Evidence for and against Flood theories

Can shallow-water and deep-water corals be distinguished in the fossil record?

Are you forgetting that corals can be dated? That they have been measurably in place for many, many thousands of years.

To be honest, I don't have a clue. You'd have to ask someone who studies the things, or maybe a paleontologist. Actually, one of the geologists here might be able to answer that. I know that several of the fossil Tabulata and Rugosa corals are "type" fossils for specific periods. For me, their only significance is that they all bit the dust during the Permo-Triassic extinction.

Easily. Shallow-water corals form solid reefs; deep-water corals do not. Google is your friend. Coral, Ecosystems, and Climate: Can Ancient Corals Tell the Story?

Even deep-water corals are pretty touchy. When Alvin descended to seamounts in the Pacific, scientists noted many were barren from anaerobic waters caused by plankton decay, others had empty zones on top and a profilic area where oxygen and nutrients were circulated by currents. Even though the spiral black corals were thriving, any alteration in current(oxygen), nutrients and sedimentation (mud) controlled their existence. (Mapping the Deep--Robert Kunzig)

Ned,No, I'm not forgetting this. It's just that it's two separate issues...(1) Could larval corals survive such a flood?
(2) How old are current reefs?--TheLitThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 02-09-2005 21:54 AM

Yes, you're right. They could be older than a flood if they could survive it.We seem to have reason to think that they can't survive it and that they are very old too. One of the hundreds and hundreds of reasons for deciding there was no flood. Somewhat the same process you're ancestral literalists of a couple some hundred years ago went through and realized they had to give up biblical literalism in this area.