Chemical fossils of plants. What the YEC leaders won't tell you

[grmorton]

I ran into this paper the other day on chemical fossils from plants and the geology of Australia. It shows the incredible complexity found in the strata of the geologic column in which multiple independent measurements seem to all fit together and which make the global flood scenario irrelevant as an explanation of the geologic column.

“The higher plant fingerprint (HPF; van Aarssen et al, 1996) is made up of the abundances of three aromatic hydrocarbons relative to their sum: cadalene, retene and 6-isopropyl-l-isohexyl-2-methylnaphthalene (ip-iHMN; Fig. 2). This parameter was measured for rock samples from Middle to Upper Jurassic sections from three wells from the North West Shelf: Koolinda I from the Barrow Sub-basin, Madeleine I from the Dampier Sub-basin and Paqualin I from the Vulcan Sub-basin. It was then plotted against an absolute time scale.” B. G. K. van Aarssen, R. Alexander and R. I. Kagi, “Higher Plant Biomarkers on the North West Shelf: Application in Stratigraphic Correlation and Palaeoclimate Reconstruction.” In P. G. and R. R. Purcell, The Sedimentary Basins of Western Australia 2,Proceedings of the West Australia Basins Symposium, (Perth: Petroleum Exploration Society of Australia, 1998), p. 124

We need to discuss where these chemicals come from. Retene seems to be associated with Araucariacean conifers. The other two chemicals seem to correlate with Corallina which represents a drier climate and with Exesipollenites.

"Fluvio-deltaic deposits from the Delambre-1 well from the Dampier Sub-basin, Western Australia were subjected to biomarker and ð13C analyses. Results have shown that changes in higher plant biomarker distributions correlate predominantly with, 1) brackish conditions with some marine influence (2) major changes in composition of spore and pollen assemblages 3) classification of the delta facies and 4) stable carbon isotopic composition of the sedimentary carbonates. Higher plant biomarkers were found to be abundant in sediments containing Corallina spp, which has been related to a dry climatic episode in the Early Jurassic. These higher plant biomarkers also correlate with sediments that contain Exesipollenites spp. in the Early Jurassic and Araucariacean conifers in the Early-Middle Jurassic. The biomarker retene is abundant in sediments that contain only Araucariacean conifers in the Early-Middle Jurassic. Distributions of higher plant biomarkers also co-vary, with the prodelta and the distal facies types reflecting environmental changes. For example, cadalene and simonellite are most abundant in prodelta and distal deltaic facies, whereas retene is most abundant at the prodelta-distal facies boundary (where maximium sea level transgression is prevalent). " http://caog.chemistry.curtin.edu.au/si_research/project_f1.html

Now, here is the problem. Why should we expect a global flood to leave sediments which vary similarly in these chemicals ratios over vast areas? The turbulence of the flood and the fact that these plants which produced these chemicals should have existed from the earliest part of the flood and these chemicals should not vary simultaneously anywhere on earth. But they do.

“Figure 3 shows that, based on these estimated age restrictions, a significant change in HPF occurred during the Oxfordian at almost exactly the same time in all three wells. During that period the abundance of retene increased markedly relative to that of cadalene and ip-iHMN. Since the three wells span a distance of approximately 1500 km it can be concluded that this change in the higher plant fingerprint reflects a regional event, which caused the input into the sediments from plants that produced precursors for retene to be become much more abundant relative to that of plants that produced precursors for cadalene or ip-iHMN. The best known source for retene at present times is the diterpenoid abietic acid, although many other diterpenoids are also known to yield retene upon aromatization. These compounds are produced in high abundances by many conifer species, and it is likely that during Jurassic times similar natural products acted as precursors for the bulk of the retene found in the sediments. The change in HPF thus appears to be due mainly to a relative increase in the population of conifers, which would have taken place as a response to changes in environmental conditions.” B. G. K. van Aarssen, R. Alexander and R. I. Kagi, “Higher Plant Biomarkers on the North West Shelf: Application in Stratigraphic Correlation and Palaeoclimate Reconstruction.” In P. G. and R. R. Purcell, The Sedimentary Basins of Western Australia 2,Proceedings of the West Australia Basins Symposium, (Perth: Petroleum Exploration Society of Australia, 1998), p. 124

Now, as I said, these chemicals should not vary in sync across such a vast area if there was a global flood. The water currents, the turbulence etc should have dispersed the plants so that the chemicals would vary differently in different places.

YEC leaders don't tell their followers about things like this.

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

and YEC followers don't read or respond to things like this

 

[LittleNipper]

Now, as I said, these chemicals should not vary in sync across such a vast area if there was a global flood. The water currents, the turbulence etc should have dispersed the plants so that the chemicals would vary differently in different places.

YEC leaders don't tell their followers about things like this.

Not really. The chemicals would be mixed and so would be the same from place to place depending on which the stage of the Flood in which they were laid. There is nothing saying that the Flood didn't pass through stages of development

 

[Valkhorn]

Not really. The chemicals would be mixed and so would be the same from place to place depending on which the stage of the Flood in which they were laid. There is nothing saying that the Flood didn't pass through stages of development

You know it'd be great if you could actually substantiate your claims for once.

 

[Split Rock]

Not really. The chemicals would be mixed and so would be the same from place to place depending on which the stage of the Flood in which they were laid. There is nothing saying that the Flood didn't pass through stages of development

Are you implying that the Deluge buried different specific genera during different "stages?" Does this include genera that existed at more than one altitude or more than one type of terrain?

Would you care to describe these different stages for us?

Let me ask you another question while I am at it. Is there ANY physical evidence that would persuade you that the earth was never covered by a Global Flood?