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
- Under other video
- Fossil mix ups – When fossils are found where they shouldn’t be (Creation Magazine LIVE! 4-16)
CMIcreationstation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dIlLwjS7bw
- Howard F
- Your discussion of the Roraima pollen neglects to mention that there is no pollen anywhere in the Paleozoic even though there are lot of plant fossils and lots of spores. Today pollen is just about everywhere because it is just about indestructible. Even in sediments deposited in km's of water, there is abundant pollen. How were miles thick accumulates of sediment in the swirling mass of the flood deposited with lots of plant fossils but no pollen? This is a case of one problematic occurrence, which may well be due to contamination, against many studies that show a different result. You are cherry-picking the data you like and ignoring vast swaths of data you don't like. You make a big deal about grass and dinosaurs, but you neglect to mention that there is no earlier grass fossils anywhere in the world. There are also no modern mammals found with dinosaurs. No deer, antelope, elk, horses, pigs, goats, beavers, rabbits, whales, dolphins, giraffes, elephants, rhinoceroses, etc. A few very questionable human footprints and that is it. In fact if you look at the history or major groups of land animals, such as pelycosaurs, dinosaurs, ungulates, they always occur in the same order, with no mixing and no fossils out of order anywhere in the world. Same is true of fossil corals, such as tabulates and scleractinian, always tabulates below scleractinians. And the order of species, say within coccolithis, is the same world wide.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- [Comment not accessible in this library - perhaps not on the site at all? Here I am not reconstructing what I answered. Except for the biotopes for "palaeozoic" fossil layers perhaps not being such as carry pollen.]
- Reference to Roraima pollen, probably this article:
- CMI : The evolutionary paradox of the Roraima pollen of South America is still not solved
by Emil Silvestru
http://creation.com/roraima-pollen
- Salient quote from it:
- With all the above in mind, since according to observational science contamination is the least probable of all possibilities (a Holmesian ‘impossible’), there seem to be only two solutions:
- 1. The whole evolutionary biostratigraphy which places the first angiosperm pollen in the Early Cretaceous is wrong, angiosperms being in fact present throughout the entire geologic column (does that sound like something you have already read about?). This would of course be the equivalent of Haldane’s rabbit and mortally wound the ‘evolutionary elephant’.
- 2. The CF is Tertiary in age and not Paleoproterozoic, completely rejecting radiometric dating. If so, the very concept of radiometric dating and particularly its reliability needs to be questioned.
Either possibility is simply unacceptable to the evolutionary establishment, hence the escape into the improbable: contamination. A concept that has already served to settle similar problems before: when radiometric dating is clearly at odds with the established biostratigraphy, contamination (‘radioisotope contamination’) is invoked. Or, when accepting contamination would challenge the very concept of radiometric dating, ‘out of place fossils’ (‘fossil contamination’) are invoked. [End quote.]
- Own comment:
- It seems Emil Silvestru indeed did not mention "as a fact" that no pollen have been found in palaeozoic. In Roraima, it seems that radioactive dating stamp the layers as palaeoproterozoic, which is supposed to be even older. Objection disregards fact that Emil Silvestru offered us a dilemma.
- The following
- seems to have been moved under our original discussion:
- Howard F
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl Your criteria of only accepting the stratigraphic order of vertebrates where they have been dug in a hole will never be met. By that criterion, you would reject fossils at the base of the Grand Canyon being older than fossil at the top because who in their right mind would ever go through the expense of digging a hole next to a canyon? You might count the canyon as a hole, but then why not the Karoo outcrops? They are at about the same angle. But even in the Karoo outcrops, why would anyone dig down even 20 ft, if they could walk down hill 20 ft and find the same strata?
Regarding using stratigraphy for oil exploration, you said:
"...the long earth concept is a superfluous extra about how those strata came to be there."
No. We use concepts such as reconstructing ancient landscapes to predict petroleum deposits. Identical landscapes today that take thousands of years to develop. There are no known physical processes that can make a large point bar in a few hours, but we see Mississippi River-scale point bars in the subsurface all over the world. These each take hundreds of years to form. And other features such as buried corral reefs that take thousands of years to form. Thus, the ancient earth is an essential component of modern stratigraphy.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- "Your criteria of only accepting the stratigraphic order of vertebrates where they have been dug in a hole will never be met."
That is an admission.
Even a pretty radical one.
You did not say "has never been met", but you said "will never be met", as if it was an understanding - not necessarily a conspiracy, but an understanding - between palaeontologists not to test stratigraphy too far, e g by digging down from Katberg formation into underlying Balfour formation in Karoo.
Which was also the info I got from "Karoo" (if the experts I contacted were not inside it while answering, they are at least often inside it while digging).
"By that criterion, you would reject fossils at the base of the Grand Canyon being older than fossil at the top because who in their right mind would ever go through the expense of digging a hole next to a canyon?"
If you said yourself that slope is less steep than 45° most places, who am I to argue with that?
At such an angle, the fossils can have been buried in same layer of mud at same moment.
As to any sorting you find in GC, it is usually marine invertebrates, and like mud sorts itself spontaneously under high water speeds, so would probably marine invertebrates.
Who in their right mind would, etc?
Well, since my main issue is with land vertebrates rather than marine invertebrates, it is not a question of digging down a hole beside the GC (indeed, it could there be done with less expense, like digging holes in the side from botton, if you know such and such a higher level is seen from so many yards further north or south, you dig that horizontal hole so many yards inwards), my proposal would rather be to take a few select places in Karoo, where Katberg formation is on top, and dig down to levels presumed for Balfour formation being under it.
Would one find :
- no fossils at all?
- Balfour typical fossils (confirming stratigraphy)?
- Katberg typical fossils (which like the first would tend to confirm my biotope theory?
- or OTHER fossils (like buried nephelim)?
Probably, for expenses, one would have to rely on volunteers digging and on some crowdfunding.
But it could be done.
"You might count the canyon as a hole, but then why not the Karoo outcrops?"
Is uncovered Balfour really that much lower in terrain than Katberg where it "lies on top of of Balfour"? I'll have to trust you on that one.
And is uncovered Katberg that much lower than Burgersdorp formation "where it lies on top of Katberg and Balfour"? I am trusting you on that one too.
However, no, if angle is 45° or flatter, I am not counting the outcrops as holes. I don't know for certain there was ever any Katberg above the Balfour, where Balfour lies naked. I don't know for certain there was every any Burgersdorp above Katberg, where Katberg lies naked. At least not for longer than some hours, days or months during Flood.
In other words, I don't know for sure there were ever two levels of buried land vertebrates on top of each other.
I did look into Yacoraite, but there we are mostly dealing with snails and such.
I did look at a place in NW or NE Mexico that I lost track of, but there we had one layer of Ceratopsians (considered Cretaceous), and above it one of shrimps and prawns, basically. Usually classified as Palaeocene or Miocene or sth. After what you are saying, I can't be sure these were even two layers - but if they were, they are no trouble for Flood Geology.
Now, I will trust you on one more. Digging down from Katberg to Balfour in Karoo would be digging a hole of 20 feet. VERY much less than what Grand Canyon would challenge us with. Even far less than mining has done to get iron ore. I have been one kilometer (somewhat less than one mile) below Earth surface in Malmberget close to Gellivare, in North Sweden. If industrials can dig down one mile into Earth, amateurs can dig down 20 feet at least. It's about seven yards.
One could even combine the digging with a post-digging hotel project, like digging down into earth for habitation. And the hotel guests or perhaps rent paying residents or so would be paying back expenses for the digging. In that case one had better make sure to get a good architect so they are attractive even if nothing spectacular is proven (or if one wants to actually hide the spectacular proven discovery).
"But even in the Karoo outcrops, why would anyone dig down even 20 ft, if they could walk down hill 20 ft and find the same strata?"
To check if the strata really contain the fauna predicted by oldearthism.
You see, on oldearthist assumptions, it is a matter of chance that such and such fossils from such and such times are at all preserved. Chance would SOMEWHERE lead to that happening on two different levels.
I would rather be the Flood Geologist explaining how certain marine invertebrates got deeper down in Grand Canyon, than the one explaining how a Moschops from the Permian is straight below a creature from the Triassic. Especially if the Triassic creature is also heavy and equally clumsy.
I am not saying it couldn't be countered, I am saying so far it isn't there to be countered (on my criteria).
"Identical landscapes today that take thousands of years to develop. There are no known physical processes that can make a large point bar in a few hours, but we see Mississippi River-scale point bars in the subsurface all over the world. These each take hundreds of years to form."
Point bars are features in rivers, not in strata laid over each other.
They are known to be the product of rivers and can thus be accounted for.
However, the strata are NOT known to be what you claim they are a product of and that does not involve point bars very much.
Therefore the objection amounts to changing the subject.
If point bars can form quicker, I leave that to Tas Walker, but deposits form with different speeds depending on water mass and water speeds and mud thickness involved. Flood geology deal with processes which we are thankful for not being seen today.
So does on some levels uniformitarian geology. Like that period there when such a continent was supposed to be ALL volcanoes, and things like that.
However, this is beside the query I raised.
Here is my correspondence with Karoo, btw:
Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Contacting Karoo about superposition of layers and fossils
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2015/06/contacting-karoo-about-superposition-of.html
- Howard F
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl You said:
You did not say "has never been met", but you said "will never be met", as if it was an understanding - not necessarily a conspiracy, but an understanding - between palaeontologists not to test stratigraphy too far, e g by digging down from Katberg formation into underlying Balfour formation in Karoo.
There is no conspiracy, only practicality.* Who would dig down even 20 ft through rock when you could walk down the hill and make the same observations? Geologists commonly drill cores to test stratigraphy, but you don't except this. You reject small diameter holes, but don't claim we don't test the theories. You need demons to explain the world-wide order of small fossils.
"At such an angle, the fossils can have been buried in same layer of mud at same moment."
Are you making this up, or do you have some evidence to back up this claim?
You said: In other words, I don't know for sure there were ever two levels of buried land vertebrates on top of each other.
But there is evidence of this from all over the world. Seismic and wells confirm the strata seen in outcrops extend hundreds of miles in the subsurface.
You compared digging down 20 ft compared to minds that are hundreds or thousands of feet. True, but excavating is very expensive compared to surface collecting, and most science budgets, especially paleontology, are very modest.
"However, the strata are NOT known to be what you claim they are a product of and that does not involve point bars very muchTherefore the objection amounts to changing the subject."
No. Many vertebrates, such as in the Morrison Fm. are in point bars. They are part of terrestrial deposits. Most land vertebrate deposits are from the deposits of rivers and the adjacent flood plains.
*[which in my book qualifies as "an understanding"]
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- "There is no conspiracy, only practicality. Who would dig down even 20 ft through rock when you could walk down the hill and make the same observations?"
The problem at hand precisely here is whether the observations made by walking down the hill really are the same.
"Geologists commonly drill cores to test stratigraphy, but you don't except this. You reject small diameter holes, but don't claim we don't test the theories."
Well, you have not done that particular test in 20 ft deep holes through the rock.
If mile deep holes have been dug through rock, why not twenty feet in a few selected places, like some places in Karoo?
"You need demons to explain the world-wide order of small fossils."
I said supposing it were world wide, it could at least be explained by demons getting a lease to try a hand on deception.
It is distinct from the order of land vertebrates.
And my theology accepts the existence of demons anyway, so it is not even ad hoc.
[I had said: I don't know for sure there were ever two levels of buried land vertebrates on top of each other.]
"But there is evidence of this from all over the world. Seismic and wells confirm the strata seen in outcrops extend hundreds of miles in the subsurface."
That is not direct evidence. The strata as rock strata, as well as the order of small invertebrate marine fossils are a separate issue. Nowhere have land vertabrates from Permian been found directly under those from Triassic, I just heard that news from Zuidafrika. And if you read my link, so did you.
No other place is even mentions as lagerstätte for both Palaeozoic and Mesozoic.
PLUS this indirect evidence is challenged by the Roraima pollen. They are arguably small fossils (though not marine invertabrate fauna, rather land based flora) and in Roraima they are where either they shouldn't be on your view, or the radiometric datings should be rejected.
"You compared digging down 20 ft compared to minds that are hundreds or thousands of feet. True, but excavating is very expensive compared to surface collecting, and most science budgets, especially paleontology, are very modest."
If you read all of what I said, I suggested solutions to that:
- use volunteers, not paid workers
- crowdfund for materials
in other words, use no public funding. Maybe if you let creationists in to the team, you could get some funding from CMI or AiG or Eric Hovind, who knows?
PLUS:
- refinance by making it a building project, whether for subterranean shady hotel or for housing.
In other words, it could be done. Not in very many spots, but perhaps five or ten places where Katberg lies over Balfour.
"Many vertebrates, such as in the Morrison Fm. are in point bars."
That I did not know. Two supplemantary questions to that one:
- how do you know for sure they are in point bars? I suppose you don't mean that there is a point bar on the surface now and you conclude from that there was one then. And:
- how do you know, supposing you know they are in point bars, that the point bar of the river didn't form either very rapidly in a calmer spot of the flood or normally slow in the two millennia between creation and flood? I mean two thousand years is plenty of time to make and unmake and remake point bars.
Wait a minute ...
"Many vertebrates, such as in the Morrison Fm. are in point bars. They are part of terrestrial deposits. Most land vertebrate deposits are from the deposits of rivers and the adjacent flood plains."
That is the Non-Flood-Geology explanation of why they got buried, right?
In other words, you are using one part of the Non-Flood scenario rather than an undisputed fact to refute the Flood scenario. Somewhat circular, somewhat disingenious.
And in some places even somewhat impossible.
That Sauropod herd that got drowned in south Argentina or Chile - was it the Flood or were they wading across a river?
The parallel given by uniformitarians were yaks buried in Brahmaputra. BUT:
- the sauropods are LOTS huger than yaks
- Brahmaputra is LOTS more streaming than any river down South of La Plata (or even counting La PLata).
In other words, scenario impossible.
Unless you would want to say it was a gigantic river over landmasses since separated by continental drift, and then the question becomes, where is the rest of that huge river? Indo China? Africa? Haven't exactly heard news of one.
And I forgot in my previous comments:
[I had said: At such an angle, the fossils can have been buried in same layer of mud at same moment.]
"Are you making this up, or do you have some evidence to back up this claim?"
There have been experiments conducted about rapid layering. They do indicate that 45° higher and lower can be simultaneous.
True, they are conducted in much smaller format than what they are presumed to model.
And, sorry, I forgot who the man was who conducted the experiments, if it was Giertych (now on the Catholic Kolbe Center for Study of Creation) or perhaps rather someone else, since Maciej Giertych is geneticist.
- Howard F
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl But the beds with the fossils in order are continuous for hundreds of miles along outcrops, always with the fossils in the same order, but you think digging in a few feet behind the outcrop it will all be different?
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- "In Order" begs the question I am posing.
Whether Moschops and Eucnemesaurus fortis are found at different places BECAUSE Beaufort formation outcrops at one and Elliott at other or BECAUSE Moschops and Eucnemosaurus fortis lived in different places at Flood event and the Beaufort and Elliott beds being an extra complication at the most.
In the first case digging down from Elliott or Katberg into Beaufort will change nothing, you will still find Moschops in Beaufort.
In the second case you won't find Moschops in Beaufort under Elliott, because where Elliott is on top was the biotope of Eucnemosarus fortis. Perhaps a guy that Moschops stayed away from.
Btw, Eucnemosarus fortis is exactly one specimen:
Holotype: TM 119, a partial (fragmentary) skeleton consisting of vertevrae, pelvic remains and limb elements
NO referred specimens are mentioned.
PLUS Eucnemosaurus is such an incomplete skeleton we cannot (in the Flood geology scenario) know if it was some Sauropodomorph or if it was a Nephelim type giant. Head or limbs would tell, but we don't have those.
Palaeocritti - a guide to prehistoric animals : Eucnemesaurus fortis
http://www.palaeocritti.com/by-group/dinosauria/sauropoda/eucnemesaurus
Btw, the locality given both narrow and broader, only give a hit for Eucnemosaurus:
Locality: Farm Zonderhout, Slabberts district, Orange Free State, South Africa.
No Permians found there!
No comments:
Post a Comment