In detail:1) How do Fossils Superpose?, 2) Searching for the Cretaceous Fauna (with appendix on Karoo, Beaufort), 3) What I think I have refuted, 4) Glenn Morton caught abusing words other people were taught as very small children
In debate or otherwise on Assorted Retorts: 1) ... on How Fossils Matter , 2) ... on Steno and Lifespan and Fossil Finds, 3) Geological Column NOT Palaeontolical [Censored by CMI-Creation-Station? Or just by the Library I am in?], 4) Same Debate Uncensored, One Step Further, 5) Continuing debate with Howard F on Geology / Palaeontology, 6) Howard F tries twice again ... , 7) Is Howard F getting tired? Because up to now, he has failed., 8) Resuming Debate with Howard F
On Correspondence blog: Contacting Karoo about superposition of layers and fossils
- Video with comments:
- The key to understanding the age of the earth debate (Creation Magazine LIVE! 4-09)
- Howard F (to video, not me)
- You make a mistake that you have made many times. Average depositional rates do not apply to thin intervals. In is not valid to divide down as you did: this was shown to be invalid by Sadler in the 1980's. Geologists today (and for the past 50 years at least) do not claim every cm is deposited slowly. Just that average depositional rates are slow. No geologists today thinks a tree was buried over millions of years, so please stop claiming this is a current concept. Modern concepts are that the sedimentary record is a mix of rapidly-deposited layers, and slowly-deposited layers. For example, the vast majority of fossils are poorly-preserved through slow burial. You also grossly oversimplify the fossil record. Let's just look at reef-forming organisms. In the Cambrian only archaeocyathids (extinct). The rest of the Paleozoic has reefs built by tabulate corals, stromatoporoids, and even algae. None of the Paleozoic reefs contain the modern scleractinian corals. In the Mesozoic, rudists (extinct) were common reef builders, and today reefs are built without any of those organisms. How can a single world-wide flood explain even one fossil reef (and there are thousands) let alone the succession of fossil reef-forming species. Here is another example: The succession of land animals. In the late Paleozoic are Pelycosaurs, but no dinosaurs and no mammals. In the Mesozoic are dinosaurs, but never any pelycosaurs, and never mixed with ungulate mammals. In younger layers are ungulate mammals. This order is never violated, and none of these groups are ever mixed. No where in the world are elephants mixed with dinosaurs. And even within the Mesozoic, there is a succession of dinosaurs that is about the same all over the world. How can you explain this? Why are there never any horse, antelope, elephant, goat, moose, rhinoceros, deer, cow, sheep, lama, etc. buried with dinosaurs or pelycosaurs? Not even a foot print?
- Howard F again
(might I be presumed to have made an answer between ?)
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl I don't see any reference to pelycosaurs stratigraphically above dinosaurs or ungulates mixed with or below dinosaurs in these sites. Seriously, this is a major problem for YEC's.
- Howard F again (dito ?)
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl That web site does not have all the information, but of course there are many hundreds of places all over the world where rocks with Pelycosaurs are below rocks with dinosaurs. Here is a reference to a geological map of North America.
Geological Map of North America
Pelycosaurs are found only in Paleozoic rocks, and dino's in Mesozoic rocks. There is a line that separates them and anywhere there is an outcrop along that line would be an example you are looking for. The same goes for the KT (Cretaceous, abbreviated as K, Tertiary) boundary which separates dino's from ungulates. Here is a nice example of that boundary. In this one, the KT boundary is second from last image:
A Landing a Day : Glendive, Montana
Posted by graywacke on January 22, 2012
I worked in Kansas for a long time where Pelycosaurs are found in the east in the Pennsylvanian, and Dinos are in the west in the Cretaceous. Although there are many miles in between, the layers with the Pelycosaurs dip to the west and are a few thousand feet below the Cretaceous rocks with Dinos. So of course there is no one outcrop that shows them all, but the stratigraphic order is without doubt. Here is a map and cross section to illustrate this.
KGS : The Permian System in Kansas
The stratigraphic order is based on such observations, not on assumptions. In the Kansas example, there are many tens of thousands of petroleum wells that confirm the geologic cross section. And there are, without exaggeration, hundreds of examples of other outcrops with Pelycosaurs below Dinos, and ungulates above dinos. Of course anywhere you find dino fossils in the ground and a dead deer or horse on the surface is another example. You may think this is a trivial example, but try to find the reverse: a fossil horse in the rock and dead dino on the surface. Can you find a single example of pelycosarus - dinosaurs - ungulates out of order? If there were any such example it would be big news. I am using pelycosarus - dinosaurs - ungulates as an example only. There are many other examples of fossils that are only found in order, and never in the reverse. YECs seem to sidestep this data.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- +Howard F I think I got censored here. I had however answered your main point. To two subsidiary ones, where you try to defend it:
"And there are, without exaggeration, hundreds of examples of other outcrops with Pelycosaurs below Dinos, and ungulates above dinos."
Where so? Document one case from:
Palaeocritti (original site, not my back up blog!)
OR from any other palaeological publication of your chosing. I have investigated it for months. So, the example is somehow NOT on palaeocritti. Remarcable, but not impossible.
Where is it documented? "There are hundreds of" is not a documentation.
"I worked in Kansas for a long time where Pelycosaurs are found in the east in the Pennsylvanian, and Dinos are in the west in the Cretaceous. Although there are many miles in between, the layers with the Pelycosaurs dip to the west and are a few thousand feet below the Cretaceous rocks with Dinos."
That can be arranged by my scenario. Both layers are from flood, they are not strictly coextensive and they covered different biotopes. If one layer had covered two biotopes of different "age" types, you would simply have analysed it as not same layer but two different ones of same type. How many layers labelled "shale" are there in North Dakota? Shale is one type, if all of it were from Flood it could be one or two layers. BUT is then reanalysed as many different ones because containing different faunas. Or because above or below such as contain faunas assigned to "specific periods".
+Howard F I seem to have been censored again, thankfully I saved the comment this time. Your reference to blog and K/T boundary includes:
"Anyway, in this photo by geology professor John Isbell (University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee), the KT boundary is marked by the black coal unit that’s visible across the middle of the outcrop"
Picture, black coal line visible.
"Very cool. Dinosaur fossils below; no dinosaur fossils above."
I believe him. What he does NOT say is that there WERE any ungulate fossils above it.
+Howard F As to third link, here are a few words that should make you pause:
"It was recognized in the mid-1800s that rocks of Permian age occurred in Kansas, based on the fossils they contained; however, they were considered as part of the Carboniferous (Mudge, 1866, p. 5) and consisted mostly of massive magnesian limestones and calcareous and arenaceous shales (Mudge, 1866, p. 10). Permian rocks, as then understood, were included in the Carboniferous of the first geologic map of Kansas (Mudge, 1875) and the 1878 colored version (Mudge, 1878). However, this complete sequence of the Kansas Permian was not treated in publications until the mid-1890s (Haworth, 1895a; Prosser, 1895, 1897). As pointed out by Merriam (1963), the red-bed sequence in Kansas, now considered to be Leonardian and Guadalupian, received considerable attention during this time and into the next century. It was important, and thus necessary, to determine whether the red-bed sequences in Kansas were Permian or part of the Mesozoic. Thus, much discussion focused on the age of these beds and they were, at different times, considered Cretaceous, Jurassic, and Triassic, as well as Permian. Such divergent views were based on lithologic similarities and to some extent on the age significance of fossil plants and vertebrates. Hay (1893), one of those early workers on the red beds of Kansas, suggested that they belong to the Permian, based on lithological similarities to the red beds in Texas from which Cope (1888, 1894) had described Permian vertebrates (Prosser, 1897, p. 80). Cragin (1896), in a detailed description of the Kansas red beds, also considered them to be Permian. "
In other words, Permian red beds in Kansas are Permian, not because of Permian fauna in Kansas, but because of Permian fauna in Texas where similar red beds occurred. So, what proof is there against scenario: red beds were both deposited in Flood, from same or similar source of material, and in Texas but not Kansas covered a Permian type biotope?