Fossil Ordering Re-Visited

quote:

---

Okay, then, do they have any data?

---

quote:

---

Figure 4: Reconstruction of a Middle Ordovician hardground community with boring and encrusting organisms. Adapted from Brett and Liddell (1978).

​

In fact, the time represented by these hardgrounds is relatively short - only months, years, or decades - not thousands or millions of years! So the time required for the formation of hardground surfaces is certainly compatible with the idea of a young earth. Secondly, it is significant that hardgrounds are much less common in the older Palaeozoic rocks - and even then they occur only on continental platforms where these sediments are thin - than in the younger Mesozoic and Cenozoic rocks. Palaeozoic hardgrounds also tend to be less well- developed and less mature than younger hardgrounds. These trends are best explained by the idea that the Palaeozoic rocks were laid down more rapidly than the Mesozoic and Cenozoic rocks. Scheven (1990) has suggested that Palaeozoic hardgrounds were surfaces temporarily colonised during the Flood in areas where sedimentation was light. Mesozoic and Cenozoic hardgrounds are more common and more mature because these rocks, he suggests, were laid down in the centuries after the Flood when there was more time available for the formation of hardgrounds. Understanding of the full significance of the Palaeozoic hardgrounds would, however, benefit from further investigation.

​

Figure 5: The north face of Pen y Fan, Brecon Beacons, South Wales. Conventional geologists postulate a time gap of 10 million years at the interval marked X-Y.

​

b) From Dead Horse Point in Utah it is possible to observe dramatic canyon erosion by the Colorado River. Exposed there are two major gaps in the geological sequence - one thought to represent 10 million years, and the other 20 million years (Roth 1988). The 10 million year gap has been traced over 100,000 square miles (250,000 sq. km). Sandwiched between these two gaps are deposits of the Moenkopi Formation, a sequence of continental deposits (important, because on land a layer is more vulnerable to gully and channel erosion). Yet again, there is no evidence of a prolonged period of erosion along the tops of these layers. They are quite flat and featureless.
c) In Grand Canyon, just below a prominent cliff formed by the Redwall Limestone, there is a claimed gap of 100 million years of missing Ordovician and Silurian deposits (Roth 1988). The layers above this gap sit conformably on the layers beneath as though no long time gap had elapsed between them.
d) The Deccan Plateau, in India, is made up of a thick pile of basalt lava flows. These basalts are thought to have been erupted throughout a period of several million years. But we know that each lava flow must have formed very quickly because they spread out over very large distances (some can be traced over 100 miles) before they had time to cool. Each flow probably formed in just a few days, so the bulk of the geological time is thought to have passed between each eruption. However, evidence for long time gaps between the flows is lacking (Garner 1996b). The tops of the flows are strikingly flat, implying that there was no time for erosion to take place between eruptions. For instance, the village of Shyampura is built on top of one of the lava flows which forms a flat plateau nearly three miles long and more than a mile wide. The level does not vary more than 50 feet over the whole area (West 1981). If thousands of years passed between each eruption, then why had the lavas not been eroded into the conical hills that modern day erosion is producing in that region?

​

Figure 6: A reconstruction of the events of the first day of the Flood (from Robinson 1996 p 45). The Flood began with the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep, accompanied by torrential rain.

​

Figure 7: Distribution of Upper Cambrian deposits across the United States and southern Canada (from Robinson 1996 p 40). Only strata that are still preserved are shown, and thicknesses therefore represent minimum values.

​

This global inundation is described by Dr T H van Andel (1994), a Cambridge University geologist, in his book New Views on an Old Planet:

​

"Regarding the early Palaeozoic in this bright light, we find a wet world, its continents inundated far more than they have ever been since then, and the rise of the sea continuing. Before this rise ended, very little land remained above water." (p 179)

​

Figure 8: Eustatic sea level curve derived by estimating the area of continental flooding. There are two major peaks of flooding - one in the Lower Palaeozoic and a lesser one in the Upper Cretaceous. Adapted from Hallam (1984).

​

Figure 9: Map showing the distribution of the major continental flood basalt provinces (from Garner 1996b p 118): (1) Keweenawan Province, (2) North Australian Province, (3) Siberian Province, (4) Karoo-Antarctic Province, (5) Parana-Etendeka Province, (6) Deccan Province, (7) North Atlantic Tertiary Province, (8) Ethiopian Province, (9) Eastern China Province, (10) Columbia River Province.

​

Figure 10: Stratigraphic distribution of vertebrate fossil tracks (from Garton 1996, pp84-5). Note the lack of tracks in the Lower Palaeozoic

​

Figure 11:

​

(a) Map and vertical section of Willow Creek Anticline locality, Egg Mountain, Montana, showing a number of egg clutches attributed to a hypsilophodont-like ornithopod dinosaur. The clutches occur on at least three different horizons in a three-metre (10-feet) section. Values represent the number of eggs per nest, broken lines enclose clutches found on single horizons.
(b) Typical clutch arrangement viewed from above.
(c) Egg clutch viewed from the side showing the partial burial of the eggs in siliceous carbonate sediment.
From Garner (1996a p 103).

---

And of course, their references: -

quote:

---

REFERENCES
Ager, D V (1981), The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record, Second Edition, Macmillan

​

Ager, D (1986), A reinterpretation of the basal 'Littoral Lias' of the Vale of Glamorgan, Proceedings of the Geologists' Association 97, 29-35

​

Austin, S A (ed) (1994), Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, California USA

​

Brand, L R (1979), Field and laboratory studies on the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) vertebrate footprints and their paleoecological implications, Paleogeography, Paleoclimatology, Paleoecology 28, 25-38

​

Brand, L R and Tang T (1991), Fossil vertebrate footprints in the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) of northern Arizona: evidence for underwater origin, Geology 19, 1201-4

​

Brett, C E and Liddell, W D (1978), Preservation and paleoecology of a Middle Ordovician hardground community, Paleobiology 4, 329-48

​

Calais R (1989), Duelling dinosaurs die in diluvial disaster, Creation Ex Nihilo 11(3), 44-5

​

Carroll, R L (1988), Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, W H Freeman, New York

​

Chadwick, A V (1978), Megabreccias: evidence for catastrophism, Origins [Geoscience Research Institute] 5, 39-46.

​

Cocks, L R M (1993), Triassic pebbles, derived fossils and the Ordovician to Devonian palaeogeography of Europe, Journal of the Geological Society 150, 219-26

​

Dineley, D L (1992), Devonian, in Duff, P M D and Smith A J (eds), Geology of England and Wales, Geological Society, London

​

Garner P (1996a), Where is the Flood/post-Flood boundary? Implications of dinosaur nests in the Mesozoic, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 10, 101- 106

​

Garner, P. A. (1996b), Continental flood basalts indicate a pre-Mesozoic Flood/post-Flood boundary, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal (Creation Science Foundation, Australia) 10, 114-127

​

Garton, M (1993), Rocks and Scripture: the millions of years time-scale and some geological common sense, Origins [Biblical Creation Society] 6(15), 17-23

​

Garton, M (1996), The pattern of fossil tracks in the geological record, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 10, 82-100

​

Hallam, A (1984), Pre-Quaternary sea-level changes, Annual Reviews of Earth and Planetary Science Letters 12, 205-43

​

Halstead, L B (1975), The Evolution and Ecology of the Dinosaurs, Peter Lowe

​

Hasel, G F (1974), The fountains of the great deep, Origins [Geoscience Research Institute] 1, 67-72

​

Liddell, W D (1975), Recent crinoid biostratinomy, Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 7, 1169

​

Martill, D M (1989), The Medusa effect: instantaneous fossilisation, Geology Today 5, 201-205

​

Meyer, D L (1971), Post mortem disarticulation of recent crinoids and ophiuroids under natural conditions, Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 3, 645-646.

​

Morris, J D (1994), The Young Earth, Master Books, Colorado Springs, Colorado USA

​

Nevins, S E (1971), Stratigraphic evidence of the Flood, in Patten, D W (ed), A Symposium on Creation III, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA p33-65

​

Newell, N D (1967), Paraconformities, in Teichert, C and Yochelson E L (eds), Essays in Paleontology and Stratigraphy, Department of Geology, University of Kansas Special Publication 2, The University of Kansas Press, p349-367

​

Nield, E W and Tucker, V C T (1985), Palaeontology: An Introduction, Pergamon Press, Oxford

​

Olson, W S (1966), Origin of the Cambrian-Precambrian unconformity, American Scientist 54, 458-64

​

Paul, G S (1994), Dinosaur reproduction in the fast lane: implications for size, success and extinction, in Carpenter, K, Hirsch, K F, and Homer, J R (eds), Dinosaur Eggs and Babies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 244-55

​

Robinson, S J (1996), Can Flood geology explain the fossil record?, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 10, 32-69 [Robinson, swayed mainly by his reconsideration of the Palaeozoic hardgrounds, subsequently revised his opinion about the timing of the end of the Flood, first suggesting that the boundary might be as low in the geological column as the Silurian, but he now places it still lower, towards the close of the Precambrian. However, his revised timetable creates at least as many difficulties as it purports to solve. Editor]

​

Robinson, S J (1997), The geological column: a concept fundamental to Flood geology, Origins [Biblical Creation Society], No 23, p14-30.

​

Robinson, S.J. (1997b) Unpublished manuscript submitted to the Fourth International Conference on Creationism.

​

Roth, A A (1975), Turbidites, Origins [Geoscience Research Institute] 2,106- 107

​

Roth, A A (1988), Those gaps in the sedimentary layers Origins [Geoscience Research Institute] 15, 75-92

​

Scheven, J. (1988), Mega-Sukzessionen und Klimax in Tertiaer - Katastrophen zwischen Sintflut und Eiszeit Haenssler, Neuhausen-Stuttgart. Translated by R H Johnston as "Megasuccessions and Climax in the Tertiary - Catastrophes between the Flood and the Ice Age" 1997 - [The German and English versions with the illustrations are available on the internet].

​

Scheven, J. (1990), The Flood/ post-Flood boundary in the fossil record, pp. 247-266 in: Walsh, R.E. and C.L. Brooks (editors). Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism. vol. II. Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.

​

Scheven J. (1996), The Carboniferous Floating Forest - An Extinct pre-Flood Ecosystem Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 10, 70-81

​

Snelling, A.A. and S.A. Austin. (1992). Startling evidence for Noah's Flood. Creation Ex Nihilo 15(1):46-50.

​

Trewin, N H (1985), Mass mortalities of Devonian fish - the Achanarras Fish Bed, Caithness, Geology Today March-April, 45-49.

​

Tyler, D (1996). A post-Flood Solution to the Chalk Problem Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 10, 107-113

​

Van Andel, T H (1994), New Views on an Old Planet, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

​

Vetter, J (1990), Double tragedies frozen in lime, Creation Ex Nihilo 12(4), 10-14.

​

Visher, G S (1990), Exploration Stratigraphy, Second Edition, Penn Well Publishing Company, Oklahoma, 211-3

​

West, W.D. 1981. The duration of Deccan trap vulcanicity, pp.277-278 in: Subbaran, K.V. and R.N. Sukheswala (editors), Deccan volcanism and related basalt provinces in other parts of the world. Geological Society of India Memoir 3. Bangalore.

​

Wilson, M A and Palmer T J (1992), Hardgrounds and Hardground Faunas, Institute of Earth Studies Publications 9, University of Wales, Aberystwyth

​

Whitcomb, J C and Morris, H M (1961), The Genesis Flood, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg

---

[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-02-2002]

How interesting that the actual facts are linked primarily to journal cites, but not a single reputable pr journal source endorses YECism, you have to pull those cites in from YEC magazines.A few minor points:(1) It doesn't mean anything to me that a basalt flow that is "thousands of years old" is flat because I have seen many flows in the West US that are "thousands of years old" and essentially flat. There are wrinkle ridges and lava tubes but the flows themselves are relatively flat like the journals describe in the Deccan traps.(2) If the Redwall Limestone "looks like" it was never an erosion surface, then why does this figure portray it as being cut by channels? Why did your lengthy quote fail to cite the claim that it "looks like" it wasn't eroded? Come to think of it, if the GC formed catastrophically why do any of its members show channel deposits at all?I'd go a little easier on the Creationist cites, btw.[This message has been edited by gene90, 08-02-2002]

Well, I'm not a geologist so I don't know too much about it. Instead of asking me about it, why don't you ask the authors of the article? Well, anyway, those references were for your benefit because you wanted to see the evidence they used in the article

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
Well, I'm not a geologist so I don't know too much about it. Instead of asking me about it, why don't you ask the authors of the article? Well, anyway, those references were for your benefit because you wanted to see the evidence they used in the article

---

However, these are not evidence for your scenario. You need to give us something that actually supports your scenario over the mainstream, evolutionary explanation, as well as the other creationist stories. You have exhibited one of the shortcomings common to creationists in that they do not understand what evidence is. Perhaps you could learn something about it by actually describing how any one of these references supports your story to the exclusion of other theories. You will quickly find that it can't be done. Sorry that you have wasted so much time on that last post.I think it is you who needs to ask the authors some questions. Besides it is not them we are debating here, it is you. If you cannot support your statements, you are in for a long day.[This message has been edited by edge, 08-03-2002]

quote:

---

(2) If the Redwall Limestone "looks like" it was never an erosion surface, then why does this figure portray it as being cut by channels? Why did your lengthy quote fail to cite the claim that it "looks like" it wasn't eroded? Come to think of it, if the GC formed catastrophically why do any of its members show channel deposits at all?

---

I got some information from this site

quote:

---

But when the juncture between the Redwall Limestone and Muav Limestone is reached, a 200million-year gap appears. The sign posted here by the National Park Service reads:
AN UNCONFORMITY
"Rocks of the Ordovician and Silurian Periods are missing in Grand Canyon. Temple Butte Limestone of Devonian age occurs in scattered pockets. Redwall Limestone rests on these Devonian rocks or on Muav Limestone of much earlier Cambrian Age."

​

This supposed unconformity is puzling for several reasons:

​

The two limestone strata "seem" conformable in most places. Both are nicely horizontal, and there is basically no evidence that 200 million years of erosion and tectonic disturbances separate them.

​

In some places, the two limestone strata intertongue or interfinger, such that by moving vertically one flashed back and forth in 200-million-year jumps.

​

In both limestone strata, one finds layers of the same micaceous shale containing the same fossil tubeworms, suggesting near-simultaneous deposition.

​

In one place, the two limestones clearly grade into one another, with no separation at all.

---

[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-03-2002]

Originally posted by blitz77:

quote:

---

I got some information from this site

​

But when the juncture between the Redwall Limestone and Muav Limestone is reached, a 200million-year gap appears. The sign posted here by the National Park Service reads:
AN UNCONFORMITY
"Rocks of the Ordovician and Silurian Periods are missing in Grand Canyon. Temple Butte Limestone of Devonian age occurs in scattered pockets. Redwall Limestone rests on these Devonian rocks or on Muav Limestone of much earlier Cambrian Age."

​

This supposed unconformity is puzling for several reasons:

​

The two limestone strata "seem" conformable in most places. Both are nicely horizontal, and there is basically no evidence that 200 million years of erosion and tectonic disturbances separate them.

​

In some places, the two limestone strata intertongue or interfinger, such that by moving vertically one flashed back and forth in 200-million-year jumps.

​

In both limestone strata, one finds layers of the same micaceous shale containing the same fossil tubeworms, suggesting near-simultaneous deposition.

​

In one place, the two limestones clearly grade into one another, with no separation at all.

---

Continuing from where the above quote left off:

quote:

---

Anyone who walks down the Canyon trails can see that the evidence for a 200-million-year hiatus between the Mississippian and Cambrian limestones is shaky at best. With the accuracy of geological dating through the use of contained fossils at risk, one would expect many professional papers dealing with this situation. Instead, the geological literature says little. One of the few papers mentioning the "unconformity" states that the contact between the two limestones displays ripples 2 feet from crest to trough, as one might expect with a true unconformity. Such ripples do not seem to exist. (Waisgerber, William, et al; "Mississippian and Cambrian Strata Interbedding: 200 Million Years Hiatus in Question," Creation Research Society Quarterly, 23: 160, 1987.)

​

Comment. Aha, this paper was written by scientific creationists, who have an obvious ax to grind. There's surely nothing to it. However, the senior author is a consulting geologist, and the paper is replete with photographs and diagrams. And you can always go see for yourself! It is the interpretation of the data that is in question. Where is the error?

​

Reference. Puzzles in the stratigraphy of Grand Canyon can be found in ESR1 in our catalog: Inner Earth. For details, visit: here.

---

The "here" is:
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htmThe implication is, that there has been an interpretative error made, and that the mainstream geology explanation can be found in one of the books the site sells (fair enough).Perhaps this information can be tracked down without having to buy the book. The books do look to be rather interesting, if you have the inclination and the money.Will try to do further on-line research.Cheers,
Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Yes, I saw the rest of that. However, it does not say what the interpretive error is. Since they put that example there, it is weird they didn't give the solution or their interpretation of it.

quote:

---

Comment. Aha, this paper was written by scientific creationists, who have an obvious ax to grind. There's surely nothing to it. However, the senior author is a consulting geologist, and the paper is replete with photographs and diagrams. And you can always go see for yourself! It is the interpretation of the data that is in question. Where is the error?

---

I'm not sure wether the commenter is trying to challenge the creationist interpretation or the conventional interpretation - or make a totally different interpretation.[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-03-2002]

quote:

---

Yes, I saw the rest of that. However, it does not say what the interpretive error is. Since they put that example there, it is weird they didn't give the solution or their interpretation of it.

​

I'm not sure wether the commenter is trying to challenge the creationist interpretation or the conventional interpretation - or make a totally different interpretation.

---

I must fully agree with you, in the above quoted. What was said doesn't indicate which interpretation is being challenged, and I unjustifiably jumped to the conclussion that it was the creationist one.I think they didn't give their solution because the information is presented as a teaser to sell a book. Which, as I said, is fair enough. Which still dosn't mean that we can't try to find the information for free. I'll have to do a seach of what's available in the local library system. Maybe the book is there.Regards,
Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

quote:

---

I'll have to do a seach of what's available in the local library system. Maybe the book is there.

---

And I'll look in mine

Yes Blitz, this has always been a fascinating piece of evidence that the mainstream interpretaion of things isn't quite right (vast understatement). I'll be interested to hear what our local geologists have to say about this 200 million year unconfomity that looks like it has seen the amount of erosion one might get inbetween cloud breaks at an afternoon picnic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Yes Blitz, this has always been a fascinating piece of evidence that the mainstream interpretaion of things isn't quite right (vast understatement). I'll be interested to hear what our local geologists have to say about this 200 million year unconfomity that looks like it has seen the amount of erosion one might get inbetween cloud breaks at an afternoon picnic.

---

Your source here is pretty dubious. Perhaps there is a reason that there are no mainstream articles on this 'problem': it doesn't exist. I note that there are no references to any geology papers, texts or maps. Basically, this is completely undocumented. There is no reason to give this article any credibility at all.Do you think that the author is aware of how common micaceous shales are in the Paleozoic record? As are worm tubes? (By the way, where did those worm tubes come from in the middle of a global flood dumping sediments to form the Phanerozoic column in a year?). I think that the author is mistakenly identifying beds of the Mauv within the Redwall Limestone. I hate to rain on your parade, but there are many units in the lower Paleozoic that look identical but are not. Perhaps we could call all sandstones Coconino, as well (dang it, I hate to give creationists ideas!), and then point to another 'problem' for mainstream geology. Geology is not as simple as your professional creationists would have it.I will check further into this 'problem' as time permits. However, it probably isn't worth the time since no other geologists with a lot more experience in the GC have ever noticed it.

I own a copy of the book. Category ESR1 in the Sourcebook Catalogue is a collection of anomalies dealing with the stratigraphic record. ESR1 X4 (p. 63) is the Grand Canyon and is only a few paragraphs long. X4 is referenced to R22, which is:(ta-da)Waisberger, William, et. al. "Mississippian and Cambrian Interbedding: 200 Million Years Hiatus in Question," Creation Research Society Quarterly, 23:160, 1987.Next is a more mainstream source that confirms that the discomformity exists, says that the parallelism of strata (note: not the lack of erosion) is unusual and caused by the area not being exposed to significant tectonic activity. This is from:Strahler, Arthur N.; "Stratigraphy and the Fossil Record," Science and Earth History, Buffalo, 1987.For future reference, I have each of Corliss' Sourebook volumes dealing with geology. However, there have been no new editions for about a decade or so and at least 40% of the "anomalies" are being pushed by Creationists. The non-geology volumes don't have that problem.I also think I killed the original claim by pointing out that there *are* erosional surfaces there.[This message has been edited by gene90, 08-04-2002]

Well that settles that one! [I'm learning Edge's sarcasm]200 million years and it sits so neatly on top of the previous formation? I forgot - did we quantitate the relief? And what about the interbedding?

News article talking about new evidence of lava dam failure and fault activity supports the theory that the Grand Canyon is a geologic infant.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
News article talking about new evidence of lava dam failure and fault activity supports the theory that the Grand Canyon is a geologic infant.

---

Check out mny prediction here:
http://www.slonet.org/~skroger/CEboard/messages/53765.htmlNote, neither this article, nor the science in it can be used to argue that the Grand Canyon was formed in the last 6000-10000 years. You are misrepresenting the data. Furthermore, if the Grand Canyon were cut YESTERDAY, it would still be exposing strata that were laid down over a longer period of time. YOu should actually read the most recent science articles rather than misrepresent them. This news article neither supports a global flood model nor a young earth model, but I knew that creationists would jump on it as if it did!CheersJoe Meert[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 08-05-2002]