Search This Blog

Thursday, October 14, 2010

Toppling the Darwinist Geological Column. Part one. Is there a standard geological column?

No.  The rock layers vary all over the world, all sorts of paraconformities and out-of-order and missing layers if you actually believe in long ages.  Naturally, the idea that there would be a thick formation of sedimentary rock neatly divided from yet another layer in a perfectly flat way is incomprehensibly thick-headed.  The original rock layering was an attempt by scientists to understand the flood layer ordering.

I have long maintained that the standard uniformitarian geological column is a work of fiction, a figment of imagination and certainly not what we see in the field.   Uniformitarianism is dead.  As I mentioned in another column, Dr. Henry Morris explained where and why the idea came from and why it is wrong.  As I mentioned previously...

"Careful studies of the sedimentary layers of the earth point to layering caused by flood. The fossil layers are generally distributed as one would expect in a flood, the bottom dwelling sea life at the bottom, the fish at another level, shore-dwellers at another layer and the largest land animals near the top. (Particularly the ones capable of recognizing danger and able to run to higher ground). Although Uniformitarianism calls for gradual layering, in the real world there are consistently sharp and obvious contrasts between layers. This would be the expected result with layering that would result from a worldwide flood.

One trouble with this Uniformitarianism concept is that the rock layers worldwide do not conform to the idea. Layers thought more ancient are consistently found above those expected to be more recent. Darwinists blithely explain that entire mountains were somehow turned upside down and/or transported 30-3,000 (!) miles or more in order to try to explain disorder in the rock layers. Also in nature you sometimes see mixed layers (like younger, older and then younger) or skipped layers (somehow going from 120 million years old to 280 million years old with no middle layers.)

Evolutionists have a great deal of trouble explaining bent and twisted rock formations such as these. It is obvious that this rock must have been convoluted while it was not yet entirely hardened. Now how do millions of years of nice, hard rock get folded like this without snapping? We aren't just talking small areas of rock, either!"

Dr. Stephen Austin presented the following article that I shared with readers four years ago:

Ten Misconceptions about the Geologic Column

The ten strata systems that geologists use (Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, and Tertiary) compose the "standard geologic column" and are claimed by many to contain the major proof of evolutionary theory. Several erroneous notions have been attached to the geologic column. The following are the ten most common misconceptions.
Misconception No. 1. The geologic column was constructed by geologists who, because of the weight of the evidence that they had found, were convinced of the truth of uniformitarian theory and organic evolution.
It may sound surprising, but the standard geologic column was devised before 1860 by catastrophists who were creationists.1 Adam Sedgewick, Roderick Murchison, William Coneybeare, and others affirmed that the earth was formed largely by catastrophic processes, and that the earth and life were created. These men stood for careful empirical science and were not compelled to believe evolutionary speculation or side with uniformitarian theory. Although most would be called "progressive creationists" in today's terminology, they would not be pleased to see all the evolutionary baggage that has been loaded onto their classification of strata.
Misconception No. 2. Geologists composed the geologic column by assembling the "periods" and "eras" which they had recognized.
The geologic column was not composed by assembling a chronology of "periods," "eras" or other supposed measures of time, but by superposition of objectively defined sequences of sedimentary strata called "systems." The "periods" and "eras" were later appended to the system nomenclature of the "geologic Column" transforming it into a "geologic time scale."
Misconception No. 3. The strata systems of the geologic column are worldwide in their occurrence with each strata system being present below any point on the earth's surface.
The notion that the earth's crust has on "onion skin" structure with successive layers containing all strata systems distributed on a global scale is not according to the facts. Data from continents and ocean basins show that the ten systems are poorly represented on a global scale: approximately 77% of the earth's surface area on land and under the sea has seven or more (70% or more) of the strata systems missing beneath; 94% of the earth's surface has three or more systems missing beneath; and an estimated 99.6% has at least one missing system.2 Only a few locations on earth (about 0.4% of its area) have been described with the succession of the ten systems beneath (west Nepal, west Bolivia, and central Poland). Even where the ten systems may be present, geologists recognize individual systems to be incomplete. The entire geologic column, composed of complete strata systems, exists only in the diagrams drawn by geologists!
Misconception No. 4. Strata systems always occur in the order required by the geologic column.
Hundreds of locations are known where the order of the systems identified by geologists does not match the order of the geologic column. Strata systems are believed in some places to be inverted, repeated, or inserted where they do not belong. Overturning, overthrust faulting, or landsliding are frequently maintained as disrupting the order. In some locations such structural changes can be supported by physical evidence while elsewhere physical evidence of the disruption may be lacking and special pleading may be required using fossils or radiometric dating.
Misconception No. 5. Because each strata system has distinctive lithologic composition, a newly discovered stratum can be assigned easily to its correct position in the geologic column.
Sandstone, limestone, dolomite, shale, chert, salt, conglomerate, coal and other rock types are not diagnostic of specific strata systems. Therefore, a rock's physical appearance cannot, with certainty, distinguish the system or strata level to which a rock may belong. The sequence of rock types is more useful, but hardly an infallible guide to correlation. Thus, the Cambrian System on an intercontinental scale is typically composed of quartzose sandstone, overlain by glauconitic sandstone with dark-brown shale, overlain by impure, light-brown limestones.3 The correlation of "Cambrian" strata is further strengthened by the presence on an intercontinental scale of an unconformity (surface of erosion) at or near the base of the system. Each rock type is not distinctive of the Cambrian, and neither is the unconformity, but the sequence may be.
Misconception No. 6. Fossils, especially the species distinctive of specific systems, provide the most reliable method of assigning strata to their level in the geologic column.
Bed-to-bed correlation of strata to their "type system" area is the most reliable method of assigning strata to a system. The data from oil well drilling, seismic surveys, and surface geologic mapping is of such character that subsurface correlation of lithostratigraphic units of the thickness of systems is possible on a continental scale. Although some fossils appear to be distinctive of certain systems (most fossil taxa range through a few to several systems), care must be exercised in correlation by fossils. First, the stratigraphic range of a fossil type is always open to extension as new fossils are discovered. Second, when an extension of a fossil's range may be required, geologists may call upon erosion (reworking fossils into younger strata or leaking fossils into older strata) and structural events (overturning or faulting strata and fossils). An example of the first problem is the monoplacophoran mollusk Pilina, which might otherwise be considered diagnostic of the Silurian System, except for the startling discovery that Neopilina lives today, and, therefore, would be expected in any system overlying the Silurian. For these reasons correlation by fossils must always remain tentative awaiting further confirmatory evidence from lithostratigraphy. We should look very skeptically at strata correlations which rely solely on fossils.
Misconception No. 7. Sedimentary evidence proves that periods of millions of years duration were required to deposit individual strata systems.
Before radiometric dating was devised, uniformitarian geologists postulated "periods" of millions of years duration to slowly deposit the strata systems. A single sedimentary lamina, or bed, was supposed by uniformitarian geologists to represent typically a year or many years duration. It was concluded, therefore, that multiplied thousands of laminae and beds superimposed required millions of years. Recently, however, geologists have discovered that laminae and beds form quickly on floodplains of rivers during floods, in shallow marine areas during storms, and in deep water by turbidity currents. The evidence of rapid sedimentation is now so easily recognized that geologists observing a strata system these days often ask where to insert the "missing time" of which the strata do not show sedimentary evidence. Catastrophism, quite naturally, is making a come-back. There is good reason to believe that entire strata systems, and even groups of systems, were accumulated in a hydraulic cataclysm matching the description of Noah's Flood in the Bible.
Misconception No. 8. Radiometric dating can supply "absolute ages" in millions of years with certainty to systems of the geologic column. 10
Geologists and geochronologists assert that radiometric dating verifies that individual strata systems and their strata are millions of years old. When asked to document the most reliable radiometric age dates, geologists usually point to isochron and concordia plots which employ multiple isotopic analyses, which they claim will remove the effects of original "contaminants," and display the "age" of a rock in graphical form. However, we find geologists often reporting isochron plots which are discordant with the accepted "ages" of strata systems.4 Frequently, these discordant isochron plots "date" strata systems much older than even the accepted old ages customarily assigned to the systems of the geologic column. Geologists should be asking which, if any, of the isochron plots should be accepted as "absolute ages," and if the discordances do not falsify the assumptions upon which radiometric dating is based. Geologists need to consider radiometric methods which indicate ages of thousands of years for strata systems,5 as well as general indicators supporting young age.
Misconception No. 9. The environmental "pictures" assigned to certain portions of the geologic column allow us to accurately visualize what its "geologic ages" were like.
Books, films and museum displays contain illustrations asking us to visualize what earlier "geologic ages" were like. These "pictures" show supposed primitive earth conditions, specific environments with sediments being slowly deposited, inferred "transitional organisms" evolving toward familiar forms, and whole communities of organisms "at home" with other organisms absent. Perhaps the most blatant environmental picture" has been assigned to lower Precambrian strata, formed when the earth supposedly had a reducing atmosphere and an "organic soup" in which life evolved. Yet, geologists have yet to find sedimentary evidence for the reducing atmosphere and the soup.6 This reminds us that accepting an environmental "picture" requires much imagination from a meager supply of facts.
Misconception No. 10. The geologic column and the positions of fossils within the geologic column provide proof of amoeba-to-man evolution.
All the animal phyla, including chordate fish, are now known as fossils in the Cambrian System. No ancestral forms can be found for the protozoans, arthropods, brachiopods, mollusks, bryozoans, coelenterates, sponges, annelids, echinoderms or chordates. These phyla appear in the fossil record fully formed and distinct, in better agreement with the concept of "multiple, abrupt beginnings" (creation) than with the notion of "descent from a common ancestor" (evolution).
  1. R.Ritiand, "Historical development of the current understanding of the geologic column: part II," Origins, Vol. 9, 1982, pp. 28-47.
  2. Estimated by the author using data from J. Woodmorappe, "The essential nonexistence of the evolutionary-uniformitarian geologic column: a quantitative assessment," Creation Res. Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 18, 1981, pp. 46-71.
  3. D.V. Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record, 2nd ed. (New York: John Wiley, 1981), P. 11.
  4. C. Brooks, D.E. James and S.R. Hart, "Ancient lithosphere: its role in young continental volcanism," Science, Vol. 193, 1976, pp. 1086-1094.
  5. R.V. Gentry, et al., "Radiohalos in coalified wood: new evidence relating to the time of uranium introduction and coalification," Science, Vol. 194, 1976, pp. 315-318.
  6. S.A. Austin, "Did the early earth have a reducing atmosphere?" ICR Impact 109, July 1982, 4 pp. 

There are numerous problems with any uniformitarian viewpoint.  Evolution is not demonstrated in the fossil records in any case, since organisms appear fully formed (most kinds in the so-called Cambrian layers) and in all layers are fully-formed organisms.  All but the uppermost layers of fossils are examples of rapid burial by water events, indicating a sudden and catastrophic event.  Imagining thousands of local floods when many rock formations extend across continents is an absolute absurdity.  Darwinists play games with naming organisms, giving new names to the same organism when found in the "wrong" formation to avoid being found out.  Field paleontologists and geologists know that general formation dating is a circular reasoning process that has no touchstone for accuracy.

Michael Oard presented a semi-technical treatise on the idea of the "Standard Geological Column" and it is quite long, so I will link it and present three exerpts.  But in order to get the benefit of his studies I suggest that you read it in it's entirety.   One can hardly read the work of Oard and Austin without wondering at the absolute gall of so-called educators who have been presenting a work of fiction to students for many generations without batting an eye.  Are these Darwinist prevaricators, ignorant products of the state schools or are they just plain stupid?  I hope you understand that ignorance is correctable and is not associated with intelligence.  But stupidity is having the capacity to understand and ignoring it.  Lying is knowing the truth and deliberately distorting it.  No matter what the case, this lie has been taught as fact to US students in the past and continues to be taught today.


Biblical geological model
Figure 1.  Walker's biblical geological model, modified by Klevberg.
Tilted Paleozoic and Mesozoic Strata
Figure 2.  Tilted Paleozoic and Mesozoic strata at the northwest edge of the Bighorn Basin at Clark Canyon adjacent to the southeast Beartooth Mountains.
Erosional remnant of Red Butte
Figure 3.  The erosional remnant of Red Butte near the south rim of the Grand Canyon (view south from the north rim). The butte is 300 m above the planation surface at the top of the Grand Canyon.
The subject of how the geological column fits into Flood geology and the order of events before, during, and after the Flood is quite controversial within creationism. Some creationists advocate that the geological column is an exact representation of the events of the Flood and possibly post-Flood deposition, minus the uniformitarian timescale. In other words, the Cambrian is early in the Flood, followed by the Ordovician, etc., all over the world according to the exact order of the geological column. In that scheme, Mesozoic would be considered middle Flood or late Flood, depending upon where one places the Flood/post-Flood boundary, and the Cenozoic would be either late Flood or post-Flood. Other creationists want to throw out the entire geological column. Still others believe that it is a general sequence with many exceptions.

I will argue the middle position here: the geological column is a general Flood sequence with many exceptions. Furthermore, I advocate viewing the rocks and fossils through Flood glasses—through the actual mechanism that produced the rocks and fossils, the Genesis Flood. Why look at the rocks and fossils through a false philosophical system based on the hypotheses of uniformitarianism, an old Earth, evolution, and naturalism? Since I believe that the geological column is a general sequence of the Flood, I expect some overlap between a Flood classification and the geological column.

I advocate the model or classification of Walker (1994), which is similar to the model derived by Whitcomb and Morris in The Genesis Flood (1961). Although Froede (1995) produced a similar model, I prefer Walker's model mainly because it is more developed with defining criteria for his stages and phases. Klevberg modified Walker's timescale for the stages to correspond with the Flood peaking on Day 150 (Figure 1), which seems to be the Scriptural position and also corresponds to the 21 weeks of prevailing and the 31 weeks of assuaging in the Whitcomb-Morris (1961) model.

Is the Geological Column a Global Sequence?

Secular scientists often claim that the fossil order represented by the geological column is an "absolute" global sequence. Is this true or just taken on faith?

In order to demonstrate that the geological column is a global sequence, four steps are necessary: (1) develop local columns for small areas, (2) tie local columns into a regional- or subcontinental-scale column, (3) integrate local and regional columns into a continental-scale column and (4) develop the overreaching global geological column. Presumably the first and second steps could be fairly straightforward, if the geology is uncomplicated and the lithology of the strata can be traced for long distances. But, in areas of tectonics, overthrusts (to be discussed below), and facies changes, the development of even a local column may be difficult or nearly impossible. The third and fourth steps become much more difficult since lithologies and fossils cannot be traced across continents and from continent to continent. It would seem that the task grows by orders of magnitude at these last two stages, becoming more hypothetical the greater the area of extrapolation. Woodmorappe (1999b, p. 24) noted:
As one moves from local all the way to global correlation by fossils, correlations become increasingly less empirical and more conceptual. This is because there are progressively greater differences (such as lithology, local fossil succession, and overall faunal character) as one moves even further geographically from a reference section in the type area."

5) Anomalous Fossils

Evolutionists often tell us that there are no contradictions to the evolutionary fossil order. However, they have to explain many anomalies in order to make the geological column "consistent." One type of anomaly is finding two fossils of different ages in the same layer.

If the evolutionist cannot extend the stratigraphic range of the fossils, he must determine which fossil represents the true "age." If the strata are considered young, the "old" fossil is simply assumed to have been "reworked," eroded from "much older" strata and incorporated into younger sediments. Often, their only criterion for reworking is an expected evolutionary order rather than the condition of the fossil. However, if "old" organisms are reworked into "young" strata, wouldn't the "old" fossil be pulverized?

In the opposite case, a "young" fossil is found in "old" strata, and evolutionists assume that the "younger" organism was buried within "old" sediment and fossilized. This is called "downwash." This could happen if a "young" organism became trapped and fossilized in a cave, sinkhole, or bog within "old" sediment or sedimentary rock. If the strata remain unconsolidated until after the "young" organism is buried, it would be difficult for the "old" organism to have remain unfossilized for millions of years.
Lewis overthrust
Figure 10.  Lewis "overthrust" northeast of Marias Pass, Montana (view northeast). The "Precambrian" Altyn Dolomite is the light colored layer in the center of the picture while the Appekunny argillite is the dark colored rock above. "Cretaceous" shale lies below the dolomite. Note the horizontal beds of the shale, which are either undeformed or only mildly deformed below the contact.
Contact of the Lewis overthrust
Figure 11.  The contact of the Lewis "overthrust" northeast of Marias Pass.
Close-up of the contact of the Lewis overthrust
Figure 12.  Close-up of the contact of the Lewis "overthrust" northeast of Marias Pass. There are stringers of Altyn dolomite in shale below contact.

Whether a fossil is considered reworked or down-washed should not depend on preconceived ideas about age or fossil succession; there should be evidence for such an event.

Woodmorappe (1999c, pp. 87–92) compiled 200 published instances of anomalous fossils from the literature. This was not an exhaustive search. Most of these instances involved microfossils, which is why I am especially skeptical of the biostratigraphy of various microfossil groups, such as foraminifers and diatoms. Taxonomic manipulation, along with reworking, casts doubt on the use of microfossils as index fossils. Anomalous fossil occurrences are not rare (Woodmorappe, 1999c, pp. 92–94). Furthermore, if evolutionists under-report examples of anomalous fossils, they may be quite common, while evidence for reworking or downwash is rare! It seems that reworking is just an ad hoc explanation to make the geological column "consistent." The real impact of anomalous fossils would be to broaden the fossil range in the geological column, thereby reducing confidence in index fossils.

6) Out-of-Order Fossils

A second type of anomaly in the fossil record is the situation in which "older" fossils are found above rocks that contain "young" fossils. These out-of-order fossils are the opposite of the evolutionary hypothesis. Out-of-order fossils are considered "impossible" by evolutionists, and so are dismissed as the result of overthrusting. An overthrust involves "older" strata being pushed over "younger" strata at an angle less than 45°.

Robinson (1996, p. 35) claimed that overthrusts are based on geophysical evidence and not out-of-order fossils. This is true for some, but the Lewis overthrust in Montana and Alberta (Figures 10–12) was identified based on fossils. In the Lewis "overthrust," Precambrian rocks supposedly slid tens of kilometers eastward up a low slope over "Cretaceous" rocks. There is a 900 million-year out-of-order time gap at the Lewis "overthrust," and this time gap was first based on out-of-order fossils. Bailey Willis (1902), who first hypothesized the "overthrust," found "Precambrian crustacean shells" in the upper block above the "Cretaceous" strata. The Lewis Overthrust may or may not be a true overthrust, but the determination should be made by geological and geophysical methods and not by fossils."

Some "overthrusts" display a reversed metamorphic grade in which the upper block is more highly meta-morphosed than the lower block. Metamorphism is supposed to increase with increasing depth. So, this is support for the overthrust concept in these cases. However, it is possible that the metamorphic grade associated with "overthrusts" could be chemically caused (Silvestru, personal communication) or caused by the migration of heat and fluids during deformation (Hubbard, 1996). Overthrusts, if they are real, could possibly be explained by catastrophic underwater emplacements during the Flood. Creationists need a comprehensive analysis of overthrusts.

Heart Mountain
Figure 13.  Heart Mountain, northwest Bighorn Basin. The light colored strata at the top of Heart Mountain are "Paleozoic" limestone and dolomite, which lies on top of valley fill sediments (view south southeast).
When one realizes that there are hundreds of alleged overthrusts (they seem to occur in most mountain ranges of the world), and that mountains are usually the few places to observe a thick vertical sequence, one is forced to conclude that out-of-order strata are common. A real overthrust should show abundant physical evidence; relying just on fossils is unreasonable. If these strata cannot be tied to a real overthrust, then the fossil distribution in the geological column is contrary to evolutionary predictions.

Does the Geological Column Represent the Flood Depositional Sequence?

These problems should make any creationist cautious in applying the geological column to the Flood. We seem to be divided by those who believe that the geological column is an exact sequence of the Flood and those who want to entirely discard the column. After many years, I have come to the conclusion that the geological column represents the general order of the Flood with many exceptions, and that its application should be made with caution for the reasons enumerated above.

In examining fossils and fossil successions with regard to the Flood, we must distinguish between animals that survived the Flood and those that did not. This distinction will help determine whether a fossil was buried by the Flood or is post-Flood. The animals that God brought onboard the Ark were a male and female of each unclean kind and seven of each clean kind. These animals had to be terrestrial and breath air (Genesis 7:21, 22).

The Genesis kind cannot be equated with modern species in many cases (Woodmorappe, 1999e, p. 136). If the kind is at the genus level, the ark needed only 16,000 animals (Woodmorappe, 1996), primarily mammals, birds, and reptiles. Many other organisms could have survived the Flood outside the Ark. Therefore, all mammals, reptiles (including dinosaurs), and likely all birds had to be dead by the time the water started retreating off the land around Day 150 (Genesis 7:22-8:3). So, evidence of a live mammal or reptile would indicate either an early Flood or post-Flood time. Marine organisms, such as foraminifers, could potentially represent early Flood, late Flood, or post Flood..."

I will not get off of this subject right away no matter what rabbit trail a commenter may present.  I am going to nail down once and for all that Uniformitarianism is ridiculous and that the fossil record indicates a flood and catastrophic events associated with that flood and a dynamic post-flood era including one ice age.  Included in this was tremendous volcanic activity and the rapid subduction of tectonic plates, resulting in the disappearance of a "Pangea" type continent and the splitting of land into several puzzle pieces with deep oceans and some measure of tectonic unrest remaining.  We are going to look at evidence to examine this subject rather than the opinions of 19th Century elitists.

Remember, Darwinism was the product of an atheopathic amateur scientist who knew nothing of the makeup of cells and certainly not a hint of the DNA master code that is found in all organisms.  He was a man who based his hypothesis on the backs of other's suggestions (like Blythe and Hutton), inspired by an amateur liar (Lyell), spurred on by the influence of his grandfather and with a basis in old Greek primitive scientific musings.  We know there are more than four elements, we know life does not consist of protoplasm, we know that Darwinist evolution is never observed and we know that organisms are hard-wired to remain the kind of organism they are born to be.  The mother lays the framework for the child.  Each organism has its own set of meta-information.  DNA is remarkably complex and needs to be in order to accomplish both the reproduction, the maintenance and rule the life cycle of organisms while adjusting to changes in environmental conditions, predation or population.

It is well past time to leave 19th Century hypotheses behind and join the 21st Century.  The religion of Darwinism has done irreparable harm by bringing death to millions and causing science to drag behind due to errant presumptions.  More to come...


Jon Woolf said...

What's the YEC explanation for fossiliferous Large Igneous Provinces, Radar?

Why are rhinos and ceratopsids never found together, Radar?

How did dogwoods and sycamores outrun the sauropods and brontotheres to higher ground, Radar?

How did caves and entire drainage basins form in rocks that were being built at the rate of many feet per day by the Flood, Radar?

Where did aeolian rock layers like the Coconino Sandstone come from, in the middle of all that water, Radar?

Why can we see geologic faults and even evidence of landslides in rocks that were forming underwater at lightning speed, Radar?

No answer was the sad reply...

Also in nature you sometimes see mixed layers (like younger, older and then younger) or skipped layers (somehow going from 120 million years old to 280 million years old with no middle layers.)


Who botched that picture so bad? I hope it wasn't you, Radar -- I'd hate to think you're THAT stupid.

First of all, the lower layer is the M-U-A-V Limestone, not the "Mauv". Second, I don't know for sure where that photo was taken, but the visible layering suggests it's in the western Canyon, a region where there is no contact between the Redwall Limestone and the Muav Limestone at all! There's another formation in between: the Temple Butte Limestone. IIRC, the Temple Butte generally takes the form of a wider, visibly multi-layered 'step' between the base of the Redwall Limestone and the much shallower slope of the Muav Limestone, exactly as the linked photo shows.

Jon Woolf said...

All but the uppermost layers of fossils are examples of rapid burial by water events, indicating a sudden and catastrophic event.

Tell us, Radar, how is it that fossils buried deep in the rocks show evidence of scavenging, of weathering, even of predatory attack so clear and obvious that we can often make a good stab at identifying the predator responsible? For example, the young Australopithecus africanus known as the Taung Child was probably killed by an eagle, judging by the wounds in the skull.

Darwinists play games with naming organisms, giving new names to the same organism when found in the "wrong" formation to avoid being found out.

You can, of course, provide specific cases to back up this libelous accusation? Oh wait, that's right, I'm talking to a creationist. Sorry. Forget I asked.

Evolution is not demonstrated in the fossil records in any case, since organisms appear fully formed

No, they don't.

The third and fourth steps become much more difficult since lithologies and fossils cannot be traced across continents and from continent to continent.

Except when they can ... for example, the iridium-rich clay layer which marks the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, and can be (and has been) detected literally everywhere it has been looked for. And always in the same place in the strata: just above the last clearly-Cretaceous rocks, and just below the first clearly-Paleocene rocks.

Other examples include the huge lava flows known as CAMP, the Central Atlantic Magmatic Province, which exist on four different continents and in all cases give similar radiometric dates: latest Triassic, just below the Triassic-Jurassic boundary. And there's the collection of plants known as "the Glossopteris flora," which spread widely across the temperate Southern Hemisphere and provided the first clue that South America and Africa had once been connected somehow.

Anonymous said...

Radar, you posted an article from the Institute for Creation Research ( This website posts lies and is therefore not trustworthy. Since you dismiss such websites in their entirety, I'm sure you'll no longer use this source now that you're aware of this.

In the meantime, readers please ignore the article Radar posted here. Radar wouldn't want you to be subjected to lying websites.

TomH said...

Jon Woolf:

Why are rhinos and ceratopsids never found together?

Do you have evidence that they should, based on some studies of flow deposition sorting? Didn't think so.

Regarding the Anonymous comment:

Since scientific journals have been shown to post lies in the past, I hope that all readers will ignore them in the future since they have been shown to be untrustworthy.

This is my ad reductio reply.

Jon Woolf said...

"Do you have evidence that they should, based on some studies of flow deposition sorting?"

It's rather difficult to do any such experiment since ceratopsids are all long dead, and the best we can do is approximations. That said, rhino and ceratopsid are the same approximate size, shape, mass, build, and habitat. Can you give a reason why they wouldn't be sorted similarly?

Anonymous said...

Just happened to stumble on this thread some time later, hadn't spotted this comment previously.

"Since scientific journals have been shown to post lies in the past, I hope that all readers will ignore them in the future since they have been shown to be untrustworthy."

1. You may have missed what my comment was referring to if you don't read this blog regularly. Radar is suggesting exactly that with regard to some websites that post information he disagrees with.

2. Could you please provide specifics? Which lies, which journals?

And of course if we go by this logic, that would mean we'd have to ignore a great many things, including all creationist websites. Since the Bible itself contains internal contradictions, it too would have to be ignored.

Which is why I suggest Radar's logic is faulty and we should focus on actual evidence case by case instead of indulging in ad hominem arguments.

Anonymous said...

"Do you have evidence that they should, based on some studies of flow deposition sorting?"

The YEC contention is that they lived together, at the same time. Flow deposition sorting has no means of sorting items that are roughly the same size and shape. And yet the two never show up in the same layer, ever.

The scientific consensus is that they lived at different times, which perfectly explains the objective evidence.

YEC has no plausible explanation for this phenomenon.