with a
handful of the unscientific nonsense spewed
out by your opponent, your audience is left with t
he , "Yeah, but..." syndrome: well, maybe
there are intermediate forms and the
creationist was wrong about radiometric
dating, YEAH, BUT why didn't that evolutionist
answer the question about polonium halos?"
(or some other argument.)"Yours,Bill[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 02-05-2004]

jazzlover_PR wrote in Message 30"The petrified forests of Yellowstone National
Park have often been used to argue against
Bible chronology. These were once interpreted
as buried and petrified in place-as many
as 50 successive times, with a brand new
forest growing upon the debris of the previous
one. Naturally, such an interpretation would
require hundreds of thousands of years to
deposit the whole sequence and is inconsistent
with the Bible time-scale."It sound like Mr. jazzlover_PR is indulging in "hit and run posting" here. Instead of discussing the topic at hand.Mr. jazzlover_PR wrote:"But this interpretation is also inconsistent
with the fact that the tree trunks and stumps
have been broken off at their base and do not
have proper root systems.The above statement is quite blind to the "facts on the ground" as far as the Yellowstone Petrified Forests are concerned. The fact of the matter, contrary to the above sentence falsely claims, is that **not** all of the trees found in the Yellowstone Petrified Forests are "broken off at their base" and "do not have proper roots systems". Instead, the **upright** ( polystrate ) tree trunks have well-preserved, fossilized, intact roots systems that are rooted in recognizable fossil soils, called "paleosols."This has all been discussed before in other threads, i.e. " Paleosols" at:http://EvC Forum: Paleosols -->EvC Forum: PaleosolsThere I wrote:"Amidon (1997) illustrated a number of in place /
non-transported / in situ stumps, somewith trunks, using
photographs and line drawings. For example, pictures and
line drawing of **rooted** trees buried in place can be
found in the section on pages 63 to 83, which is titled
"Palesol Analysis", on of his thesis.Also, as the section title implies, in addition to solid
evidence of **Rooted** trees within the Gallatin part of
the Yellowstone petrified forest, Amidon (1997) also
provides solid proof of the fact that these stumps are
rooted in well-developed paleosols. Amidon (1997)
recognized these "fossil soils on the presence of well-
developed soil horizons, well-developed soil structures
on both microscope and megascopic scale, and demonstrated
alteration of clay and other minerals that can be best
explained by the long-term weathering of sediments within
an active soil associated with a stable subaerial,
terrestrially exposed surface."...text deleted...Rettallack (1981, 1985, 1997) has documented well-rooted trees associated with fossil soils (paleosols). In fact, Rettalack (1997) contains a beautiful picture of one of the upright ( polystrate ) tree trunks showing it well rooted in a well-developed fossil soil (paleosol). Although there are many transported stumps, which have broken roots, it is an utter falsehood, to claim that all of the tree trunks, specifically the upright trees, "have been broken off at their base and do not have proper root systems". The presence of transported stumps and trunks mixed with in situ trees is quite typical of volcanic lahars as was directly observed within the debris flow deposits produced by the eruption Mt. St. Helens and many other volcanoes. This was something that Dr. Coffin either overlooked because he was so fixated with Spirit Lake or simply chosse to ignore in his arguments. Modern deposits and polystrate trees at Mt. St Helens virtually identical to the trees and strata at Yellowstone Petrified Forests has been documented by Yamaguchi, D. K., and Hoblitt (1995), Yuretich, R. F. (1981, 1984), and others.Reference cited:Amidon, L. (1997) Paleoclimate study of Eocene fossil
woods and associated Paleosols from the Gallatin
Petrified Forest, Gallatin National Forest, SW Montana.
unpublished Master's thesis. University of Montana.
Missoula, MT 142 pp.Retallack, G. J., 1981, Comment on 'Reinterpretation
of Depositional Environment of the Yellowstone
"Fossil Forests"'. Geology. vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 52-53.Retallack, G. J., 1985, Laboratory Exercises in
Paleopedology. University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon.Retallack, G. J., 1997, A Colour Guide to Paleosols.
Chichester, United KingdomYamaguchi, D. K., and Hoblitt, 1995.Tree-ring dating
of pre-1980 volcanic flowage deposits at Mount St.
Helens, Washington. Geological Society of America
Bulletin, vol. 107, no. 9, pp. 1077-1093.Yuretich, R. F., 1981, Comment on 'Reinterpretation of the
Depositional Environment of the Yellowstone "Fossil
Forests"' and 'Stumps Transported and Deposited
Upright by Mount St. Helens Mud Flows'. Geology.
vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 146.Yuretich, R. F., 1984, Yellowstone Fossil Forests: New
Evidence for Burial in Place. Geology. vol. 12, no. 3,
pp. 159-162.Mr. jazzlover_PR further wrote:"Furthermore, trees from different layers have the
same 'signature' ring pattern, demonstrating that
they all grew at the same time."In addition to a M.S. thesis by Dr. Arct, this arguments refer to:Michael J. Arct, 1991, Dendroecology in the fossil
forests of the Specimen Creek area, Yellowstone
National Park, Ph.D. Dissertation,Loma Linda
University,Lmoa Linda, California.There are problems with Dr. Arct's research. First, he used very short ring segments, which allowed for many of his correlations to the result of chance alignments instead of being real correlations. In his Ph.D. dissertation, Dr. Arct actually admitted that the procedures, which he used, **weren't** standard drendochronological procedures. He didn't even use the actual pattern of tree-ring within the wood, which he wasn't able to match. Instead, he matched the inta-annular bands within these tree rings. Although he used relatively short ring sequences, which are highly prone to false correlations, he was only able to correlate 9 of 28 trees that he examined. It is even highly questionable whether Arct's research actually proved that these trees died in same year. In fact, Dr. Arct clearly noted in his M.S. thesis that in 5 of 9 "matched" trees, which retained their bark, his so-called signature rings didn't always have the same number of tree rings between these signature sets and the bark. This conclusively proved that these 5 trees **didn't** die in same year as Walker claimed and made it impossible for the Noachian Flood or any single catastrophe to have killed them at the same time. The lack of bark on the other 4 trees makes it impossible to know if these trees were actually killed at the same time or not. Finally, Arct's matches came from only a 10 m (30 ft) section of strata. If a person looks at lahar deposits that accumulated during historic volcanic eruptions, it is quite possible for the thickness of strata containing the 9 trees, which he so-called "matched", to have accumulated during a single eruption.Mr. jazzlover_PR further wrote:"Rather than 50 successive forests, the geological
evidence is more consistent with the trees having
been uprooted from another place, and carried into
position by catastrophic volcanic mudflows-similar
to what happened during the Mount St. Helens
eruption in 1980, where waterlogged trees
were also seen to float and sink with the root
end pointing downwards."All the cut and pasted text about the Yellowstone Petrified Forests shows is "Dr." Walker's remarkable lack of knowledge of inconvenient facts, i.e. numerous paleosols (fossil soils), rooted upright trees; the flimsy nature of Arct's signature correlations; the fact that Arct's couldn't correlate 19 of his 28 trees; that Arct's data actually shows 5 of the 9 correlated trees definitely died in separate years; and so forth, about the Yellowstone Petrified Forests. Also, Walker overlooks the fact that if these trees were buried in a lake, lahar deposits wouldn't enclose these trees. Instead, fine-grained lake deposits would enclose the upright ( polystrate ) trees within the Yellowstone Petrified Forests.One matter that I agree with, in the above statement, is that Dr. Coffin's hypothesis that the Yellowstone Petrified Forests were created by undersea turbidity currents / flows is completely unworkable and refuted by the evidence.Just some ThoughtsBill[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 02-05-2004]

JM wrote:"The point was that if we took this
restricted area ALONE it was enough
to create a population density on
the whole earth that is crowded. If
Tas wants to argue that all the
animals were just located in a
single basin, it only makes matters
worse."There are a lot things that Tas Walker doesn't think through. For example, I would like to have Tas Walker explain, if the fossil vertebrates and the Karoo strata, in which they are found, were deposited by the Noachian Flood is why:1. there are thousands of fossil soils, paleosols, to found at inumerable levels throughout the Karoo strata containing these vertebrate fossils. Many of these fossil soils are calcretes that can only form in semi-arid to arid environments.2. many of the vertebrate fossils are found preserved in calcrete / caliche nodules formed in many of these fossil soils, paleosols.3 and, finally, at many levels in the vertebrate-bearing Karoo strata, many of these fossils are found in burrows, actually dug into the underlying strata, in which the animal lived, eventually died, and was fossilized by the formation of caliche / calcrete.These and other observations, which refute Tas Walker's ideas about the formation of these fossils and the strata, in which they occur, can be found in:Richardson, Darlene S., 1993, Paleosols of the
Molteno and Elliot formations of the Triassic
Stormberg Group of the Karoo System, Lesotho,
Southern Africa. Geological Society of America,
Abstracts with Programs. Vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 399
(October 1993)Retallack, Gregory John, Smith, Roger M. H., and
Ward, Peter D., 2003, Vertebrate extinction across
Permian-Triassic boundary in Karoo Basin, South
Africa. Geological Society of America Bulletin.
Vol. 115, no. 9, pp. 1133-1152 (September 2003)Smith, R. M. H., 1990a, Alluvial Paleosols and
pedofacies sequences in the Permian Lower Beaufort
of the southwestern Karoo Basin, South Africa.
Journal of Sedimentary Petrology. Vol. 60, no.2,
pp. 258-276 (March 1990)Smith, R. M. H., 1990b, Paleoenvironmental
interpretation of alluvial Paleosols in the Lower
Permian Karoo sequence, South Africa. 13th
International Sedimentological Congress Abstracts.
Vol. 13, pp. 504-505.Smith, R. M. H., 1998, Bone bearing coprolites
from the Upper Permian Beaufort Group, Karoo
Basin, South Africa. Journal of African Earth
Sciences, Vol. 27, no 1A, pp. 183-184 (July 1998)Smith, R. M. H., and Kitching, J., 1997,
Sedimentology and vertebrate taphonomy of the
Tritylodon Acme Zone; a reworked Palaeosol in the
Lower Jurassic Elliot Formation, Karoo Supergroup,
South Africa. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,
Palaeoecology. Vol. 131, no. 1-2, pp. 29-50
(June 1997)Smith, R. M. H., and MacLeod, Ken G., 1998,
Sedimentology and carbon isotope stratigraphy of
the end-Permian extinction in the Karoo Basin,
South Africa. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology.
Vol. 18, no. 3, Suppl., pp. 79 (September 15, 1998)Smith, R. M. H., Mason, T. R., and Ward, J. D.,
1993, Flash-flood sediments and ichnofacies of
the late Pleistocene Homeb Silts, Kuiseb River,
Namibia. Sedimentary Geology. Vol. 85, no. 1-4,
pp. 579-599 (May 01, 1993)Also, I find the well-defined and well-documented
vertical distribution of vertebrate fossils,
palynomorphs, and other fossils found within
the Karoo strata impossible to explain by hydraulic
sorting.Yours,Bill

Previously, I wrote in this post: "Please delete"Below is what I wrote of where Cenozoic fossils can be found over Mesozoic Fossils. I realized only after posting that it wasn't the question that Lunkhead was asking.A person can find an undisturbed sequence of strata containing Cenozoic fossils overlying Mesozoic fossils in exposures extending from Bryce Canyon to the Grand Canyon provides a cross-section of strata from Precambrian to Tertiary. Parts of this sequence are illustrated at:1. Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
Requested Page Not Found (404)Look at the cross-section at the bottom of the above web page.2. Grand Canyon Explorer:
http://www.kaibab.org/geology/gc_geol.htmAlso, look at "Revisiting the Grand Canyon - Through the Eyes of Seismic Sequence Stratigraphy," Search and Discovery Article # 40018 (2001) by Ward Abbott. Related web pages are:1. Revisiting the Grand Canyon PDF File
2.Figure 1 of Revisiting the Grand CanyonAlso, the drill holes of oil and gas wells and cores from the Deep Sea and Ocean Drilling project penetrate continuous sequence of sediments from Mesozoic to Cenozoic containing animal fossils. For example:1. Bill Birkeland at;
http://EvC Forum: Fossil sorting for simple -->EvC Forum: Fossil sorting for simple2. Glen Morton in "Microfossil Stratigraphy Presents Problems for the Flood" at:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/micro.htmand 3. Glen Morton in "The Geologic Column and Its Implications to the Flood" at:
Account SuspendedYours,Bill Birkeland+++++++ Note of Apology +++++++++I apologize for disappearing insetad of editing and reposting. However, right after I realized that I had completely misunderstood Lunkhead's question, which actually is an intelligent question, and was in the process of formuating an answer, I recieved a phone call about a wildcat well of ours that was misbehaving in weird and obscene manner. I got was "volunteered" rather quickly to help with this situation. Although I nothing to contribute, the people, who had the real responsibility for it, needed a committee of people to disfuse the blame had something really gone wrong. as result of all of this, I will be "working" over in our unofficial New Orleans Office all next week. :-) :-) :-)[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 02-14-2004]

"Please delete[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 02-12-2004]

Dear Administrator,I do apologize for this all. But, I had realized that I had completely misunderstood Lunkhead's question in a very stupid manner. Before I had time, to edit and redo my reply to take my mistake into account, my phone rang and I had other things to do. I didn't want to leave an answer based on my misinterpretation of Lunkhead's question, but I didn't have time to compose an answer. I am sorry about it all.Anyway, I have reposted an answer at:http://EvC Forum: Fossil sorting for simple -->EvC Forum: Fossil sorting for simpleYours,Bills.

Lunkhead asked:"Geologic column for real?"Kurt Wise, a well-respected Young Earth creationist paleontologist, the geologic column had some quite interesting comments on this question in:Wise, Kurt P. (1986) The Way Geologists Date! in Proceedings of
the First International Conference on Creationism, Section 1, Vol. 2,
Walsh, R.E.; C.L. Brooks; and R.S. Crowell (eds.), Creation Science
Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA.On pp. 135-136, Dr. Kurt Wise stated:"Years before Darwin published the "Origin of Species", geologists
had constructed a geologic column very similar to that used today.
As early as the late eighteenth century it began to be recognized that
fossils found below others in one area would be found beneath the
same ones in another area. By the late 1820's Georges Cuvier had
convinced most of the scientific world that there was a certain
inviolable order to the fossils of the world. Although the types of
rock did not always occur in the same order, the fossils contained
within them always would. It became common to give names to
suites of fossils which were always found together. Thus arose the
names Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, etc., that are found on the
current geologic column.When the theory of evolution was introduced, the order of the
geologic column was not affected appreciably. Since it is not
possible to predict the path of evolution, no change in the column
SHOULD have occurred with the acceptance of evolution -- and no
change did occur. The column also preceded by at least a century
any means of affixing absolute ages. The only methods of "dating"
available in the nineteenth century were those of superpositional
stratigraphy and biostratigraphy. Each of these methods yielded
only relative ages-- that is, younger, older, or the same age as some
reference rock or fossil. When radiometry was introduced a method
of assigning absolute ages had finally arrived. With it, any defects in
the column should have been quickly recognised. No significant
contradictions occurred between the column and radiometry.
Although this may be due to wholesale dishonesty in the
interpretation of radiometric dates, no systematic study has been
done to establish this. As a result, the radiometric dates must be
taken as strong evidence in support of the correctness of the
geologic column."It should be noted that Georges Cuvier mentioned in the above quote, was a scriptural catastrophist, closely equivalent to modern Young Earth creationists in his devout Christian beliefs. Essentially, many of the geologists, who initially constructed the geologic column were also Christian scriptural catastrophists.Next, Glenn Morton has some very detailed answers to this question at:1. Morris, the Geologic Column, and Compromise
http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199608/0242.html2. The Entire Geologic Column in North Dakota
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geo.htm3. The Geologic Column and its Implications for the Flood
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/Lunkhead also ask:"What it all comes down for me is this:Is there any strata location where there is direct evidence of evolution
in the geologic column, or is it only inferred by the presumed or
radiometrically dated age of corresponding strata around the world?"The fact of matter is, as Young Earth creationist Kurt Wise noted above, the geologic column, using the consistent vertical distribution / "sorting" / occurrence of fossils over the entire world, was constructed decades before either radiometric technique was developed or, even, radioactivity was discovered. In addition, the basic concept and outline of the geologic column was well-established even before Darwin published his ideas about the theory of evolution. Thus, it was impossible for either evolution or radiometric dating to have influenced how the geologic column was constructed. Geologists constructed the geologic column independently of either evolutionary theory or radiometric dating, as Kurt Wise noted above. Geologists constructed it on the basis of completely empirical field observations on the relative vertical distribution of fossils in outcrops from over the world.For a detailed discussion of radiometric dating and the geologic column, go read "Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale Circular Reasoning or Reliable Tools?" by Andrew MacRae at Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time ScaleLunkhead asked:"Is it possible that different species are not found vertically evolved
in the strata, but rather their habitats are merely regional, and do not
correspond to any particular strata? Example: Why is it that
Protoceratops is found on the surface, while "earlier" dinosaurs are
found deep in sediment layers? Are they really separated by
geologic time, or just by region?Although this is a common way that many Young Earth creationists attempt to explain the consistent vertical distribution of fossils within the stratigraphic record, it really doesn't work too work at all. One problem is that the consistent, relative vertical distribution of many fossils, i..e. pollen (palynomorphs) and other microfossils is found to be the same over the entire world. there is simply no "region" where only one group of fossils can be found, and the other groups of fossils are lacking, that could have been the origin source "region". Where one group of fossils are found, so are the other fossils, just either above or below them in the same order. With these microfossils and many megafossils, the alleged regions simply can't exist because of their global distribution. Also, with some types of fossils, i.e. foraminifera, paleontologists can identify varieties that inhabit different environments, i.e. ones that dwell in the surface waters; ones that live on the seafloor at shallow depths; ones that live on the seafloor at intermediate depths; and ones that live on the seafloor at very deep depths. The problem is that regardless of the depths at which they live within the water column and on the seafloor, the fossils of these organisms still have the same vertical distribution relative to each other on a global scale within sedimentary strata. Even organisms that live within the same environment are found at vertically different levels within sedimentary strata in the same consistent relative order on a global scale. Both of these observations readily refutes the "regional habitats" explanations.Lunkhead should read the detailed discussions of hydrologic sorting, regional sorting, and other topics found at:1. Microfossil Stratigraphy Presents Problems for the Flood
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/micro.htm2. Pollen Order Presents Problems for the Flood
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/pollen.htm3. Problems with Global Flood II, Fossils
http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199706/0645.html4. problems with global flood IIa-microfossils
http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199706/0667.html5. Evolution at Sea
article 8While reading any of the articles by Glenn Morton, a person should keep in mind that Glenn Morton is a devout Evangelical Christian and geologist.Finally, some other web pages to read:1. Thrust faults by John G. Solum
Thrust fault FAQ2. Geology in Error? The Lewis Thrust by Joel Hanes
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/lewis-overthrust.html3. Liberal Studies 487: Senior Seminar on Evolution and Creation
http://nsmserver2.fullerton.edu/...ry/evolution_creation/webYours,Bill Birkeland.[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 02-14-2004]

On 02-12-2004 roxrkool wrote:"There are examples of such a thing, but they are the
result of various geologic processes such as
thrust/reverse faulting, landslides, etc.Hmmm... after re-reading this reply, I should have stated that
I was referring to places where fossils are *out of order.*I apparently didn't read lunkhead's post correctly, either. DUH!"Fossils from different time periods are not found in the same
'depositional stratum.' Meaning that you will never find
Jurassic forams being deposited with forams only found in
Tertiary rocks.You might find them in the same vicinity, but they will be
separated by either other strata or unconformities (e.g.,
erosional)."In case of articulated skeletons, ichnofossils, and fragile fossils, this is true. However, in case of smaller shells, bones, teeth, and microfossils, this isn't true. Such fossils, like any sedimentary particle, can be eroded out of older rocks, transported, and redeposited in younger sediments, which can eventually become new sedimentary rocks, by a process called "reworking." A person can see this happening on the shores of Lake Michigan where they can find Paleozoic fossils lying on the beaches where have been eroded out of Pleistocene tills, in which they came to be incorporated by glacial erosion. Similarly, the gravels of the Citronelle Formation in the southeastern United States contain Paleozoic fossils. Has documented by Dockery (1995, 1996), these fossils are clearly eroded and redeposited from older rocks because they and the pieces of chert gravel, in which they occur, are extremely worn and rounded by being rolled around in rivers and streams. In some environments, the smaller fossils, such as foraminifera, are eroded from older rocks and redeposited in younger rocks. Some processes that displace and rework microfossils, specifically foraminifera, are documented and discussed by Kohl and Roberts (1994, 1995) and Otvos (1976). Thus, sometimes, older formanifera are found mixed with younger foraminifera. However, they are found, they neither the mystery nor anomaly that Young Earth creationists mistake them to be.The fossils, which have been reworked from older strata, typically exhibit relatively obvious evidence that they have been eroded and redeposited from older strata. These fossils either are fragmented, rounded, abraded, corroded, mineralized differently, infilled by different sediment than the surrounding strata, thermally altered differently, or some combination of these along with other characteristics. This evidence and the ability of trained paleontologists to detect example of redeposited / reworked fossils is typically neglected by Young Earth creationists intent on either fabricating or finding mysteries and anomalies where none exist.It would be better to say that a person will not find Jurassic dinosaur footprints in Tertiary rocks as erosion can only destroy, never redeposit dinosaur footprints. Also, a person, with equal confidence, can say that a Middle Ordovician Paraglossograptus tentaculatus (graptolite) will not be found in the same rocks as Devonian Monograptus yukonensis (graptolite) because the carbonaceous graptolite fossils are far too fragile to be reworked into younger sediments.Some of the graptolite zones can be found in "Ordovician to Devonian graptolite distributions along the Cordilleran margin of Laurentia by Stanley C. Finney1 and William B.N. Berry at:http://www.unt.edu.ar/fcsnat/INSUGEO/geologia_18/3.htm
http://www.unt.edu.ar/fcsnat/INSUGEO/geologia_18/03-1.jpgReferences CitedDockery, David T., III, 1995, Rocks and Fossils Collected
from Mississippi Gravel. Mississippi Geology. vol. 16,
no. 2, pp. 1-42.Dockery III, David T., III, 1996, More rocks and fossils
from Mississippi gravel. Mississippi Geology. vol. 17,
no. 4, pp. 65-74.Kohl, B., and Roberts, H. H., 1994, Fossil foraminifera
from four active mud volcanoes in the Gulf of Mexico.
Geo-Marine Letters, 1994, Vol. 14, Issue 2-3, pp. 126-134.Kohl, B., and Roberts, H. H., 1995, Mud volcanoes in the
Gulf of Mexico; a mechanism for mixing sediments of
different ages in slope environments. Transactions of
the Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies,
October 1995, Vol. 45, pp. 351-359.Otvos, E. G., Jr., and Bock, W. D., 1976, Massive long-
distance transport and redeposition of upper Cretaceous
planktonic foraminifers in Quaternary sediments. Journal
of Sedimentary Petrology, December 1976, Vol. 46, no. 4,
pp. 978-984.Also, a person can look at "Faunal Succession and Correlation" at:
http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_10.htm
http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_01.htmBill Birkeland

In message 245, Steve asked:"Stratigraphic layering is cross-correlatable globally.
Where's the data supporting this?"It depends on what type of stratigraphy a person is talking about. In terms of rock lithology, lithostratigraphy, this is **not** true. There is not a single bed or rock layer that has been mapped as present everywhere in the world. However, in terms of fossils, biostratigraphy and the geologic column, which is what I presume is being discussed here in terms of "stratigraphic layering", this is a true statement.The evidence for the global nature of biostratigraphy and the geologic column, which is defined by biostratigraphy, can be found in thousands of published papers on biostratigraphy and thousands of geologic maps that have been made of any part of the world underlain by either sedimentary or volcanic rocks. That the **relative** sequence of different types of fossils in fossil-bearing strata has been found to be consistent throughout the world, except where disrupted by independently recognizable faulting, folding, and reworking (by erosion and redeposition from older strata), is proof that biostratigraphy works for the entire world and the geologic column exists. The fact of the manner is that the different periods that comprise the geologic column can be consistently recognized all over the world as geologists, even creationists like Culvier, have recognized starting in the 1800s.For example, in Texas a person finds fossils, on which the periods of the geologic column are based, occurring in the same relative order that a person finds either in Europe, Asia, Australia, New Zealand, or elsewhere in the world. In Texas, Ordovician fossils, when present are found above Cambrian fossils. Paleocene fossils are found above Cretaceous fossils as in Europe, Asia, within the ocean basins, and elsewhere in the the world. Eocene fossils, as in Europe are found above Paleocene fossils. Tens of thousands of published papers, describing and discussing the occurrence of fossils in measured sections throughout the world, have all found this same relative occurrence of fossils throughout the world. The data reported in innumerable papers, along with innumerable geologic maps that have been made in part using biostratigraphy, demonstrate that this consistency is quite real.Some specific web pages that present a miniscule part of the evidence that proves the validity of the geologic column, in terms of the discussion of Young Earth creationism, are:The Geologic Column and Its Implications to the Flood
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geo.htmCan Froede and Reed kill the Geologic Column?
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geo1.htm
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/yungerth.htmThe periods of the geologic column are based on the consistent relative distribution of fossils within sedimentary rocks. The consistency of how fossils occur within sedimentary, and some volcanic, rocks is illustrated by a couple of examples that use only a miniscule amount of the available paleontological data.Pollen Order Presents Problems for the Flood
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/pollen.htm
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/paleo.htmMicrofossil Stratigraphy Presents Problems for the Flood
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/micro.htmAlso, a person can look at message no. 13 in this thread at:
http://EvC Forum: Fossil sorting for simple -->EvC Forum: Fossil sorting for simpleFinally, Kurt Wise, a well-respected Young Earth creationist paleontologist, the geologic column had some quite interesting comments on this question in:Wise, Kurt P. (1986) The Way Geologists Date! in Proceedings of
the First International Conference on Creationism, Section 1, Vol. 2,
Walsh, R.E.; C.L. Brooks; and R.S. Crowell (eds.), Creation Science
Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA.On pp. 135-136, Dr. Kurt Wise stated:"Years before Darwin published the "Origin of Species", geologists
had constructed a geologic column very similar to that used today.
As early as the late eighteenth century it began to be recognized that
fossils found below others in one area would be found beneath the
same ones in another area. By the late 1820's Georges Cuvier had
convinced most of the scientific world that there was a certain
inviolable order to the fossils of the world. Although the types of
rock did not always occur in the same order, the fossils contained
within them always would. It became common to give names to
suites of fossils which were always found together. Thus arose the
names Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, etc., that are found on the
current geologic column.When the theory of evolution was introduced, the order of the
geologic column was not affected appreciably. Since it is not
possible to predict the path of evolution, no change in the column
SHOULD have occurred with the acceptance of evolution -- and no
change did occur. The column also preceded by at least a century
any means of affixing absolute ages. The only methods of "dating"
available in the nineteenth century were those of superpositional
stratigraphy and biostratigraphy. Each of these methods yielded
only relative ages-- that is, younger, older, or the same age as some
reference rock or fossil. When radiometry was introduced a method
of assigning absolute ages had finally arrived. With it, any defects in
the column should have been quickly recognised. No significant
contradictions occurred between the column and radiometry.
Although this may be due to wholesale dishonesty in the
interpretation of radiometric dates, no systematic study has been
done to establish this. As a result, the radiometric dates must be
taken as strong evidence in support of the correctness of the
geologic column."It should be noted that Georges Cuvier mentioned in the above quote, was a scriptural catastrophist, closely equivalent to modern Young Earth creationists in his devout Christian beliefs. Essentially, many of the geologists, who initially constructed the geologic column were also Christian scriptural catastrophists.Yours,BillThis message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 06-24-2004 02:35 PM