Hydrological Sorting and the Fossil Record

[random_guy]

Sorry.

I think a thorough understanding of Physics is quite useful in understanding the concepts he describes.

It might be useful if he studied fluid flow, but even that's stretching. This falls more into the area of paleontology and geology. Like Glaudy's pointed out, the study is absolutely horrible. Does he even take into account that there were dinosaurs the size of chickens? Why are those in the same layers as all the other dinosaurs, and not the area of chickens?

Finally, to top it off, I wouldn't consider Brown to be much of a scientist. I was unable to find a CV from Brown to find his publications, but so far, all I can find is the one paper on layer formation and a book. Most scientists publish at least 1 paper a year. I doubt Brown is much of a scientist since he is not involved in active research.

You must remember that a Ph.D. from a great university is nice, but without any research backing the degree, he's nothing more than a figurehead.

 

[random_guy]

If the flood of Noah is real, and if it is a global event, not a local flood, then you would expect it to leave evidence.

In such a case, you would likely see the majority of the geologic column as representing the results of such a flood. Huge deposits spanning vast areas of land would be expected. You would see the different layers as representing different times in the flood, with varying hydrodeposition according to local conditions. You would see the fossils in the flood sorted by ecological positioning, motility and body characteristics as opposed to time. Huge areas where the fossil layers are supposedly "out of order" would not be any surprise or problem.

In other words, the same evidence used to point towards evolution is actually evidence that God caused a global flood, just as His revelation says. Same evidence - different interpretation.

Bumping for laptoppop to explain all the unanswered issues about the "mobility" of pollen and spores or the "body characteristics" of Compsognathus and chickens (and every single modern mammal) that causes the sorting that we see. I suspect the answer will boil down to "Goddiddit".

 

[laptoppop]

No, I would say that most of the sorting we see in the geologic column is due to a number of factors, all working together. It is important to recognize that the geologic column is a construction -- it appears in various fragments in various places that are stitched together with theory. Most of the "interesting" layers specifically require a flood-type of deposition in order to provide both the content of the layer and the binding agent. Some "cool" exceptions are lava and oil/tar deposits.

The geographical extent of the layers, both in thickness and in continental coverage is hard to explain. Conventional explanations end up with repetitive huge floods.

The fossils in these layers are better described as being sorted by multiple factors working together.
The first factor is ecological community. While sometimes we see larger distance transport, for the most part the fossils in a given area represent the ecocommunity of that area.

The next factor is habitat. It is reasonable to expect that sea bottom dwelling critters would often be buried low in the strata, while birds, for example, would be buried higher if at all.

The next factor is motility. Something that is able to move, such as a sea turtle is likely to be higher than a snail. Humans are likely to often avoid it entirely and end up decaying instead of fossilizing -- in other words, just like we observe, we would expect few human remains.

The next factor is body characteristics -- size, weight, density, reaction to waterflow, etc.

It is important to note however, that I am describing statistical averages. Given the turbulent nature of the flood, one should not be surprised by different localized sorting.

The global flood is by far the best way to describe the formation of the evidence that we actually see. It strains the imagination to see why supposedly layers of one chemical composition (say brown, for example), are laid down for millions of years, then reddish layers of a different composition, etc. The flood, with large scale changes, localized erosion, changing deposition, etc. explains this easily.

 

[gluadys]

The geographical extent of the layers, both in thickness and in continental coverage is hard to explain. Conventional explanations end up with repetitive huge floods.

And what's problematical about that?

The fossils in these layers are better described as being sorted by multiple factors working together.
The first factor is ecological community.

This does not explain why we have different ecologies in different strata in the same area. Nor does it explain certain features of the fossil record. Today we see ferns and mosses successfully sharing the ecology of tropical and temperate forests and flowering plants that also appreciate the same humid conditions. Yet for huge sections of the fossil record the only plants found are ferns and mosses. No trees, no grasses, no plants of any kind that produce pollen or seeds. Obviously, from our experience, we know that all these could thrive in the same ecological community as ferns and mosses. So why do we not find them there?

The next factor is habitat. It is reasonable to expect that sea bottom dwelling critters would often be buried low in the strata, while birds, for example, would be buried higher if at all.

Yet some sea bottom dwelling critters (e.g. benthic fish) are not found in the same lower strata where one already finds corals and shellfish of all sorts. Why would these lower strata exclude examples of sea-bottom vertebrates given that they have no problem living in that habitat now?

And why do we find birds with very reptilian characteristics in lower strata than birds with modern characteristics. It doesn't appear to be because the former had any difficulty in flying. Nor because modern birds would have different habitat and ecological needs.

The next factor is motility. Something that is able to move, such as a sea turtle is likely to be higher than a snail.

Maybe, but this does not explain why a sea turtle is likely to be found in lower strata than a dolphin or why we never find fossil plesiosaurs and fossil whales in the same strata.

The next factor is body characteristics -- size, weight, density, reaction to waterflow, etc.

Which does not explain why modern mammals and extinct reptiles of similar size, weight, density, etc. are neatly separated in the fossil record.

 

[random_guy]

No, I would say that most of the sorting we see in the geologic column is due to a number of factors, all working together. It is important to recognize that the geologic column is a construction -- it appears in various fragments in various places that are stitched together with theory. Most of the "interesting" layers specifically require a flood-type of deposition in order to provide both the content of the layer and the binding agent. Some "cool" exceptions are lava and oil/tar deposits.

The geographical extent of the layers, both in thickness and in continental coverage is hard to explain. Conventional explanations end up with repetitive huge floods.

The fossils in these layers are better described as being sorted by multiple factors working together.
The first factor is ecological community. While sometimes we see larger distance transport, for the most part the fossils in a given area represent the ecocommunity of that area.

The next factor is habitat. It is reasonable to expect that sea bottom dwelling critters would often be buried low in the strata, while birds, for example, would be buried higher if at all.

The next factor is motility. Something that is able to move, such as a sea turtle is likely to be higher than a snail. Humans are likely to often avoid it entirely and end up decaying instead of fossilizing -- in other words, just like we observe, we would expect few human remains.

The next factor is body characteristics -- size, weight, density, reaction to waterflow, etc.

It is important to note however, that I am describing statistical averages. Given the turbulent nature of the flood, one should not be surprised by different localized sorting.

The global flood is by far the best way to describe the formation of the evidence that we actually see. It strains the imagination to see why supposedly layers of one chemical composition (say brown, for example), are laid down for millions of years, then reddish layers of a different composition, etc. The flood, with large scale changes, localized erosion, changing deposition, etc. explains this easily.

So if I give a density and mode of movement, do you think you'd be able to say where a fossil would be found? I highly doubt that. If anything, it seems like you're looking at where a fossil is, then make up how it got to that layer. There's no rhyme or reason for why animals are in some layers and not others. What sorting method would keep shark and their teeth in the same layers, but only have other sea creatures below the shark teeth?

 

[shernren]

Remember that last time when I told you that I get that Twilight Zone feeling talking to you? Here it is again.

Most of the "interesting" layers specifically require a flood-type of deposition in order to provide both the content of the layer and the binding agent. Some "cool" exceptions are lava and oil/tar deposits.

Really? Remember the lagerstattes I brought up last time? Well, let's take a good survey of them.

Ediacara, South Australia: Two main types of deposition contributed to this fossil bed: deep turbidite deposition in some places, and calm shallow water with occasional catastrophic sediment inputs. I'll grant that deep turbidite deposition sounds rather like a flood would; but by the same token, shallow deposition doesn't, and how on earth does a single flood deposit both over the course of less than a year over the same layer?

Duoshantuo, Central China: Three layers of marine deposition in high-salinity, low-oxygen conditions. Why three layers? How does a catastrophic burial occur in high salinity, which more often means evaporative concentration of ocean salt? And the whole thing is found on top of glacial till - but according to creationists, the Earth experienced a single Ice Age after the Flood, which means that here some Ediacaran organisms supposedly survived the Flood, and the Ice Age, and then got deposited in - what method exactly? This is not flood-type deposition.

Maotianshan, Southeast China: Shallow tropical sea with muddy bottom, fossils buried by periodic turbidity currents in mudstone. Again, not a flood deposition scenario.

Emu Bay, South Australia (in fact, right across a stretch of ocean from Ediacara) : Shallow water deposition with good soft tissue preservation - again, not the signs of flood deposition.

Sirius Passet, North Greenland: Deep-sea deposition of fossils in well-laminated mudstone. Only marginally attributable to a flood deposition scenario.

Kaili Formation, China: No idea how this one was deposited.

House Range, Western Utah: Fine deep-sea sediments punctuated by occasional landslides. How does a flood deposit fine sediments, and then have time to punctuate them with landslides?

Burgess Shale, Canadian Rockies: Pretty much the same story.

Orsten, Sweden: Oxygen-depleted deep sea shore. While this might have been deposited during the Flood, granted, this does not require flood deposition in the geological sense of the word.

All the previous lagerstatte are Cambrian or Pre-Cambrian, so the creationist might plausibly say that they were deposited pre-Flood (which itself would raise a lot of good questions). But what about an Ordovician one?

Soom Shale, South Africa: Laminated silts and muds. Like Duoshantuo, this formation is on top of tillite, meaning that it was deposited in the wake of a glacier - but the formation itself is under a shallow-sea deposition layer! If this formation was deposited during the Flood, that would explain its being under a shallow layer, but not at all its being on top of a glacial till; conversely, if it was deposited post-Flood, it would have been deposited roughly 3-4,000 years ago, since it could only have been deposited near the end of the creationist Ice Age.

Or a Silurian one?

Wenlock Series, UK: Layers of ash in fine-grained marine muds. Mud deposits are hard enough for a flood, but how can you punctuate that with volcanic ash?

Devonian:

Rhynie Chert, Scotland: Silica-rich water rose causing instant petrification. While this might just be plausible in a flood situation, why is it that no modern plants whatsoever were found? Did the grasses and weeds escape to higher ground?

Hunsruck Slates, Germany: Intensive pyritization indicates rapid burial in sediments with low organic content. Would a global Flood killing all life in sight create sediments with low organic content?

Canowindra, southeast Australia: a huge deposit of early Devonian fish trapped when a lake dried out. It doesn't get any more "this was not deposited in a flood" than that.

Carboniferous:

Bear Gulch Limestone, Montana: Detailed preservation, corresponding with anoxic conditions, interspersed with marine worm burrows and bottom-dwelling fish, indicating non-anoxic conditions. This can be explained by episodic occurences of anoxic conditions - fossils were laid down during anoxic periods, and other lifeforms during non-anoxic periods. However, in a flood conditions with massive death, the conditions would pretty much be anoxic all the way through. Again, no flood deposition scenario here.

Mazon Creek, Illinois: Rapid sedimentary burial followed by the formation of protective siderite concretions. Finally, something that makes sense in a flood!

Hamilton Quarry, Kansas: Interbedded laminated mudstones and limestones: how does a flood deposit those?

Triassic:

Karatau, Kazakhstan: No idea.

Ghost Ranch, New Mexico: A thousand or more Coelophysis killed by a flood, washed into a pool, and instantly buried. Sounds like a good flood deposition story - but the fossil bed right below it was deposited by animals and wood caught in a wildfire. Hmm?

This is where I go for lunch. So far in our survey we've found exactly 1 deposit which explicitly shows flood deposition, and three which might (just have) been deposited during a global Flood. However, in all fairness, the creationist could just insist that the Paleozoic marks the start of flood strata. Will that hold up?

 

[laptoppop]

Really? Remember the lagerstattes I brought up last time? Well, let's take a good survey of them.

I don't have a lot of time tonight - lets see how far I can get.


Ediacara, South Australia: Two main types of deposition contributed to this fossil bed: deep turbidite deposition in some places, and calm shallow water with occasional catastrophic sediment inputs. I'll grant that deep turbidite deposition sounds rather like a flood would; but by the same token, shallow deposition doesn't, and how on earth does a single flood deposit both over the course of less than a year over the same layer?

The basic issue here is that you persist in seeing the flood as a single[FONT=&quot] homogeneous event. The particulars of even a local flood vary widely - both in different locations and even in the same location over time. Especially given the catastrophic ground upheaval going on at the same time - this is no problem.[/FONT]


Duoshantuo, Central China: Three layers of marine deposition in high-salinity, low-oxygen conditions. Why three layers? How does a catastrophic burial occur in high salinity, which more often means evaporative concentration of ocean salt? And the whole thing is found on top of glacial till - but according to creationists, the Earth experienced a single Ice Age after the Flood, which means that here some Ediacaran organisms supposedly survived the Flood, and the Ice Age, and then got deposited in - what method exactly? This is not flood-type deposition.

Which often means.... but not always. In a global flood there would be just about any mixture of concentrations, temperatures, flows, etc. that you care to look at. I would need to look at this a bit more to understand the identification of it as a glacial till -- a flood produces erosion events as well, and there would be expected to be significant ground movement -- but again, I would need to look at this.


Maotianshan, Southeast China: Shallow tropical sea with muddy bottom, fossils buried by periodic turbidity currents in mudstone. Again, not a flood deposition scenario.

No problem at all with a realistic flood scenario. Problem for a simplistic one.


Emu Bay, South Australia (in fact, right across a stretch of ocean from Ediacara) : Shallow water deposition with good soft tissue preservation - again, not the signs of flood deposition.

ditto. You need to understand that even in a local flood there are periods and places of relative calm -- this is to be expected more so in a global event.

Sirius Passet, North Greenland: Deep-sea deposition of fossils in well-laminated mudstone. Only marginally attributable to a flood deposition scenario.

This sounds very similar to the rapidly laid down deposits from Mt. St. Helens.

Kaili Formation, China: No idea how this one was deposited.

I'd need to look at it more.

House Range, Western Utah: Fine deep-sea sediments punctuated by occasional landslides. How does a flood deposit fine sediments, and then have time to punctuate them with landslides?

No problem. Its not one single event -- it is a catastrophic mixture of events.


Burgess Shale, Canadian Rockies: Pretty much the same story.

same answer then.

Orsten, Sweden: Oxygen-depleted deep sea shore. While this might have been deposited during the Flood, granted, this does not require flood deposition in the geological sense of the word.

no problem.

All the previous lagerstatte are Cambrian or Pre-Cambrian, so the creationist might plausibly say that they were deposited pre-Flood (which itself would raise a lot of good questions). But what about an Ordovician one?

Most creationists put the boundary at around the cambrian -- which explains much of the "cambrian explosion" which has no decent evolutionary explanation.

Soom Shale, South Africa: Laminated silts and muds. Like Duoshantuo, this formation is on top of tillite, meaning that it was deposited in the wake of a glacier - but the formation itself is under a shallow-sea deposition layer! If this formation was deposited during the Flood, that would explain its being under a shallow layer, but not at all its being on top of a glacial till; conversely, if it was deposited post-Flood, it would have been deposited roughly 3-4,000 years ago, since it could only have been deposited near the end of the creationist Ice Age.

If one accepts that a glacial till is the only explanation for the patterns seen. I don't.


Or a Silurian one?

Wenlock Series, UK: Layers of ash in fine-grained marine muds. Mud deposits are hard enough for a flood, but how can you punctuate that with volcanic ash?

No problem at all. It is to be expected and predicted. The Scriptures talk about the mountains raising up -- one would expect volcanic activity with such huge movements.

Devonian:

Rhynie Chert, Scotland: Silica-rich water rose causing instant petrification. While this might just be plausible in a flood situation, why is it that no modern plants whatsoever were found? Did the grasses and weeds escape to higher ground?

Maybe because no plants were in the area? I've never heard a good explanation of why modern pollen and pieces of plants were found in strata identified as pre-cambrian either.


Hunsruck Slates, Germany: Intensive pyritization indicates rapid burial in sediments with low organic content. Would a global Flood killing all life in sight create sediments with low organic content?

Why not? It is reasonable to find any number of different conditions in a local sense.

Canowindra, southeast Australia: a huge deposit of early Devonian fish trapped when a lake dried out. It doesn't get any more "this was not deposited in a flood" than that.

First of all - the exact same types of mud cracking that we see in a lake drying out can be shown in the right chemical conditions underwater. Next -- why would this be hard? With all the ground and water movement going around, why is it hard to expect to find a large number of fish trapped in a particular location?

Carboniferous:

Bear Gulch Limestone, Montana: Detailed preservation, corresponding with anoxic conditions, interspersed with marine worm burrows and bottom-dwelling fish, indicating non-anoxic conditions. This can be explained by episodic occurences of anoxic conditions - fossils were laid down during anoxic periods, and other lifeforms during non-anoxic periods. However, in a flood conditions with massive death, the conditions would pretty much be anoxic all the way through. Again, no flood deposition scenario here.

No no no. You've got to get a single monolithic same for the entire time simplistic model out of your head. How do YOU explain these formations? A repeating series of floods? Fossils are not laid down under normal conditions -- they require burial, and not just normal burial. They require very particular conditions.

Mazon Creek, Illinois: Rapid sedimentary burial followed by the formation of protective siderite concretions. Finally, something that makes sense in a flood!

fine.

Hamilton Quarry, Kansas: Interbedded laminated mudstones and limestones: how does a flood deposit those?

Changing patterns of current, temperature, dissolved solids and deposition. Depending on various variables, a flood can erode an area, deposit thin layers simultaneously, deposit big layers, etc.

Triassic:

Karatau, Kazakhstan: No idea.

Ghost Ranch, New Mexico: A thousand or more Coelophysis killed by a flood, washed into a pool, and instantly buried. Sounds like a good flood deposition story - but the fossil bed right below it was deposited by animals and wood caught in a wildfire. Hmm?

so? No problem. Again - to fossilize you have to have burial -- even if it happens after a fire.

This is where I go for lunch. So far in our survey we've found exactly 1 deposit which explicitly shows flood deposition, and three which might (just have) been deposited during a global Flood. However, in all fairness, the creationist could just insist that the Paleozoic marks the start of flood strata. Will that hold up?


The key is to model a global flood properly, and not simplistically.

 

[Mallon]

laptoppop, do you have anything beyond ad hoc apologetics to support what you're saying? You've been called on your Flood scenario several times within the last few weeks, yet you just keep going on pretending there's no issue. This is EXTREMELY frustrating. You never did get back to me about those Jurassic termite mounds, for example. The problem isn't just going to go away if you keep ignoring it.

 

[random_guy]

Well, at least to any lurkers (hopefully), it becomes clear that the Flood hydrological sorting makes no sense. The only way a YECist can predict where a fossil will be in the geological column is by finding out which animal it was, asking a paleontologist where they will be. It has no predictive capability since it's impossible to sort the fossils we find based on density, mobility, or any other facts.

 

[shernren]

We are now at the Jurassic.

Holzmaden, Germany: can't find much useful info on this one.

La-Voulte-sur-Rhone, France: low energy marine basin, with no mixing of water at different depths. Is that flood deposition?

Solnhofen, Germany: High evaporation rates in a body of isolated water caused hypersaline conditions leading to salinity stratification. Is that flood deposition?

Cretaceous:

Yixian Formation, Northeast China: deposits laid down in still lakes alternate with volcanic sediment deposits. How do you get volcanic sediment intercalation in a single flood?

Santana and Crato Formations, Northeast Brazil: a highly variable sequence of sediments indicates a rapidly changing environment, not a boring year-under-water deposition. In particular, the Crato Formation below and the Santana Formation above are separated by evaporites: how do you get those in a flood?

Xiagou Formation, North China: tranquil lake deposition, with our good old varves at that.

Auca Mahuevo, Patagonia: a floodplain deposit on which dinosaurs were laying eggs to avoid seasonal flooding. This site specifically quotes dinosaur hatcheries as evidence against the Flood.

Eocene:

Green River Formation, US: Varves. I rest my case.

Monte Bolca, Italy: Three layers of well-preserved fossils in mudstone interspersed by limestone with less preserved fossils, and each layer of mudstone containing a balanced mix of fossils - fish in all three layers, for example. How were those fossils sorted?

Messel Pit, Germany: I would put forth (though not with absolute confidence) that this lagerstatte shows characteristics of multiple sorting mechanisms put forth by creationists, and therefore cannot support any. We have a well-preserved ecosystem with contemporaenous organisms of all kinds - plants, fish, birds, mammals - in the same layer, with our usual still lake sediments which would have created anoxic conditions favorable to fossilization in conventional geology. Now, if the water rose slowly in this area during the Flood, then different organisms would have had different amounts of time to escape - differential escape success should create some zoning, which we do not see. On the other hand, if a sudden rush of water simply killed everything in sight, it would not have been able to lay down fine sediments.

London Clay: I don't think this one is conclusive either way; I might be wrong.

And I'm going to ignore the rest because as far as I know, no creationist would put the post-flood boundary as late as the Oligocene. Would they?

Just to look back on our survey, it is apparent that most interesting fossil beds and formations actually do not have readily apparent signs of flood deposition. They are more likely to be associated with still lakes where undisturbed bottom sediment gives rise to anoxic conditions, preventing scavengers or microorganisms from degrading the body prior to fossilization. If the Flood was really responsible for the majority of animal deaths seen in the fossil record, we would expect different things. For example, if we employ hydrological sorting, we should expect fossil types to display correlation with sediment types instead of sediment depth - if a particular hydrological condition deposits shale and fossilizes fish, for example, we should expect that the same condition elsewhere does something similar. If we employ differential escape success as an explanation, we need to take a second look at dinosaur hatcheries, which are occasionally associated with dinosaur fossils (in Mongolia there is a fossil of a raptor brooding over its eggs - surely the raptor must have been far more able to escape than its eggs!). If we employ ecological zonation, we have to ask why species which occupy similar niches today apparently did not occupy those same niches pre-Flood but instead were buried in very different ways.

In short, I am not convinced that Flood geology explains much fossilization well.

 

[laptoppop]

laptoppop, do you have anything beyond ad hoc apologetics to support what you're saying? You've been called on your Flood scenario several times within the last few weeks, yet you just keep going on pretending there's no issue. This is EXTREMELY frustrating. You never did get back to me about those Jurassic termite mounds, for example. The problem isn't just going to go away if you keep ignoring it.

I'm still considering the termite mounds. What I'm trying to explain is that these "problems" for a flood model are nothing of the sort -- if one understands that a flood is a dynamic catastrophic event with an extremely wide range of conditions.

It is true that it is not possible to predict exactly what formations will be found where without knowing the original landscape and the exact conditions in the surrounding areas. So? What has to be done for the model is to show that the evidence is consistent with it -- or can be accomodated by it.

Evolution does not predict the particular formations either -- and to me the conventional explanations of how many formations are formed is beyond reasonability. Supposedly, one is to believe that various formations, stretching huge distances, and often quite thick (can one say grand canyon) formed from a series of floods -- because again, critters left on top of the ground do not fossilize, they rot. You need the special conditions for fossilization.

What is the simpler model? A record dominated by a single catastrophic event, or believing in millions of smaller events?

 

[shernren]

Is there anything an ad hoc Flood cannot deposit?

Ediacara, South Australia: Two main types of deposition contributed to this fossil bed: deep turbidite deposition in some places, and calm shallow water with occasional catastrophic sediment inputs. I'll grant that deep turbidite deposition sounds rather like a flood would; but by the same token, shallow deposition doesn't, and how on earth does a single flood deposit both over the course of less than a year over the same layer?

The basic issue here is that you persist in seeing the flood as a single[FONT=&quot] homogeneous event. The particulars of even a local flood vary widely - both in different locations and even in the same location over time. Especially given the catastrophic ground upheaval going on at the same time - this is no problem.[/FONT]

You're telling me that you have no problem with a flood which will, at one place at one given time, deposit calm shallow water deposits, and tens of kilometers away a few days later, deposit deep turbidite deposits?

Duoshantuo, Central China: Three layers of marine deposition in high-salinity, low-oxygen conditions. Why three layers? How does a catastrophic burial occur in high salinity, which more often means evaporative concentration of ocean salt? And the whole thing is found on top of glacial till - but according to creationists, the Earth experienced a single Ice Age after the Flood, which means that here some Ediacaran organisms supposedly survived the Flood, and the Ice Age, and then got deposited in - what method exactly? This is not flood-type deposition.

Which often means.... but not always. In a global flood there would be just about any mixture of concentrations, temperatures, flows, etc. that you care to look at.

How, specifically, does a global flood create a body of water with higher salinity than ocean water? "It could have happened somewhere somehow since the Earth is so big and funny" is hardly a sufficient answer.

I would need to look at this a bit more to understand the identification of it as a glacial till -- a flood produces erosion events as well, and there would be expected to be significant ground movement -- but again, I would need to look at this.

Do look at glacial geology, it is a point that seems to be overlooked by creationist geology - in fact, it was precisely the identification of glacial events that led Cuvier and Agassiz to abandon flood geology. Basically, glacial till is created when glacial ice scrapes rock off a glacier bed and re-deposits it some distance away, the deposits forming till as they are lithified. Solid ice scraping along rock invariably creates its own profile; how would you propose that a flood erode rock in the exact same way that ice does?

Sirius Passet, North Greenland: Deep-sea deposition of fossils in well-laminated mudstone. Only marginally attributable to a flood deposition scenario.

This sounds very similar to the rapidly laid down deposits from Mt. St. Helens.

In what way precisely?

House Range, Western Utah: Fine deep-sea sediments punctuated by occasional landslides. How does a flood deposit fine sediments, and then have time to punctuate them with landslides?

No problem. Its not one single event -- it is a catastrophic mixture of events.

How long does it take for about a hundred meters of shale to be deposited under optimum conditions? I don't like the Twilight Zone. I want to see firm numbers.

Most creationists put the boundary at around the cambrian -- which explains much of the "cambrian explosion" which has no decent evolutionary explanation.

Of course there are decent evolutionary explanations - more importantly, if you place the pre-Flood boundary at the Cambrian, how do you explain the relative barrenness of Precambrian layers? As we have seen, most lagerstattes are associated with still water deposition in anoxic conditions, which would certainly have been prevalent before the Flood.

Or a Silurian one?

Wenlock Series, UK: Layers of ash in fine-grained marine muds. Mud deposits are hard enough for a flood, but how can you punctuate that with volcanic ash?

No problem at all. It is to be expected and predicted. The Scriptures talk about the mountains raising up -- one would expect volcanic activity with such huge movements.

Volcanic ash is only created in volcano explosions above water level and dispersed widely in air, not water. Do you have any evidence that submarine volcanoes can produce ash deposits in nearby sediments?

Devonian:

Rhynie Chert, Scotland: Silica-rich water rose causing instant petrification. While this might just be plausible in a flood situation, why is it that no modern plants whatsoever were found? Did the grasses and weeds escape to higher ground?

Maybe because no plants were in the area? I've never heard a good explanation of why modern pollen and pieces of plants were found in strata identified as pre-cambrian either.

No plants were in the area; Scotland was a desert before the Flood? Interesting information.

Canowindra, southeast Australia: a huge deposit of early Devonian fish trapped when a lake dried out. It doesn't get any more "this was not deposited in a flood" than that.

First of all - the exact same types of mud cracking that we see in a lake drying out can be shown in the right chemical conditions underwater. Next -- why would this be hard? With all the ground and water movement going around, why is it hard to expect to find a large number of fish trapped in a particular location?

A flood is made of water. Fish swim. How does a flood confine a large number of fish, kill them, and then deposit them gently?

Carboniferous:

Bear Gulch Limestone, Montana: Detailed preservation, corresponding with anoxic conditions, interspersed with marine worm burrows and bottom-dwelling fish, indicating non-anoxic conditions. This can be explained by episodic occurences of anoxic conditions - fossils were laid down during anoxic periods, and other lifeforms during non-anoxic periods. However, in a flood conditions with massive death, the conditions would pretty much be anoxic all the way through. Again, no flood deposition scenario here.

No no no. You've got to get a single monolithic same for the entire time simplistic model out of your head. How do YOU explain these formations? A repeating series of floods? Fossils are not laid down under normal conditions -- they require burial, and not just normal burial. They require very particular conditions.

How I explain these formations is simple: periodic anoxic pulses. The oxygen balance in that lake would have been very delicate. In lean years, less life would have been able to thrive. But should too much nutrients enter the lake, there would have been rapid algal blooms followed by large-scale decomposition, which would have lowered the oxygen content of the lake bed, which would have caused any animal which died in the lake during that time to be well-fossilized.

What about the Flood model? You have a large initial spurt of water, lots of decay, anoxic conditions are created. Then more carcasses settle to the bottom and are well preserved. But then you have a layer with worm burrows and bottom-dwelling fish. Where did those worms come from, and why didn't they burrow through the anoxic layer? Where did the bottom-dwelling fish come from, and how do they survive in the anoxic conditions? How is the water ever re-oxygenated?

Hamilton Quarry, Kansas: Interbedded laminated mudstones and limestones: how does a flood deposit those?

Changing patterns of current, temperature, dissolved solids and deposition. Depending on various variables, a flood can erode an area, deposit thin layers simultaneously, deposit big layers, etc.

How long does it take for mudstone to be deposited and lithified? Again, I want some concrete numbers. I'm sick of the Twilight Zone.

 

[shernren]

Evolution does not predict the particular formations either -- and to me the conventional explanations of how many formations are formed is beyond reasonability. Supposedly, one is to believe that various formations, stretching huge distances, and often quite thick (can one say grand canyon) formed from a series of floods -- because again, critters left on top of the ground do not fossilize, they rot. You need the special conditions for fossilization.

Whoa! The entire point I was trying to make with my lagerstatten is that conventional geology normally does not attribute fossilization to floods!

Again: conventional geology normally does not attribute fossilization to floods, or to a series of floods!

In conventional geology, floods don't make good fossils; anoxic undisturbed sediments do. Nearly all those lagerstatten I mentioned are associated with tranquil shallow water deposition. Over the millions of years that a lake might exist, lots and lots of organisms drop to its bottom and are preserved sequentially. That's the deal here, not "repeated floods".

 

[random_guy]

I'm still considering the termite mounds. What I'm trying to explain is that these "problems" for a flood model are nothing of the sort -- if one understands that a flood is a dynamic catastrophic event with an extremely wide range of conditions.

It is true that it is not possible to predict exactly what formations will be found where without knowing the original landscape and the exact conditions in the surrounding areas. So? What has to be done for the model is to show that the evidence is consistent with it -- or can be accomodated by it.

Evolution does not predict the particular formations either -- and to me the conventional explanations of how many formations are formed is beyond reasonability. Supposedly, one is to believe that various formations, stretching huge distances, and often quite thick (can one say grand canyon) formed from a series of floods -- because again, critters left on top of the ground do not fossilize, they rot. You need the special conditions for fossilization.

What is the simpler model? A record dominated by a single catastrophic event, or believing in millions of smaller events?

I'm going with millions of smaller events since each one of those events are backed with evidence. So would the YECist model predict where to dig to find tiktaalik fossils like evolution predicted? Does the YECist model predict where to find the common ancestors of fish and reptiles, reptiles and mammals, dinosaurs and birds? Evolution predicts where to dig to find these animals. Flood geology suggests they could be anywhere because the Flood was turbulent. Guess what? They aren't found everywhere, and in fact, they are found in locations predicted.

In fact, if we were to find a modern mammal below the reptile/mammal transitional, it would falsify evolution. Nothing falsifies Flood geology since it's all apologenics. It's purely reactive, and only tries to explain what science finds, never predicts. That's why no one in academia uses Flood Geology anymore because it was falsified a hundred years ago.

 

[Mallon]

What is the simpler model? A record dominated by a single catastrophic event, or believing in millions of smaller events?

The Flood scenario is a simpler model.

But it is wrong.

You are conflating simplicity with the scientific notion of parsimony. Parsimony says that the explanation that makes the fewest assumptions is the most likely one. So what assumptions do our models make?

The scientific model says that the fossil record reflects processes that we can see at work today. It predicts the order of fossils and is validated by independent fields such as molecular biology, biogeography, and biostratigraphy.

The creationist model says that the fossil record reflects a miraculous event that cannot be explained via reference to current geological processes. Nor can it predict the order of fossils. Instead, it is restricted to retroactively rationalizing fossil sequences, and any inexplicable deposits that do not fit the Flood model are chalked up to magic.

pop, if your differential sorting scenario can be invoked to explain the fossil record, then why do none of the sorting scenarios explain the deposition of, say, sea turtles?

I respect the fact that you think Noah's flood was global based on your subjective interpretation of Scripture. What I do not respect is that you continuously pretend that such a view is supported by science, after having been thoroughly corrected on a point-by-point basis. It is dishonest.

 

[random_guy]

Technically, the Flood model isn't very simple at all. You have to explain all the formations seen in the geological column and explain how all the fossils got sorted by a global event. These leads to many contradictory results (dino's on bottom since they can't swim, ancient fishes below dino's due to density, same sized modern fish above due to God). Every single feature that contradicts flood geology must have a different ad hoc explanation. In fact, in order to have a coherent flood theory, I bet the flow chart of why this is so must be absolutely horrible.

 

[Mallon]

Perhaps "simplistic" would be a better word.

 

[laptoppop]

Because of their motility, the disposition of sea turtles is no problem. The disposition of swimming dinos is more problematic - but must be addressed one at a time -- i.e. how good of a swimmer, what kind of flippers, what kind of body mass, what currents in the area where they are found, etc. etc.

Yes, that's a problem with the flood model -- its (to use an imprecise word) messy. The flood model is a hugely varying event over an entire globe. However, it has two huge advantages. First, it explains the size, depth, and variety of the strata. Second, it lines up with a peshat reading of the explicit revelation of an all-knowing eternal God.

 

[Mallon]

Because of their motility, the disposition of sea turtles is no problem.

Yes, it is.
Morris' hydrodynamic sorting apologetic states that sea turtles should be found low in the fossil record because they are hydrodynamically shaped. Instead, they are found relatively high up, in the Mesozoic.
Morris' ecological sorting apologetic states that, again, sea turtles should be found low in the fossil record because they occupy marine habitats. And again, they are found relatively high in the fossil record.
Morris' differential escape apologetic states that mobile land animals, like mammals, could survive the flood waters longer by running uphill, thus explaining their preservation high in the fossil record. Problem is, sea turtles are by no means fast moving land animals (nor are sloths)... and yet again, they're preserved high in the fossil record!
The differential preservation rationalization does not work!!!

The disposition of swimming dinos is more problematic - but must be addressed one at a time -- i.e. how good of a swimmer, what kind of flippers, what kind of body mass, what currents in the area where they are found, etc. etc.

Whether you are talking about mosasaurs, plesiosaurs, or ichtyosaurs (or Ichthyornis, thalattosaurs, or teleosaurids), all of these creatures were better suited for swimming than sea turtles based on their better developed limb morphology.

First, it explains the size, depth, and variety of the strata.

Don't be ambiguous. Which strata?

 

[shernren]

Morris' differential escape apologetic states that mobile land animals, like mammals, could survive the flood waters longer by running uphill, thus explaining their preservation high in the fossil record. Problem is, sea turtles are by no means fast moving land animals (nor are sloths)... and yet again, they're preserved high in the fossil record!
The differential preservation rationalization does not work!!!

Furthermore, if you use differential escape success to explain their position, they are not only too high in the fossil record, they are also too low. Sea turtles are found as early on as the Early Cretaceous; if you attribute that to differential success, that means that practically any fossil mammal you can name was more able to escape than a sea turtle. If you say that turtles aren't on the bottom because they could swim, then shouldn't they be on top, outswimming every terrestrial animal, which would have long since drowned and died?