Is Howard F getting tired? Because up to now, he has failed. Update: no he wasn't. Getting tired, that is.

Three Meanings of Chronological Labels

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

Howard F

+Hans-Georg Lundahl You said: "But cite me any large bone bed where you have two bone beds, one Permian under one Triassic one. And "Karoo" will not do, since an area and not just a location."

You keep changing your requirements. First you just wanted examples where Permian fossils were below dinos. Which I provided from Kansas (the dinos are both stratigraphically and topographically above the Pelycosaurs). This was not good enough. Then you said they had to be from the same area. I provided an example from the Karoo area. This was not good enough, you wanted a specific location. I provided two specific locations. This has everything you wanted. And now you say this is not good enough. Bone beds of course are rare. But vertebrate fossils are not. The specific locations in the Karoo basin should work. You will not find these in the internet sources, but there are many papers detailing the species collected in the Permain and Triassic, with no overlap of species.

You said: " For instance of the "several" localities in Karoo area, you named two, Burgersdorp and 30 km from Janesenville, but forgot to mention what exact clearly Permian* fossil was found beneath waht exact clearly Triassic* one. I looked it up and found nothing like that."

I provided references that you can read. These fossil locations are prolific. And I did provide genus names in earlier posts.

I said "And certainly not one holotype per species except for exceptionally rare species."

Of course I meant, it is exceptionally rare that a species would be represented by a holotype and one or two additional specimens. Many dinos are represented by dozens to hundreds of specimens.

Thus looking only at holotype localities will only reveal a fraction of the actual data on vert fossils.

Hans Georg Lundahl

"You keep changing your requirements."

Not at all.

"First you just wanted examples where Permian fossils were below dinos. Which I provided from Kansas (the dinos are both stratigraphically and topographically above the Pelycosaurs)."

I was from the first using the common sense and not the geological stratigraphical definitions of over/under.

Kansas very obviously does not meet that. We are talking different counties.

"This was not good enough. Then you said they had to be from the same area. I provided an example from the Karoo area."

Did I really say area rather than location?

If so, my bad.

An area with different locations obviously does not meet the commonsense meaning of "over" and "under".

"I provided two specific locations."

Neither of which to the best of my sources contained a Permian land vertebrate straight under (recall the 45° angle requirement?) a Triassic one.

Still not meeting the criteria I originally gave with the meaning I also stated I meant them in.

"This has everything you wanted."

Except Burgersdorp contained on Palaeocritti only land vertebrates from one of the eras.

You provided nothing like a named fossil specimen from the other one, neither from Palaeocritti, nor from your paper sources or paid internet sources to which I have no access.

"The specific locations in the Karoo basin should work."

So far haven't.

"You will not find these in the internet sources, but there are many papers detailing the species collected in the Permain and Triassic, with no overlap of species."

How many of them are NOT land vertebrates?

Plus a real prejudice against "internet sources" as if people on palaeocritti site weren't good palaeontologists with good access to palaeontological literature.

"I provided references that you can read."

No, I can't unless you print or copy and send me. I already told you.

"And I did provide genus names in earlier posts."

Perhaps, but if so not in same location. Not same hole in the ground or only fortyfive degrees angle off (below surface, disregarding the slant of the hill slope).

"Of course I meant, it is exceptionally rare that a species would be represented by a holotype and one or two additional specimens"

I think you are wrong.

At least when we talk of decently catalogued specimens. Palaeocritti site does a good job specifying how many remains.

"Many dinos are represented by dozens to hundreds of specimens."

Dozens, yes, occurs. T Rex has thirty skeletons according to palaeocritti site.

Probably meaning correctly described ones.

"Thus looking only at holotype localities will only reveal a fraction of the actual data on vert fossils."

Not in the case of many Permian species. One or two specimens are NOT uncommon.

I think, to sum up, your geological outlook misleads you in palaeontology.

Howard F

+Hans-Georg Lundahl No. The basic rules of stratigraphy and biostratigraphy have been confirmed numerous times, and form the core concepts used in petroleum exploration. This supports a world-wide multi-billion dollar industry. You, on the other hand, keep raising the bar. Every time I presented the evidence you requested, you changed the requirements. Everything you asked for as evidence to support a long earth history exists. If you choose to believe the earth is 6.000 yrs old, that is your choice, and I support freedom of religion. But the physical evidence contradicts this view. 

Hans Georg Lundahl

"The basic rules of stratigraphy and biostratigraphy have been confirmed numerous times, and form the core concepts used in petroleum exploration."

But petroleum exploration is not the major scientific contribution to palaeontology, especially as far as land vertebrates are concerned.

You admitted yourself that drill cores differ from holes (dug by spade by a palaeontologist) by the fact of being smaller in diameter, and that is damning when it comes to a driller's pretentions to teach land vertebrate palaeontology.

"and form the core concepts used in petroleum exploration. This supports a world-wide multi-billion dollar industry."

That is irrelevant.

A business may be successful, though it is based on a partially very flawed ideology.

"You, on the other hand, keep raising the bar. Every time I presented the evidence you requested, you changed the requirements."

You are lying.

My requirements have always been:

• land vertebrates identifiable as from different eras, periods, epochs
• separated by strictly vertical digging.

"Everything you asked for as evidence to support a long earth history exists."

Except the specific requirement you forgot more than once while touting "rules of stratigraphy" instead, which I was not ever accepting.

In other words, everything I asked for exists - except the specific thing I asked for.

"If you choose to believe the earth is 6.000 yrs old, that is your choice, and I support freedom of religion. But the physical evidence contradicts this view. "

You have so far not shown any one pair of items related the way I asked for weeks ago.

In Kansas you had a pelycosaur and a dinosaur - but in different counties.

In the overcrops of Burgersdorp and of 30 km from Janesensville you have the verticality, but so far not two species on either place.

Giving me one example which fulfils one half of my requirements and another one which fulfils the other half does not amount to giving me even one example that simply fulfils my requirements.

Appeal to Other Readers

It seem obvious to me by now that Howard F is going to try again and again to substitute a stratigraphical for a local above and below, since he feels confident shellfish strata contain essential information for land vertebrates.

It should be obvious both to him and to others that I disagree. Anyone have any info on:

• land vertebrates identifiable as from different eras, periods, epochs
• separated by strictly vertical digging?

Update

after checking the notifications from youtube.

Howard F

+Hans-Georg Lundahl "But petroleum exploration is not the major scientific contribution to palaeontology,"

False. The field of biostratigraphy was pioneered by petroleum geologists. It was petroleum geologists who started the Journal of Paleontology. Though, not for vertabrates. However, biostrat works for all the small invertebrates and plant pollen and spores. Don't you think it would be an amazing coincidence if the only group it did not work for is land vertebrates?

"A business may be successful, though it is based on a partially very flawed ideology."

False again. The whole point is not ideology, but making predictions. Stratigraphy and the concept of an ancient earth is at the core of concepts used to make predictions that are then used to drill expensive oil wells. I have yet to see a method using the Flood model to make any practical predictions of where to find oil.

More later, going out of town for a few days.

Hans Georg Lundahl

"Though, not for vertabrates."

Thanks, that is an admission.

"However, biostrat works for all the small invertebrates and plant pollen and spores. Don't you think it would be an amazing coincidence if the only group it did not work for is land vertebrates?"

As said, if small invertebrates invariably come in certain layers that are invariably attached to those of land vertebrates when observable, God could have given the demons that much leeway of artistic liberty for deception, and no more, during Flood.

I do not only think the Bible is right there was a Flood but also the Catholic Church is right waters need exorcism. During the Flood nearly all of the Earth was haunted by demons enjoying the destruction they had been building up for by deceiving men to provoke the Flood. The one exception was the Ark. Wonderfully protected by God, wonderfully protected by his angels.

So, demons could very well back then have plotted another deception, and the same persons who did marvellous artwork with deceptive intent would later marvel at how easily Lyell and the rest fell for it.

"The whole point is not ideology, but making predictions. Stratigraphy and the concept of an ancient earth is at the core of concepts used to make predictions that are then used to drill expensive oil wells."

Stratigraphy as you use it where you use it may very well be essential - the long earth concept is a superfluous extra about how those strata came to be there. So, "though it is based on a partially very flawed ideology" being what I said, I submit that the old earth part is the flawed part of your stratigraphy.

You really do not NEED to come back again.

You have time after time lowered the rib and you sound like an annoying sales man.

Do enjoy the stay out of town! Prolong it if you want to. Have a life.

But, when it comes to making me lower the rib about vertically above and below on the same spot, I prefer you do not come back except with an admission that nothing meets my criteria (which is an argument for me) or you have a new proposal supposedly meeting my criteria, which I'd be surprised if they really did, but I might enjoy ripping it to pieces.