Organization of Fossils

I had this thread going before the "incident". There had been no takers at that point so I'm hoping there might be this time around.

*NOTE*- I have a very similar (practically identical) thread in the non-Christians-allowed science forum in case anyone was wondering.

Firstly, I want to take us on a trip to the Burgess Shale of British Columbia. This fossil bed is located right in the middle of the Canadian Rockies and produces some of the world's greatest Cambrian fossils. Among the inhabitants are Anomalocaris, Opibinia, and Pikaia. What's amazing about this rock formation is that, not only are no modern taxa known from the formation, there are no terrestrial animals AT ALL and there are no vertebrates (but there is one chordate). A simple question. Why is it that not a single fossil of a type of organism alive today has been found in the Burgess Shale? Heck, why hasn't a single vertebrate creature or land dwelling organism been found there? You realize, of course, that if one mammalian molar were to be verified to have been found encased in this formation then the evolutionary timeline as we understand it would be shot, right? And yet, that molar or other piece of unexplainable evidence (there are many possiblilities) against modern evolutionary thinking has yet to be found. Doesn't any of that strike any YEC as being a tad strange? Is there some sort of mechanism that would have prevented a whale carcass or dinosaur femur from washing over to these bone beds? Is there some reason why we don't find mussels or crabs or limpets or other very common sea creatures here? Keep in mind, also, that many YECs believe that there was more terrestrial surface area before the flood. If that was the case then how did all these marine fossils end up here? The year it was underwater? Then how come there are so many fossil formations that have no marine life? Why?

Next question: why is it that the Morrison Formation in Colorado yields predominantly dinosaur bones? Why are there no living species of mammals or birds or even lizards ever to be found in the Morrison? Also, why is no sea life ever found in the Morrison? The Burgess Shale only yields sea life and yet the Morrison has none. Both formations were underwater for a year, right? So why does one have only extinct, invertebrate, marine life while the other has only extinct, terrestrial, vertebrate fauna? Is that just coincidence or is there some reason to this scheme of things? Also, why are no flowering plants known from the Morrison. How many North American habitats can you name that have no flowering plants in them? And yet there were none here.

Next question: why is it that the Hell Creek Formation of Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota also yields predominantly dinosaur bones but ones of completely different species (heck, genera)? Wasn't the flood violent enough to carve the Grand Canyon and move the tectonic plates hundreds of miles and other such things? If it was so violent, how come it still couldn't move Morrison dinosaur specimens to Hell Creek and visa versa? Why does the Hell Creek Formation yield almost the exact same type of remains as the Lance Formation in Wyoming and yet has no species overlap whatsoever with the Morrison? If a global flood did happen we should expect fossil beds to be very mixed up, shouldn't we? The force behind the flood water was supposed to have carved the Grand Canyon back 277 miles wasn't it? But this didn't move any bird skulls to the Burgess Shale? It didn't move any Triceratops metacarpals to the Morrison? It didn't move any Brachiosaur teeth to Hell Creek?

Next question: why is it that in the Green River Formation of Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming, there are no dinosaurs of any sort (unless you count birds )? Instead of dinosaurs and anomalocaris and stegosaurs and things that are found in the other fossil formations I've listed, you find very modern looking animals such as fresh water fish, snakes, birds, primitive bats, turtles, and that type of stuff? If the currents that the Flood wielded could create the Grand Canyon, how come it couldn't drift a single Allosaurus tooth the distance between the Morrison and the Green River formations? Not only are they both in Colorado, they're only 240 miles apart (need I remind you that the Grand Canyon is 277 miles in length). Isn't it very bizarre that the Flood could carve a giant canyon farther than it can carry a theropod tooth? Isn't it coincidental that no salt water taxa are known from any of the last three formations I've mentioned? Isn't it coincidental that not a single flowering plant is known from the Morrison yet many are well documented from the Hell Creek and Green River Formations? Jeeze!

Next, the Delmarva Penninsula fossil bed in Delaware. This bone bed contains the fossils of crocodiles, rhinoceros, and primitive horses among other things. Also in the sediment are marine animals such as mullusks, sharks and whales. Unfortunatly (for YEC at least), nothing even close to unusual is found in the site. No iguanodon skeletons (well known from beds on the east coast), no humans, no therapsids... All of these wonderfully bizarre animals known to have lived in North America are completely absent in the site save only some semi-advanced Miocene mammals and some unexciting marine organisms. Why didn't the flood move any unexpected bones/teeth to this fossil deposit? How come there aren't any dinosaurs or therapsids or Cambrian sea life known from this site? Personnally, I'm seeing a pattern here.

Next. The Judith River formation of Montana and Alberta. I love this formation . This fossil bed (sort of inbetween all these other dinosaur formations and the Burgess Shale, huh?) has no species overlap with its very close neighbor, Hell Creek. Both formations have relatively similar fauna but nothing too precise. Judith River boasts Daspletosaurus but no Tyrannosaurus, Chasmosaurus but no Triceratops, Edmontonia but no Ankylosaurus. In fact, I can only find two examples of overlapping genera between the two formations (no overlapping species mind you). Why is there no species overlap and such little genera overlap? Why is it only Parasaurolophus skeletons washed into the Judith River formation while only Anatotitan skeletons washed into the Hell Creek formation? Why didn't the flood waters carry a Torosaurus skull from Hell Creek to the Judith? Why didn't Tyrannosaurus's body get washed to the other side of Montana when the flood had the strength to carve the Grand Canyon and mess up radioactive decay rates and all that stuff? Is all this skeletal placement just some huge coincidence or is it possible, just possible, that this global flood never happened?

Next; the White River formation. This is located in South Dakota, Wyoming, and Nebraska and yields some of North America's greatest Oligocene fossils. This formation (close to lots of the others I've mentioned huh?) is very well known for its mammal fossils. Among the finds include North American marsupials, saber-toothed cats, North American camels, rodents, snakes and many other types of less spectacular or less well known (by the public) animals. In case you didn't notice, some animals not found in the White River formation include therapsids, dinosaurs, pterosaurs, cambrian sea life, sharks, mullusks (except for the terrestrial variety), whales, humans, chimps, modern horses, thecodonts, hippos, seals, dolphins, and countless other creatures that were supposedly living (or being killed rather) at the time this sediment was being laid down. Isn't it then a coincidence of tremendous magnitude to think that the only organisms that managed to be fossilized here were some primitive plecential and marsupial mammals and some boring reptiles? How is this possible? Was there some Oligocene mammal magnet sitting under the location of the sediment? Did this magnet attract all these different types of animals to this location so that the fossil record is nice and organised for us humans? Or is it possible that this unfathomably powerful flood actually didn't happen on a global scale?

Next! The La Brea tar pits of Los Angeles, California. These tar pits (one of my favorite places to visit) present us with one of the most classic examples of a predator trap. How the creatures were fossilized, detailed here:

http://www.tarpits.org/info/faq/faqfossil.html,

explains remarkably well why nearly all the fossils found at the site are of predators and evolution explains remarkably well why they are all small to medium sized birds and terrestrial mammals. From condors to vultures to saber-toothed cats to dire wolves to mastodons to American lions (real, homegrown american lions to American camels to enormous sloths, the tar seems to have pulled them all in. Strange how there aren't any velociraptors, isn't it. Or Coelophysis or Allosaurus or Tyrannosaurus or Daspletosaurus or Troodontids, isn't it. I mean, in a fight between a pack of dire wolves and a T-rex or two, I'd bet on the T-rex. So the question is, why are no dinosaur fossils known from these tar pits. For that matter, why are there mammal-like reptiles or any of them fansy pterosaurs? Why isn't there Cambrian sea life at this site? Actually, why isn't there any sea life at this site? Underwater for a year?

Next on our trip we will travel to Africa and the Tendaguru formation of Tanzania. What's fascinating about this place is we find similar fauna to that of the Morrison (you remember the Morrison, right? ). We find Brachiosaurs, Allosaurs, Elaphrosaurs, Ceratosaurs and many others (I'll cite more if you wish ). Isn't it bizarre, for YEC, that we find such very similar fauna thousands of miles away from each other, and yet, we find completely different fauna just a few hundred miles away. I see no rational explaination for it. Frankly, a pack of Dromeosaurs or a single Tyrannosaurus rex could whipe the floor with Morrison and Tendaguru carnivores. I wish someone could respond, I do enjoy company.

Well, I hope I get some reaction to this. If not I'll cite more fossil formations that continue to disprove the Noah flood simply on the basis of fossil organization. Also, if you have read this thread and cannot answer my questions, I ask you to consider the possibility that there was never any enormous, violent, world wide flood.

__________________

Excellent summary of the data. However, let me pick a nit. Elsewhere in the post you are clear that you are dealing with Flood Geology. Here you lose that and refer to "Noah's flood".

Flood Geology is not really the same as Noah's Flood. For one thing, the Noah's Flood story tells of a very gentle flood, such that the Ark has no problems and that pre-flood geography (the location of Eden) is the same as post-Flood geography.

What we need to do is remember the role Noah's Flood plays in Flood Geology and in Creation Science. Creation Science has to account for

1. The existence of a fossil record AT ALL, because a literal Genesis 1 or 2 has all the animals and plants living together at the same time. So, how do you get these extinct plants and animals to begin with? The Flood.

2. All that sedimentary rock all over the world. A 6-20,000 year old earth simply hasn't had enough erosion to make all that sedimentary rock. So, how to get all that sedimentary rock? A VERY violent Noah's Flood to produce the erosion, that's how.

Thus you get Flood Geology, a scientific theory that is a necessary part of the theory of Creation Science.

So often we end up concentrating so much on arguing about the world-wide violent flood that is the heart of Flood Geology that we lose sight of why this violent Flood is proposed at all by creationists -- in direct opposition to what the Bible says.

Understood.

Ok, since no one has explained how this organization of the fossil record could have occured with a violent, world-wide flood I'll add a pair of formations to the list just to make things harder .

The first formation I'll add is the Kaibab formation of Arizona. Some people may be amazed but this site does contain marine fossils. In fact, it contains nothing but marine fossils (just like the Burgess Shale). However, the Permian creatures here are of a completely different sort than those from the Cambrian formation. Included in the Kaibab formation are animals such as sponges, clams, gastropods, and several types of cephalopods. Compared to the finds at the Burgess Shale, these fossils are of much more recognizable animals. So, the question of course is, why do we find so many modern-looking marine fossils in the Kaibab while we find nothing even close to modern looking in the Burgess Shale. What kept clams and mussels from inhabiting the Burgess Shale. If it was predators, what kept the predators from coming down south and eating up the clams and mussels? And what kept the corpses of these animals from being dispersed, possibly into each others' native environment when the flood came? The Kaibab is very close to the Grand Canyon (you know, that enormous canyon the flood actually carved in the rock in less than a years time?) so why didn't it disperse a few mussel shells to the Burgess Shale. And if not to the Burgess Shale, why not to La Brea, or the Morrison, or Hell or Lance creek? They're much closer, and yet no marine fauna is known from them. Very odd.

Now, quick question. Was the Kaibab formation supposed to have been underwater before the flood happened (it's in the middle of Arizona) or did all of those bivalves run over there really quickly before the waters receeded?

My next bone bed is the Chinle formation of Arizona and Utah. This formation is famous for its fantastic examples of Triassic species. Among the animals found here are Coelophysis, Postosuchus, Cynodonts, and various types of Amphibians. Also, one should take note, that the Petrified Forest is part of the Chinle formation. And yet, in all the forest (which contains both woody and non-woody plants) there is not one example of a flowering plant. Not one. Not just the trees but in the shrubbery and bushes. No flowering plants, all conifers and ferns and mosses. That also means no grass. No grass has ever (or will ever, IMO) be found in the Chinle formation. Weird, huh? You know what's also weird, the lack of marine fossils in the Chinle. Why were marine mullosks living in the Kaibob formation but not in the Chinle formation? Why was the Chinle formation dominated by puny 6-foot long dinosaurs when a sparse few hundred miles to the north there were 40-foot carnosaurs ready to eat anything that moved? Why are no birds known from the Chinle? How can you YECs just shrug this off? Not reading my about this problem does not make it go away, nor does not answering it.

__________________

One of the more interesting pieces of evidence that falsifies many of the "Flood Geology" theories is the existence of dinosaur footprints on the top of a coal seam.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/coalprints.html

"Stands of large trees and palm thickets have been preserved in growth position. Root systems of the larger trees extend horizontally across the peat surface and show development of the northwest-southwest orientation discussed earlier [this is perpendicular the regional paleoshoreline -AM]. Where roof falls have occurred, the vitrianized [coalified] tree trunks are commonly exposed in cross section. .... The spacings of the trees are similar to the spacings of Cypress trees in Okefenokee Swamp. Here, tree spacings are determined by crown widths. Occasionally, leaf floras are preserved on the basal surfaces of the flood deposits [on top of the coal seam - he is talking about river floods :-)]. The leaf assemblages are commonly dominated by broad-leaf angiosperm genera with a scattering of palms, conifers, and ferns... Charcoal in the coals suggests that during the dry seasons, fires swept through the swamps as they do in modern Okefenokee....."

"In the swamp forests, the peat surfaces have been deformed by vast numbers of dinosaur footprints [some of which he illustrates as photographs]. The footprints are depressions in the swamp peats that have been filled with flood-deposited sediment..... Peat is a water-saturated material that after compression tends to rebound to its undisturbed state. The abundance of well-defined tracks suggests that they were made just prior to the deposition of the sediment and that dinosaurs were very abundant in the swamp forests... Occasionally, tracks of three-toed dinosaurs [probably hadrosaurs], occur around the bases of the trees, and are pointed inward as though the animals were browsing on the standing vegetation. The large numbers of well-defined, three-toed tracks and their association with trees suggest that the parent dinosaurs were gregarious herbivores. Occasionally, single trackways can be followed for considerable distances in mine entries driven parallel to the paths of the dinosaurs."

If these footprints were layed before the flood, then all the material, including the material that makes up the coal and the matieral below them was laid down pre-flood (which would falsify the entire fossil record being laid down by the flood).

If these footprints were layed down after the flood, then all the material above them was laid down post flood including the seams with mammals and such (which would falsify the entire fossil record being laid down by the flood).

My guess would be that if this formation was addressed by creationists, that their answers would contradict other ad-hoc explainations within their model, or the various organizations would contradict each other with their explainations. Similar contradictions exist when they try to explain fossil egg nests that show many seasons of egg laying one on top of the other.

A layer of footprints right in the midde of the fossil record, recorded in a coal seam, along with trees and such. How does one explain this in the flood model?

The Burgess Shale was a warm, shallow sea. Why would you expect to find land organisms in a sea? In fact not finding land animals would indicate a young earth, not an old earth. An old earth would require multiple biodiverse ecology systems in one area, not just one single biodiversification. Also, why would you expect a sea to be effected by a world wide flood? It looks like you have some preconceived theorys and your trying to force the evidence to fit your theory and it just does not make for a very good fit.

That is your theory, that a flood would wash the species from one biodiverse area into another?

No one questions biodiversificaton. Except when it comes to Eden being a biodiverse ecology. All of a sudden then everyone questions that.

Dinosaur's are lizards, they are both reptiles. At that time the average life span was 1000 years. The reptiles continued to grow, they did not stop growing, so they got to be rather big.

Now your looking for sea life on dry land? Is this a part of your theory that the flood would wash the biodiverse life from one area over into another?

Yep, I see a patten also. You have one flimsy theory that a world wide flood would carry life from one area to another.

I thought this was a sea at one time. Isn't that what made the "tar"?


I would think that would make it more difficult for Darwin. According to his theory all life has to adapt to is biodiverse area. So you should not find very similar fauna so far apart.

Actually, most of what your coming up with puts Darwin's theory to shame. But you can come up with more if you like. Your evidence has creation and creator written all over it, I am surprised you do not see that. The Bible says you are without excuse if you look at and study creation and do not see the Creator.

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

Dinosaurs are not lizards. Lizards are reptiles; dinosaurs may or may not be reptiles. At one extreme, some classification systems would put dinosaurs on a separate branch from reptiles. At the other extreme, some classification systems would promote Reptilia to include birds as well as dinosaurs and other reptiles.

Dinosaurs at not big versions of modern reptiles; they are quite distinct in anatomy and physiology. Creatures similar to modern reptiles lived along side dinosaurs and paleontologists can distinguish between the two by many features other than size.

-Neil

Well, during the Cambrian the Burgess Shale certainly was a sea. However, YECs do not believe that the Cambrian existed and many believe that there was more dry land before the flood. Hence, the area where the Burgess Shale now stands (in British Columbia) should have been on land. Hence, there should be land organisms present.

Not if the strata was laid down during the Cambrian. If the rock layer is already present, you aren't going to get more organisms fossilized in it now are you?

Because I've never heard a YEC say that the Burgess Shale was a sea. Unless, for some reason, there was a great inland sea on the western border of British Columbia up until 4,000 years ago and then massive tectonic movement smashed the Rocky Mountains up straight through the middle of the inland sea. It's a sad day when I'm the one making up YEC arguments.

No, I'm not. The fact is that we have a giant rock layer in the middle of the Rocky Mountains that turns up nothing but very strange and very extinct sea life. This would not be expected (and if it is I'd like to hear why) if there was a global flood that purged the earth 4,000 years ago.



It is a conclusion that I reach after looking at the scenario presented to me by young earth creationism. If this flood had the power to carve the Grand Canyon (over the course of a year if it were underwater currents, in a matter of a few days if it were while the waters were covering the planet) then we should expect such things as corpses to be carried the comparitively small distances between all of the fossil sites I mentioned.



That didn't answer my question. What mechanism kept modern sea animals, of any sort, from colonizing the vicinity of the Burgess Shale?



As NeilUnreal pointed out this is false. Also, notice that I said "living species of... lizards". Dinosaurs are not alive.

Again, as NeilUnreal stated there are a great many things that differentiate dinosaurs from lizards. If you'd like me to list some I'd be more than happy to.



No it is not part of that "theory". Since the Burgess Shale (and Kaibab for that matter) are both very terrestrial now you have one of two explanations for the sea life being present there (under the YEC model).

1) There were giant seas present at those formations 4,000 years ago (this is disproven by terrestrial fossil sites being located on top of and inbetween the supposed 'inland sea' strata and the lack of large tectonic plates anywhere near many inland oceanic fossil sites).

2) The fossils came from when sea life migrated there during the 1 year flood (in which case we should expect terrestrial fossils to be present too)

Then, if you would be so kind, please explain to me why a flood that carves a 277 mile long gash in firm rock would not carry such light things as a floating corpse (or a sinking corpse if the currents are underwater).

I'm not actually sure what made the tar. My point is that, if the fauna at the Burgess Shale got there during the 1 year flood, why didn't any fauna reach La Brea?

Not considering the fact that we still had a connected, giant landmass at the time. Because Pangea was still losely connected at the time, dominant genuses were able to stay relatively similar across the planet. Real diversity didn't start coming about until Pangea broke into Laurasia and Gondwana. Now, my question, which was not too specific due to the length of my post, was why we have, for example, gigantic sauropods in the Morrison; small sauropods in Lance and Hell Creek; no sauropods in the Chinle, Green River, White River, and the Delmarva Penninsula; and yet find sauropods of the same genus in the Tendaguru formation as in the Morrison despite the fact that, according to YEC, they were on completely separate, unconnected continents (the same holds true for hadrosaurs, stegosaurs, and theropods in place of sauropods).

You'll have to explain that more thoroughly.

You got it, I'll post some more tomarrow. I'll make sure they're nice ones too

Actually it has "Global flood falsified" written all over it. Also, I am not contesting the existance of a creator (that would be tough to do in the Christian-only forum) only idea of a global flood.

I see a creator. I also see an old earth and a great story of evolution which I hope to be able to study in depth for a profession

That's one extreme I agree with

__________________

If you go back to Bishop Ussler and his 6000 year theory. Then you may have problems trying to get that theory to line up with the geological ages.

I think it is sad that you only pick one creation theory to try and falsify. Why don't you try to falsify OEC or the GAP?

I thought your theory was that the flood water carried the biodiverse life from one ecology into another. If your looking at dead things, that is proof for a would wide flood. So whatever you come up with, it's dead, there must have been a flood or something to kill it.

Luke 20:38
For He is not the God of the dead but of the living, for all live to Him."

The real question should concern what did not die in the flood, that could not have been on Noah's ark. If you want to try to falsify a world wide flood, I think you have to look among the living, not the dead.



Because they would have been ground to a power known as limestone. Or in it's pure form, chalk.

Whatever made it was organic. So don't go looking for corpses when the organisms has been turned into a so called "tar".

I am not sure evolution is the answer, but to just look at the natural record and all the various ecology systems, and all the differernt biodiversification. The world does seem to be rather complex.

That is why I have problems with the idea that Noah saved the whole world. He would be been doing good just to redeem one ecology system and save one group of biodiverse animals.

If you look at the California tar pits, then you have a good sample of one biodiversification. So you can imagine that Noah would have had quite a bit of work on his hands just to save that much.

Which is what this thread is intended to falsify.

John, the purpose of this thread is to provide a falsification for a global flood which covered all the earth. I'm sorry that you wish I were addressing your theory, but I'm not as of this point.

John, you are not using logic. Let's suppose that the earth is 6,000 years old and the history of the earth went exactly as it is literally interpreted from the Bible. Now, we many fossil sites (I have only listed two of them) that show nothing but aquatic lifeforms that are located in what is now the middle of a very large continent. So, since you are the one defending a global flood, how did these fossils get there?

There are several good falsifications that involve living species, however, this thread is not meant to address those falsifications.

Why would they have been ground to a powder known as limestone? And if they were why do we have fossils at all?

Ok, so why is it that nothing but marine organisms was turned into tar whereas the saber-toothed cats, dire wolves, mastodons, ground sloths, American camels, condors, one human, and many, many other terrestrial organisms were not? What geological mechanism turns only marine organisms into tar?

Evolution is the only answer that fits the data.

Now, as promised, here are my additions to my little list.

The Smoky Hill Chalk is an absolutely awesome fossil bed located in western Kansas. Because John and I have been discussing, largely, marine organisms I chose this site because of its marine fauna. Present here are such animals as Mosasaurs, Plesiosaurs, Bony fish, primitive sharks, and, spectacularly, early shore birds and pterosaurs. Also present are gastropods and mollusks. There aren't any marine mammals, there aren't any modern shore birds (only the toothed variety), and there aren't any Cambrian organisms. Why is this? Was Kansas one big inland sea 4,000 years ago? What about the Kaibab formation I cited earlier? Was it a sea too? Because there are dinosaur fossils found on top of the Kaibab sediment so, I must ask, how do proponents of a global flood explain this?

Next we shall look at the Falls of the Ohio fossil bed located in Kentucky. This sediment, is also strangely in the middle of North America, contains the fossils of marine organisms such as: corals, cephalopods, starfish, trilobites, brachiopods, shark teeth (towards the upper portions of the sediment) and bryozoans. Did anyone else notice that Mosasaurs, Plesiosaurs, shore birds and pterosaurs aren't present? Or that marine mammals, modern shore birds, and Cambrian critters are all absent? Also, why are these fossils in Kentucky? Was there another huge inland sea? Was North America rittled with inland seas 4,000 years ago? Doesn't seem to leave much room for the dinosaurs, bison, bears, saber-toothed tigers, American lions, mastodons, and 80+ ton sauropods to coexist, does it?

__________________

Dino's are not reptiles. They had scalie skin, but internally they have organs that resemble more along the lines of mammals/amphibians(frogs), which means they could have well been warm blooded....no one knows unless we can DNA replicate one.