Monday, October 9, 2017

Flood Geology, But Not By Hydrological Sorting, Mostly

Hydrologic Sorting: The Flood & The Fossils - Creation Today Claims
Paulogia, added 6 oct. 2017

I, 1:10 doctors about medical conditions, mechanics about your car ?? why not astrologers about your horoscope ?

They are A L S O considered as experts, aren't they, by those not trying to debunk astrology, which is their expertise ...?

II, 3:19 You know, there is a French scientist who made quite another experiment about hydrological sorting ... in streams, studied in his experiment in flumes.

Yeah, Guy Berthault, I looked him up. I knew you would not find him from my general description, but I knew I would recognise his name when it turned up : or at least I knew that latter thing, I could have underestimated you. But certainly not all of your viewers.

3:59 The only fossils of living organisms for which I would involve hydrological sorting is invertebrates, especially those who don't move very much by themselves, like shellfish or mussles.

For aquatic fossils making diverse layers, check out habitat in water. A plesiosaur is above a trilobite, because a trilobite lived near the bottom.

For land vertebrates, there is no sorting.

You do simply not find pelycosaurs straight below dinosaurs or dinosaurs straight below Uinthatheria. Not as "straight below" is used in normal discourse, even if there are geologist who will argue their usage of the word matches normal usage. It does not.

III, 6:29 You are aware that a layer you label "Cretaceous" is not automatically higher up than a layer you label "Permian"?

What exact place do you find bigger clams higher up?

7:00 And with birds, you can be sure that a layer with a fossil bird is not labelled Jurassic because it is lower than a Cretaceous layer with a different fossil bird. You do not get these layers overlapping exactly like that. Even Jurassic coast has more like Triassic further out coast, Jurassic main walk of coastline, Cretaceous more inland.

And the only part of Earth with fossil finds on both sides of K/T boundary I know of - so far? - is Yacoraite.

Late Cretaceous slugs below the K/T boundary and above them, early Palaeocene slugs above the K/T boundary. But same slugs.

While Cretaceous in general is identified with "below K/T" and Palaeocene in general with "above K/T", I challenge you to find one single place on earth where you find Archaeopteryx, Confuciusornis and such like below an iridium layer and modern birds above it. Also, ducks have been found in Cretaceous layers, identified as such, to my knowledge, not from having an iridium layer above, but from having index fossils of cretaceous, like certain dinosaurs.

7:42 "they would also be near the top"

They are. That is why we find them.

7:45 "consistently same strata"?

Or perhaps rather consistently same biotopes.

I consider all fossils in Karoo as pre-Flood, from Flood event (at least as long as no carbon dating of 20 000 BP shows any to be post-Flood).

But you find Permian, Triassic, some Jurassic, layers, don't you? Well, I consider just before and up to the Flood a "Permian biotope" was living and then buried next to a "Triassic biotope" which was next to a "Jurassic biotope". I actually checked that all fossils from Karoo are found near top.

7:59 I am a Creationist and would not dream of explaining Triassic and Permian "different layers" at Karoo by hydrologic sorting.

As to Cretaceous and Palaeogene at Yacoraite, I don't consider hydrologic sorting has the least to do with it either. First, some time during Flood, slugs bet buried in mud. Then comes an iridium layer. Then more slugs come in with water and also get buried in mud. No hydrologic sorting whatsoever.

IV, 8:07 More primitive species found in "lower" and more adapted species found in "higher layers", if of same clade?

Some things really cry out to me from these words.

  • A) according to evolutionary theory, all species at all times are adapted to the environment, except when giving way to mutants;
  • B) it is probable that "layers" have been labelled "higher" and "lower" by using "more primitive" and "more adapted" species of same clade as index fossils for a "stratification".

8:54 His words need to be refined a bit.

A palaeontological version of geological column can be found in textbooks and partially in aquatic areas.

But in lithology, you find much more of the geological column.

Say you find trilobites in a certain layer, somewhere, and sharks above them. You label the trilobite layer something from Palaeozoic, and you label shark layer Jurassic. Fine so far. But you have a layer between them, with no fossils, and a layer below trilobites, with no fossils, and a layer above sharks, with no fossils, until you reach land animals who may have been post-Flood mammals. What as a geologist you call these no-fossil layers depends on things like being found below trilobites or above sharks and if the mammal looks "Younger Dryas" or later. Between a shark (from Flood) and a Mammoth (from Younger Dryas) you can insert for lithology any labels you want, in a first approximation between Jurassic (what you labelled Jurassic due to shark) and Younger Dryas (which you labelled so because of Mammoth). In a second approximation, you finetune that with some potassium argon or some comparisons with similar stone in neighbouring places, especially if the similar stone is fossil bearing in such a neighbouring place and can be pinned down to a label because of "biostratigraphy".

But suppose you have a sandstone layer between the shark and the mammoth, and next to the place you get a sandstone area which involves a "pre-Jurassic" creature? Like a Devonian Phacops rana (a trilobite)? Well, if so, the sandstone layer with the Phacops rana must be another one than the one between the shark and the Mammoth : that is why geologists end up with so many layers.

And if the trilobite layer in your own place is not sandstone, buy above sandstone, that ... you know what I mean, I suppose? By now?

V, 9:35 Your peroration looks fine until you look at where fossils are found.

Explaining layers by hydrological sorting is a hangover from early days of Creationism, it is like Henry Morris stuff. So is explaining layers by what animals ran faster to escape rising Flood waters.

I stand, for land vertebrates, except clearly post Flood ones (carbon dates later than 30 000 BC or even better 35 000 BC) on biotopes before the Flood. In other words, if I find a seal in Vienna district Nussdorf, I attribute that to Vienna involving a coastal biotope previous to Flood (it is called "Miocene" or "Eocene" or something in your textbook), and if I find a pterosaur in Tyrol, I consider Tyrol was a place where pteorsaurs could fly or nest - coastal or non-coastal, depending on how you assess the petorsaur lifestyle. If there was a whale in Linz (where Hitler lived as a young man), I suppose Linz was in the pre-Flood sea.

And in today's geography, the Pterosaur of Tyrol, labelled Cretaceous or Jurassic, is clearly higher up than the seal in Vienna, labelled Tertiary.

9:53 Eric also cannot even be excused by the fact of totally ignoring my work.

It is from c. 4 years ago, and I have corresponded with Kent.

I can give him a half excuse though : my correspondence with Kent was more about C14 and not dating related matters.

And my work on this area was mostly done already when Kent Hovind came out of prison.

Here is btw a new piece of this work, from today:

Creation vs. Evolution : An Evolutionist Blooper Revisited

Creation vs. Evolution : A Pre-Flood Sea? Or More Than One?

My third article today reflects the more recent C14 work:

Creation vs. Evolution : Trying to Get a Carbon Related Question Answered

No comments: