Fossil Sorting in the Great Flood Part 2

In message 9, NosyNed asked:"Your Mt Rundle example. Just why did you pick that? You
suggest that there was some upheaval. Ok. How is it that
this upheaval and all the millions of others left the pattern
that we see?"Mount Rundle is a 2,949 m (9,676 ft) high mountain range with cliffs over a mile high that is visible from the Trans-Canada Highway between Canmore to Banff, British Columbia. I suspect that Mt. Rundle was chosen because it displays a thrust fault that has moved older strata over younger strata. It is an example of the old Young Earth Creationist chestnut, which denies the reality of thrust faulting, in insisting that the occurrence of older fossil-bearing over younger fossil-bearing strata is somehow anomalous in this instance. For some detailed information about Mt. Rundle, a person can look at:1. Mount Rundle.andThe Formation of the Rocky Mountains.
Mount Rundle."The Mississippian and Devonian rocks were carried along
the Rundle Thrust Fault which lies below the Devonian and
above the Cretaceous and Jurassic rocks which are of a
considerably younger age."More about thrust faults.How Overthrusts Occur by Glenn R. Morton
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/othrust.htmThrust faults by John G. Solum
Thrust fault FAQGeology in Error? The Lewis Thrust by Joel Hanes
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/lewis-overthrust.htmlWhy doesn't the Lewis Overthrust show deformation?
Frequently Asked Although the above web pages discuss the Lewis Overthrust / Thrust Fault, the thrust fault at Mt. Rundle exhibits the same obvious evidence of faulting and deformation that the Lewis Overthrust exhibits and young Earth creationists overlook just the same.Given the abundant evidence of deformation and movement along the very well defined fault plane of this thrust fault all Mt. Rundle demonstrates is how deaf, dumb, and blind some Young Earth creationists are to any physical evidence, no matter how obvious it can be, that contradicts a specific interpretation they might be arguing. This claim and the identical claims made by some Young earth creationists about the Lewis Thrust Fault is an example of why I and other conventional geologists lack any respect for many Young Earth creationists as geologists.Yours,Bill Birkeland

In Message 45, arkathon stated:"Ned's edict thrown out"...laundry list of long-discredited Young Earth creationist claims deleted." So, Ned's edict was hot air in large part, it would seem."The alleged evidence presented by Mr. arkathon does nothing to demonstrate that Ned is full of "hot air". This so-called evidence fails to discredit Ned in anyway because they are pseudo-factoids that comprise the typical "Gish Gallop". The typical Gish Gallop consists of an odd assortment of misinformation, misrepresentations, misquotations, and factually-impaired and wrong-headed interpretations presented in text-bite size bits. This is done in such volume that it is impossible for any opponent have any chance to discuss what is wrong with every piece. The text-bites are flung on an opponent, as in a mud fight, with hope that some of it will stick no matter how factually bankrupt the alleged evidence might be.Actually, many of the items, of which my time and message board space allows only a few examples to be discussed in detail, mentioned by Mr. arkathon have been discussed in great detail on the Talk.origins newsgroup and on various web pages. A person often can find discussions, which dispute, even refute in great detail, many of the examples of alleged Out-of-Place fossils by conducting a search of USENET posts using the Google newsgroup search engine at:Error 404 (Not Found)!!1Also, there are web pages on the Internet that completely refute other examples of Out-of-Place fossils mentioned by Mr. arkathon. Specific examples are:1. Horses and DinosaursFor example, in message ID , Keith Littleton, whom I have permission to quote material from, in a single post to the thread " Re: Alert: PBS Evolution Series" commented in detail on many of Mr. arkathon's alleged Out-Of-Place fossils on Mon, 30 Dec 2002 10:39:54 -0600. In reply to the claim about 86 consecutive hoof prints of horses having been found in rocks dating back to the dinosaurs, it was noted that the primary source of this claim was "Y. Kruzhilin and V. Ovcharov, "A Horse from the Dinosaur Epoch?" Moskovskaya Pravda (Moscow Truth), 5 February 1984."

​

Mr. Littleton noted:

​

"This is a rather remarkable case of an Evangelical Christian
citing a Communist (Soviet) newspaper as if it was the "gospel
truth" instead being "Soviet truth". :-)"

​

If a person was to look over what "Moskovskaya Pravda (Moscow Truth) has had to say about the United States, capitalism, Christianity, and topics, he or she would quickly find that this newpapers has serious problems distinguishing between fact and fiction. It is quite certainly an unreliable source of factual information that is useless as a cited as source of scientific information.

​

As further noted in the post:

​

"Even if a person disregards the credibility problems inherent
with public newspapers published in the Soviet Union under the
strict control of the Communist Party, there are significant
problems with using any newspaper as a primary source of
information. Unfortunately, many newspaper editors and reporters
lack the experience to evaluate the validity of scientific claims
that are made in the stories that they write. As a result, they
all too often either angle the facts or accept unquestionably
as fact erroneous conclusions made by the people that they have
interviewed."

​

This alleged research is also problematic because that nobody has been able to find a formal scientific publication, which either discusses or illustrates this spectacular find. A plausible explanation for this absence of any scientific documentation is that after further analysis or during peer-review, as discussed later in this post, the alleged horse prints turned out to be nothing more than either the foot prints of some reptile or sedimentary features called current crescents. Without detailed descriptions and photographs published in a reliable source, there is no proof that these horse prints exist outside the imagination of either the reporter or the person being interviewed.

​

2. Turkmeniac and tuba City Footprints

​

Next, Mr. arkathon mentioned "Dinosaur and humanlike footprints have been found
together in Turkmeniac and in Arizona". In case of the Turkmeniac footprints, Mr. Littleton noted:

​

"Again, we have the strange spectacle of an Evangelical Christian,
Anonymous (1985), citing a Communist (Soviet) publication, the 1983
"Moscow News" as if it is believed it to be as infallible as the
Bible."

​

Again, as noted by Mr. Littleton, we have a newspaper of highly suspect reliability being cited as if it was a reliable and authoritative source of scientific observations. Again, we have a source that provides nothing in the way of pictures, data, or observations, which substantiate the claim being made about human prints in Turkmeniac. Without this documentation, it is impossible to determine if the features reported as human footprints are indeed human footprints or nothing more than a whole range of features that have been misidentified and misreported in the popular press as human footprints as discussed in detail by Monroe (1987). In fact, as discussed by Kuban (1989a, 1989b), dinosaur footprints have even been misidentified as human footprints. As a result, a single vague newspaper article proves nothing about the presence or absence of human footprints with dinosaurs. Again, without detailed descriptions and photographs published in a reliable source, there is no proof that the Turkmeniac footprints exist outside the imagination of either the reporter or the person being interviewed.

​

As noted in the talk.origins post, Kuban (1992) examined the Tuba City (Arizona) tracks. This article stated:

​

"When Ron Hastings and I visited Site 1 in 1988 we saw many definite
bipedal dinosaur tracks nearby (as had during a previous trip), but
nothing that strongly resembled a genuine human footprint. The
so-called "humanoid" markings looked no more convincing in person
than they later did in the CRSQ photographs.

​

The CRSQ report did not begin explain how multiple dinosaur track
layers fit their young-earth, Flood geology model. A crucial question
is how these and many other vertebrate track layers (like those in
the Glen Rose Formation) were formed during the midst of a violent
worldwide Flood--if indeed such layers are interpreted as Flood
deposits. Particularly in need of explanation is how the track-makers
survived while thousands of feet of sedimentary material were being
deposited under the track layers or while extensive sediments between
the track layers were being deposited.
.... "

​

References Cited:

​

Anonymous (1985) Russian Paluxy Source. Creation Ex Nihilo. vol. 7,
no. 3, p 4.

​

Kuban, G. J. (1989a) Elongate dinosaur tracks. In D. D. Gillette
and M. G. Lockley, eds., pp. 57-72, Dinosaur Tracks and Traces:
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/elong.htm
http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/paluxy.htm

​

Kuban, G. J. (1989b) Color distinctions and other curious features
of dinosaur tracks near Glen Rose, Texas. In D. D. Gillette and
M. G. Lockley, eds., pp. 428-440, Dinosaur Tracks and Traces:
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/color.htm

​

Kuban, G. J. (1992) Do Human Footprints Occur in the Kayenta of
Arizona? Origins Research. vol. 14, no.2, pp. 7,12,16.
http://members.aol.com/Paluxy2/arizon.htm

​

Monroe, J. S. (1987) Creation, human footprints, and flood geology.
Journal of Geological Education. vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 93-102."

​

3. More Out of Place Fossils

​

Mr. arkathon further commented:

​

"Sometimes, land animals, flying animals, and marine animals are
fossilized side-by-side in the same rock."

​

According to the primary source of this statement, this claim is documented in Snelling (1985), Armstrong (1985), and Shipman (1987). None of these articles is a scientific article. Instead they are all popular articles written for the lay public, including newspaper articles.

​

About these articles, Mr. Littleton Stated:

​

"First, based only on articles from local newspapers, and a national
newsmagazine, Armstrong (1985) discussed the occurrence of fossil
bones found in either an unnamed shell pit or unnamed shell pits
near Tampa, Florida consisting of a mixture of 80 percent the fossil
bones of land animals mixed with the bones of birds, sea turtles,
salt water fish, fresh water fish, and turtles. The article was only
five paragraphs long. Because of its shortness, the articles failed
to discuss any of the details about the site and was far too vague
for anyone to make any decision about whether this bone bed (or bone
beds ?) was in anyway anomalous in terms of conventional geology.
Armstrong (1985) failed to provide enough to give either Brown (2001)
or Derek any support for their conclusions.

​

Second, Snelling (1985) discusses the catastrophic implications of
fossiliferous sandstone beds that outcrop at Fossil Bluff near Wynyard,
Tasmania in Australia (Vickers-Rich and Rich 1993). Not only is
Snelling (1985) unable to tell the difference between a "breccia" and
gravelly, fossiliferous sandstone, he concludes without any real
evidence that the beds of marine shells that the are the result of a
"watery catastrophe" that "overwhelmed, washed, sorted, and buried
all of these animals and plants together." Snelling (1985) doesn't
seem to understand that there is nothing anomalous about shark's teeth
and whales bones being found in marine sediments.

​

At Fossil Bluff, the only nonmarine vertebrate fossil consists of
only a single partial (upper) eroded skull of the possum-like
marsupial Wynyardia bassiana (Vickers-Rich and Rich 1993). Such
fragmentary and rare remains of nonmarine animals is readily
explained by the fact that nonmarine animals occasionally drown in
rivers and lagoons and are swept out to sea where their bones are
scattered and buried in marine sediments. Similarly, nonmarine plant
material, is frequently swept out to sea and incorporated into
marines sediments as found by Snelling (1985) (at) Fossil Bluff.

​

The shell beds found at Fossil Bluff near Wynyard, Tasmania fail to
be any evidence of any "watery catastrophe as argued by Snelling
(1985). The shelly sandstones observed by Snelling can be created
by a variety of noncatastrophic processes, e.g. bottom winnowing
by storms, as discussed by Kidwell (1986, 1991) and Kidwell et al.
(1986). The fossiliferous sandstones are no different from the
shelly sands accumulating on modern continental shelves, e.g.
Anderson and McBride (1996) and McBride et al. (1996), except for
genera and species of shells found within them.

​

Finally, Brown (1995, 2001) cites a discussion by Shipman (1987) of
the world famous fossil site at Mesel, Germany as an example of a
fossil deposit created by the Noachian Flood. However, there is
simply no evidence of the fossil deposits at Messell being created,
as implied by Brown (1995, 2001) by a global catastrophic Noachian
Flood. The fossil deposits are extremely local in nature in that
they are restricted entirely to a fault bounded depression just over
1000 long and 700 meters wide. Thus, they lack the regional extent

​

that a person would expect from a global catastrophe and their
distribution is perfectly compatible with many modern lakes found
in tectonic depressions. The sediment containing the exceptionally
well preserved fossils are found in a bituminous shale, locally
called "oil shale" / "Olschiefer". This is type of sediment that
accumulates only within stagnant waters, such as found in many
lakes, but not within a global flood claimed moved and deposited
masses of sediments several kilometers thick all over the world.
In addition, the high organic content of the shale is the result
of massive blooms of a green, freshwater alga, Tretraedon, which
grew in large numbers, died off, and accumulated along with mud at
the bottom of a stagnant water body. The lack of ccocoliths,
formanifera, radiolarians, and other marine microfossils, although
perfectly consistent with accumulation in a stagnant lake, is quite
remarkable for sediments deposited during the late stages of a
global flood that mixed all of the oceans of the world/ Finally,
none of the vertebrate fossils, as Brown (1995, 2001) incorrectly
implies, in the Messel fossil deposits are fossils of marine
vertebrates. In fact, the fossils found in the Messel deposits
reflect the animals found in a specific terrestrial ecosystem and
limited period of geologic time. Nobody has found any fossil, that
is obviously out-of-place, e.g. dinosaurs, humans, trilobites, that
would be indicative of the mixing of animal remains which is
implied by Brown (1995, 2001).

​

References Cited:

​

Anderson, L. C., and R. A. McBride (1996) Taphonomic and
paleoenvironmental evidence of Holocene shell-bed genesis and
history in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico shelf. Palaios,
vol. 11, pp. 532-549.

​

Armstrong, C. (1985) Florida fossils puzzle the experts. Creation
Research Society Quarterly. vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 198-199.

​

Brown, W. (2001) In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for
Creation and the Flood. Agards, Catheys Valley California.

​

Kidwell, S. M. (1986) Models for fossil concentrations:
paleobiologic implications. Paleobiology. vol. 12, pp. 6-24.

​

Kidwell, S. M. (1991) The stratigraphy of shell concentrations.
In P. A. Allison and D. E. G. Briggs, eds., pp. 211-290, Taphonomy,
Releasing the Data Locked in the Fossil Record (, eds.). New York:
Plenum Press.

​

Kidwell, S. M., F. T. Fursich, and T. Aigner (1986) Conceptual
framework for the analysis and classification of fossil
concentrations. Palaios. vol. 1, pp. 228-238.

​

McBride, R. A., M. R. Byrnes, L. C. Anderson, and B. K. Sen Gupta
(1996) Holocene and Late Pleistocene sedimentary facies of a
sand-rich continental shelf: A standard section for the
northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Gulf Coast Association of Geological
Societies Transactions. vol. 46, pp. 287-299.

​

Schaal, S. and W. Ziegler, eds. (1992) Messel, An Insight into
the History of Life and of the Earth. Oxford University Press.

​

Shipman, P. (1987) Dumping on Science. Discover. vol. 8, no. 12,
pp. 60-66.

​

Snelling, A. (1985) Tasmania's Fossil Bluff. Creation Ex Nihilo.
vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 6-10.

​

Vickers-Rich, P. and T. H. Rich (1993) Wildlife of Gondwana.
Reed, Chatswood, NSW, Australia."

​

4. Of Dinosaurs, Whales, Elephants, Horses, and Humans (South Carolina)

​

Mr. arkathon further noted:

​

"Dinosaur, whale, elephant, horse, and many other fossils, plus
crude human tools, have reportedly been found in phosphate beds
in South Carolina."

​

Mr. Littleton commented:

​

"In case of the South Carolina claims, they are based on papers
that date to the early 1800s and a person of unknown expertise.
The older citations can be questionable because in the 1800s,
paleontologists were often quite lax about noting exactly where
the fossils found and ascertaining the exact stratigraphic unit
from which it came. What then was called "the phosphate beds"
designated a thickness of strata now known to consist of separate,
well-defined stratigraphic units ranging from Miocene to
Pleistocene age. Given the lack of any accurate mapping and
knowledge of the geology of the area and rather lax collecting
policies of the 1800's, fossils of widely different locations and
strata were mixed together as simply coming from the "the phosphate
beds". The mix of fossils are an artifact of how these fossils were
collected instead of actually being contemporaneous in time or
coming from the same unit.

​

In addition, the material was collected from phosphate mines,
including spoil piles, in which fossil bones from all sorts of
strata would be mixed together along with artifacts left behind on
the ground surface in prehistoric times. Thus, the material
collected from these mines would be a mixture of fossils from a
wide range of time and include even human artifacts.

​

Finally, none of the published citations provide by Brown (1995)
fail to provide any convincing evidence that any dinosaur fossils
have been found in these deposits. There is simply not any
documented evidence that fossil dinosaurs have been found in
these deposits."

​

References Cited

​

Brown, W. (1995) In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation
and the Flood. Agards, Catheys Valley California.

​

5. Coal Balls and Out-Of-Place Angiosperms

​

Mr. arkathon mindlessly repeated:

​

"Coal beds contain round, black lumps called coal balls, some of
which contain flowering plants that allegedly evolved 100 million
years after the coal bed was formed."

​

Mr. Littleton commented:

​

"An angiosperm, described and named "Angiospermophyton americanum"
from a single coal ball from the O'Gara Mine No. 9, Coal Seam No. 5
near Harrisburg, Illinois by Hoskins (1923) and noted by Noe (1923).
Brown (1995) cites Noe (1923) as a source of the claim for coal
balls "which contain flowering plants which allegedly evolved 100
million years after the coal bed was formed." There exists an
exaggeration of the facts as only one coal ball containing one
specimen of "Angiospermophyton americanum" was reported. The
impression that numerous coal balls containing specimens of
"Angiospermophyton americanum" exist is certainly false. Also,
Brown (1995) overlooks an article, Seward (1923), in which it is
argued that the single fossil described by Hoskins (1923) is not
an angiosperm and is just an example of "Myeloxylon," a non-
angiosperm, Medullosan pteridosperms (seed fern). It appears that
"Angiospermophyton americanum" was just one of many plants fossils
ranging in age Carboniferous to Jurassic in age that were argued
to be either an angiosperm or displayed angiospermid characters.
In this case, both Dr. Brown has overlooked the fact that later
research has refuted the identification of this alleged out-of-place
fossil as the "flowering plant", which it was claimed it to be.

​

References Cited:

​

Brown, Walt (1995) In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for
Creation and the Flood. 6th ed, Center for Scientific Creation,
Phoenix, Arizona.

​

Noe, A. C. (1923) A Paleozoic Angiosperm. Journal of Geology.
vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 344-347. (May-June 1923)

​

Seward, A. C. (1923) A supposed Paleozoic angiosperm [from the
coal measures of Illinois]. Botanical Gazette vol. 76, no. 2,
p. 215."

​

6. Out-Of Place Pollen:

​

Mr. arkathon aimlessly repeated, once again:

​

"In the Grand Canyon, in Venezuela, in Kashmir, and in Guyana,
spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in
Cambrian rocks-rocks supposedly deposited before flowering plants
evolved. Pollen has also been found in Precambrian rocks-rocks
deposited before life supposedly evolved."

​

In this case, Mr. arkathon has badly garbled the facts. The **metamorphic rocks**, from which pollen has been reported in the Grand Canyon and Venezuela and Guyana, are Pre-Cambrian rocks, not Cambrian rocks. Thus, they are part of the various claims of pollen found in Precambrian rocks noted in the last sentence. Only the pollen from Kashmir has been alleged to occur in Cambrian strata. The case of the pollen found in Precambrian strata of the Grand Canyon has been discussed in great detail by:

​

1. Precambrian pollen by Morton, Glenn (1997)
http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/199709/0101.html

​

2.Out-of-Place Pollen
CC341: Out-of-place pollen

​

and

​

3. "Modern Pollen in the Proterozoic Hakatai Shale: Disproof of
Plant Evolution?" in " Strata of the Grand Canyon - Grand
Staircase" at:

​

http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grand.htm

​

Finally, an old earth creationist Arthur V Chadwick disputed the claims of out-of-place pollen in Grand Canyon rocks in:

​

Chadwick, Arthur V. (1981) Precambrian Pollen in the Grand Canyon -
A Reexamination. Origins vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 7-12.
Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that...

​

For the Venezuela, and British Guiana pollen, Mr. Littleton noted:

​

"The report of pollen being found the Precambrian Roraima Formation
of Venezuela, and British Guiana come from Stainforth (1966). The
rock from which Stainforth (1966) claims to have extracted well-
preserved pollen are what is described by him as "highly
metamorphosed" quartz and muscovite and quartz, muscovite, and
biotite hornfels that were severely "cooked" by thick dolerite sills.

​

Stainforth (1966) stated that one of the geologists, who processed
the pollen sample, noted it to be characterized by "an uncompressed
preservation highly unusual except in young sediments." At the
time of publication, the pollen assemblage had (not) been matched
against many known suite although ages from Cretaceous, Miocene, and
younger have been proposed by various palynologists.

​

In the thread "Re: Pollen," Message-ID:
<4tcia9$pl0@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>, Dr. Andrew Macrea,
about the Roraima pollen, wrote:

​

"Another classic example is pollen, including angiosperms,
from the Precambrian Roraima Formation (spelling?) from
the Tablelands of Venezuela. Like the Grand Canyon example,
they are also likely to be introduced, in particular because
the rocks are moderate metamorphic grade, and yet the pollen
grains were nearly unaltered and colorless. They should have
been baked crispy brown or black if they were in place in a
rock of that grade."

​

The preservation of pollen is completely inconsistent with the degree
that the rock from which they were allegedly has been altered by
metamorphism. It is impossible for highly metamorphosed strata to
contain the three-dimensional, well-preserved pollen that Stainforth
(1966) allegedly recovered from the Roraima Formation as discusses
by Dr. Macrea noted above.

​

References Cited:

​

Stainforth, R. M. (1966) Occurrence of Pollen and Spores
in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guinea.
Nature, Vol. 210, no. 16, pp. 292-294. (April 1966)"

​

Finally, if a person goes back to the primary literature, a person would find that there are major problems with reports of pollen having been found in Cambrian age strata of the Salt Range of Kashmir. The main problem is that the strata, from which the samples were collected, have been badly mangled by folding and thrust faulting. Younger and older strata have been tectonically interfaulted within the exposures from which the samples were collected. When the samples were collected for analysis, the presence of younger strata faulted within the Cambrian strata was not recognized. As a result, the samples of presumed Cambrian rocks analyzed easily could have included samples of much younger sedimentary rocks. As a result, the pollen bearing samples could have come from sedimentary rocks much younger than Cambrian in age. Unfortunately, information concerning the specific layers from the samples came from wasn't published and possibly not even initially noted. Thus, it is impossible using the information has been published in the literature to unequivocally demonstrate the specific age of the rock from which the pollen were collected given the complex geology of the outcrops.

​

7. Pseudo-Hoofprints in the grand Canyon

​

Mr. arkathon also claimed:

​

"A leading authority on the Grand Canyon even published photographs
of horselike hoofprints visible in rocks that, according to the
theory of evolution, predate hoofed animals by more than a hundred
million years."

​

Mr. Littleton explained:

​

"McKee (1982) did call these features "hoof-like". This is only
descriptive terminology that only described their semi-oval form.
This is a case where the Young Earth creationists have mistaken
taken a metaphor for reality. These alleged hoof-prints, are not
even animals tracks, but rather inorganic structures called "current
crescents ".

​

If a person is to assume, for sake of argument, that these features
are even animal tracks of some kind, the penknife in Figure E23 of
Mckee (1982) shows they are far too small to have made by a hoofed
horse. In the figure, they are strikingly oriented all in the same
direction and quite clearly inorganic current crescents. Discussing
these pseudo-tracks, Lockley and Hunt (1995) stated:

​

"... But careful studies show that most are
invertebrate traces or features produced by currents.
A review of all known reports of this type suggests
that a surprising number of invertebrate traces have
been misinterpreted as vertebrate tracks. We conclude
that, in most cases, the vertebrate track
interpretations are dubious at best and that each
example should be examined carefully and judged on its
own merits. In the case of the Supai Formation, of
course, we agree with Gilmore that the markings are not
vertebrate tracks-and they were definitely not made by
horses!"

​

Later, talking about similar alleged horse tracks, Lockley and Hunt
(1995) stated:

​

"Another example of controversy over tracks was
introduced in chapter 2 in our discussion of
horseshoe-like markings, of uncertain origin, found in
Paleozoic rocks of the Grand Canyon region. Similar
horseshoe-shaped markings have been observed in the
Mesozoic Moenkopi Formation (figure 3.7). These
particular tracks were studied by Frank Peabody, who
identified them as "current crescents" caused by the
scour of currents around a small pebble or other
obstruction on the sediment surface. Peabody was aware
of claims that such features, also found in Triassic
rocks in Germany and in Jurassic rocks in the
northeastern United States, were of vertebrate origin,
and he was anxious to make a correct interpretation for
the Moenkopi occurrences. We ourselves have seen such
features in Moenkopi sediments and agree with Peabody
that they are current crescents, not tracks. There are,
however, other horseshoe-shaped markings found in other
sedimentary rocks elsewhere that are not current
crescents."

​

References Cited:

​

Lockley, M., and A. P. Hunt (1995) Dinosaur Tracks: and Other Fossil
Footprints of the Western United States. Columbia University Press,
New York, New York.

​

McKee, Edwin D. (1982) The Supai Group of Grand Canyon. United
States Geological Survey Professional Paper no. 1173, United
States Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia."

​

8. More Pseudo-Hoofprints

​

Mr. arkathon also claimed:

​

"Other hoofprints are alongside 1,000 dinosaur footprints in Virginia."

​

Mr. Littleton noted:

​

According to Brown (1995), these other alleged "hoof prints" were
reported by Monastersky (1989) to have been found by Dr. Weems in
Triassic strata exposed by quarrying near Culpepper, Virginia.
Although described as "hoof-shaped," Brown (1995) overlooked
observations by Monastersky (1989) that stated:

​

"With left and right legs spread about 4 feet apart in
an extremely wide stance, this lumbering quadraped left
hoof-shaped prints in mud."

​

Such stance precludes this animal from being a horse. Dr. Robert E.
Weems, who studied these fossil prints infers that they actually
belong to a large reptile that looked like a flattened crocodile
with horns. Again, hoof-like prints are automatically regarded as
belonging to a horse regardless of contrary facts. Also, for further
discussion and pictures that refutes the "hoof-prints" claim by
Brown (1995), a person can go read Weems (1987).

​

References Cited:

​

Brown, Walt (1995) In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for
Creation and the Flood. 6th ed, Center for Scientific Creation,
Phoenix, Arizona.

​

Monastersky, R. (1989) A Walk along the Lakeshore, Dinosaur-Style.
Science News. vol. 136, no. 8, pp. 21. (July 1989)

​

Weems, R. E. (1987) A Late Triassic footprint fauna from the
Culpeper Basin, Northern Virginia (U.S.A.). Transactions of the
American Philosophical Society, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 1-79."

​

It is revealing in that the case for the Virginia footprints having been made by a horse was largely created by the omission of observations that readily disprove this claim.

​

9. To Bee Or Not To Bee

​

Mr. arkathon also claimed:

​

"Petrified trees in Arizona's petrified forest contain fossilized
nests of bees and cocoons of wasps. The petrified forests are
supposedly 220 million years old, while bees (and flowering plants
which bees require) supposedly evolved almost a hundred million
years later."

​

In this case, Mr. Littleton argued:

​

"These are real scientific discoveries although the source citation
used by Young Earth creationists is a popular newspaper article,
Hasiotis (1995), instead of any of his original published research.
The main problem with this argument is that there is nothing that
would preclude bees from having collected pollen, resin, and sap
from plants and coniferous trees prior to the development of
flowering plants. As noted by Hasiotis in Anonymous (1995): "Many
gymnosperms, a plant group that includes conifers and ferns, also
produce pollen. The ancient bees could have found sugars and
nutrients - which they find today in the nectar of flowers - in
coniferous plants or even in animal carcasses."

​

Given that fossils of the actual bees (hymenopteran insects) who
made the fossil nests found and described by Hasiotis et al. (1995)
(haven't been found), Young Earth creationists completely lack any
sort of evidence or proof that the "bees" which made the fossil
nests within the Triassic strata of Petrified Forest National
Park were same exact type of bees that are found associated with
flowering plants. The type of "bees", which made the Triassic nests,
quite likely were a different and earlier type of bee adapted to
either gathering spores from gymnosperms, such as conifers and ferns
or sugars and nutrients from either coniferous plants or other sources.

​

About these fossil nests, Hasiotis et al. (1995) stated:

​

"Late Triassic ichnofossil insect nests record very
early, yet advanced behavioral and morphological
characteristics of the Hymenoptera. These trace
fossils shed new light on hypotheses regarding the
timing of insect diversification and its co-evolution
with plants in terrestrial ecosystems. Insect
ichnofossils better constrain the age of origination of
numerous groups because they have a greater
preservation potential than do body fossils, which are
typically much rarer. Triassic ichnofossils of derived
hymenopteran insects extend the ages of these insects
by more than 100 million years (Hasiotis et al., 1995,
1996). Hymenopteran ichnofossils reveal more
information about behavior than do body fossils, which
can be used to interpret behavior solely through
functional morphology. The highly organized nest
configurations of Triassic hymenopteran ichnofossils
imply that complex behavior reflecting primitive
socialization and pollenization, was established long
before the advent of angiosperms; these organisms were
acting as pollinators in the Triassic terrestrial
ecosystems. The pre-established plant foraging and
feeding strategies of early Mesozoic hymenopterans
constitute a pre-adaptation for a later origin of
pollination mechanisms in early angiosperms, thus
favoring rapid angiosperm radiation and
diversification. Through time, these and other insects
probably switched plant resources (from gymnosperm-
cycadeiod to angiosperm) as they co-evolved with the
rapidly diversifying angiosperms to form the intricate
ecological relationships exhibited by insects and
angiosperms today."

​

One major headache that these fossils provide Young Earth
creationists concerning their ideas about the Noachian Flood is
that the bee cocoons and wasp nests, along with innumerable fossil
soils, called "paleosols", and the lack of any marine fossils
clearly show that the strata exposed within the Arizona Petrified
Forest accumulated on dry land and was not deposited underwater
during Noah's Flood.

​

References:

​

Anonymous (1996) Busy Bee. Campus Press. vol. ?,
pp. ??-??, (January 25, 1996) at:

​

BCN: Page Not Found

​

Hasiotis, Stephen T. (1995) Fossilized Combs Have
Scientists Abuzz. The Arizona Republic, 26 May 1995,
p. B7.

​

Hasiotis, S. T. R. F. Dubielz, P. T. Kay, T. M. Demko,
K. Kowalskal , and D. McDaniel (1995) Research Update on
Hymenopteran Nests and Cocoons, Upper Triassic Chinle
Formation, Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona.
NPS Paleontological Research vol. 3, pp. 116-121."

​

Some interesting web pages:

​

http://www2.nature.nps.gov/...ontology//pub/grd3_3/pefo2.htm

​

A Secret History of Life on Land
Carl Zimmer/(c)1998. Reprinted with permission of Discover Magazine.
USGS.gov | Science for a changing world

​

A person can go on forever seemingly in an analysis of the text bites of alleged evidence of Out-Of-Place Fossils presented by Mr. arkathon. However, a search of USENET posts using the Googles search will find similar detailed rebuttals demonstrating the scientifically bankrupt nature of many of items presented by him as taken from Young Earth creationist web pages.

​

Yours,

​

Bill Birkeland

On 07-07-2004 03:48 PM, Robert Byers wrote....religious discussion deleted..."To Mike King ( by the way welcome) there is no evidence
of long geologic history only evidence of history and
then human interpretation."One simple fact that various creationists forget here is that their specific reading of the various parts of the Bible is nothing more then their specific **human interpretation** of the Bible. This can be seen in the disagreements between Old Earth and Young Earth creationists, who are both Evangelical Christians, in how they interpret the Bible. To be truthful, a person also has to admit that Young Earth creationism is only one of many ways that fallible humans interpret the Bible.Robert Byers further wrote"The trip you offer would only show the same thing as my backyard.
Flat or folded or crushed rock creations. All explained, and more
plausibly, by events and not slow development."Unless the laws of physics and rock mechanics were suspended during creation, Noah's Flood, and at other times, there is abundant hard evidence of the processes having occurred in the formation of the rock record of both gradual and rapid development of sedimentary rocks, geologic structures, and many other aspects of so-called "rock creations". For example, in folded strata, a person finds abundant evidence of ductile deformation of rocks in the form of stretched pebbles, deformed fossils, and so forth. it is physically impossible for such deformation to have occurred with the rapidity advocated by Mr. Roberts without involving direct divine intervention by God to suspend the physics of rock mechanics to allow this to happen. The claim that it is "All explained, and more plausibly, by events and not slow development." is nothing more then arm-waving that contradicted by what is now known about geologic produces and basic principle of physics and chemistry."Look at any rock, almost, and it shows evidence of sudden
destruction."This is simply now true. Any textbook about sedimentology will readily refute this claim. A person can start with:Allen, J. R. L., 1985, Principles of Physical Sedimentology. The
Blackburn Press.
Principles of Physical SedimentologyThis book explains in great detail how sedimentary rocks that a person finds are readily explained in terms of common physical processes without any need to invoke "sudden destruction" related to Noachian Flood. This book shows how sand, silt, clay, and other particles are transported and deposited to create the sedimentary rocks, including the diagnostic sequence of sedimentary structures, that a person can see exposed in roadcuts, outcrops, and other exposures. Also, for many examples of how sedimentary rocks that can be seen in the field can be created by a wide variety of processes, unassociated with any type of Biblical "sudden destruction" and directly observable in modern rivers, shorelines, deltas, oceans, lakes, and elsewhere a person can look at:Boggs, Sam, Jr., 2001, Principles of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy.
3rd ed., Prentice Hall, New York.Walker, R. G. and James, N. P., eds., 1992, Facies models-response
to sea level change. Geological Association of Canada, St. John's,
Newfoundland.The concept of the stratigraphic record having been formed entirely by sudden destruction is completely refuted by the presence of innumerable paleosols that can be found throughout many sedimentary rocks. For examples of paleosols, fossil and buried soils, that demonstrate long period of inactivity during the deposition of individual layers of sedimentary rocks go see:1. Retallack, G. J., 1997, A Colour Guide to Paleosols. Chichester,
United Kingdom2. "SOILSCAPES OF THE PAST - This set of published reconstructions
of ancient landscapes and their soils provide an overview of the
evolution of soils and landscapes through geological time" at:http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~dogsci/retall/soils.html3. Wright, V. P., 1994. Paleosols in shallow marine sequences.
Earth-Science Reviews.vol. 37, pp. 367-395 see also pp. 135-137.4. Reinhardt, J., and Sigleo, W.R. (eds.), 1989. Paleosols and
weathering through geologic time: principles and applications.
Geological Society of America Special Paper 216, 181pp.5. Radiometric Dating, Paleosols and the Geologic Column :
Paleosols
Geology at 200 dThere are now hundreds of more papers documenting the presence of fossil soils, called "paleosols", in the sedimentary record. It is impossible for strata containing paleosols to have been created by any sort of Biblical sudden destruction.Robert further commented":"Flat rocks show evidence of uniform creation that does not occur
today anywhere because it does not happen."What evidence? I certainly challenge Mr. Brown to provide what he considers the five best pieces of "evidence" that demonstrate "uniform creation" so that the people on this list can evaluate for themselves the credibility of such evidence and if the processes associated with them truly "not occur today anywhere".The paleosols noted above, among many other evdience, clearly refutes the claim that the "creation" of sedimentary was as "uniform" as Mr. Brown claims it to be.Mr. Brown finally stated:"It takes a great event."In the case of sedimentary rocks in general, this statement is completely refuted by innumerable published books and papers, which include:Allen, P. A. & Allen, J. R., 1990, Basin analysis: principles and
applications. Blackwell, Oxford.Friedman, G. M., Sanders, J. E. and Kopaska-Merkel, D. C., 1992,
Principles of sedimentary deposits. Macmillan, New York.Leeder, M. R., 1982, Sedimentology-process and product. Allen &
Unwin, London.Leeder, M. R. 1999. Sedimentology and sedimentary basins: from
turbulence to tectonics. Blackwell, Oxford, 592 p.Nichols, G., 1999, Sedimentology and stratigraphy, Blackwell,
Oxford.Potter, P. E., Maynard, J. B. & Pryor, W. A., 1980, Sedimentology
of shale. Springer, New York.Reading. H. G., ed., 1996, Sedimentary environments and facies
(3rd ed.) Blackwell, Oxford.Reineck, H.-E. & Singh, I.B., 1980, Depositional sedimentary
environments with reference to terrigenous clastics (2nd ed.)
Springer, Berlin,Scholle, P. A. & Spearing, D., eds., 1982, Sandstone depositional
environments. American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir
no. 31.Scholle, P. A., Bebout, D. G. & Moore, C. H., eds., 1983, Carbonate
depositional environments. American Association of Petroleum
Geologists, Memoir no. 33.Tucker, M. E. & Wright, V. P., 1990, Carbonate sedimentology.
Blackwell, Oxford.Wilson, J. L., 1975, Carbonate facies in geologic history.
Springer, New York.If a person would read through any of the above books, they will find that numerous events of all types have created sedimentary rocks.Mr. Brown wrote:"You say offer experiments. Well since you say yours is the
dominate position accepted today. YOU FIRST. However you can't
nor I since geology is not a scientific study but a historical
study not open to testing."Contrary to what Mr. Roberts claims, geology is as scientific as criminal forensics. Below is a quote about geology that I like from Baker (2003)."This means that the geologist is more an investigator than a
theorist2: like a detective at a crime scene, the geologist relies
on the evidence and knowledge of the operative processes to
conclude what causes led to that evidence. The overall assemblage
of evidence, and the explanatory surprises that it may generate
('consilience'), are used to suggest fruitful lines of inquiry.
These tentative hypotheses are then subject to additional testing
against new evidence. In other words, the geologist lets the
planetary landforms tell their own 'story', just as the evidence
at a crime scene reveals its story to an experienced detective."Footnote 2 is:Gilbert, G. K., 1886, The Inculcation of Scientific Method by
Example, with an Illustration Drawn from the Quaternary Geology
of Utah." American Journal of Science , 3 rd ser., vol. 31,
pp. 284-299.References CitedBaker, V. R., 2003, Icy Martian Mysteries. Nature. vol. 426,
pp. 779-780.Finally, geology is open to testing. Geologists can test whether "sudden destruction" is needed to produce epsilon cross-stratification or not. They can test the conditions needed to produce different sedimentary structures, i.e. climbing ripples, different types of trough cross-bedding, planar bedding, and so forth; how different types of concretions and nodules are formed; how fossils are preserved and mineralized; how specific types of volcanic rocks are produced by specific volcanic eruptions; and so forth. From these observations, they can, like prehistoric Crime Scene Investigators (CSI), infer how ancient rocks are produced. (Geologists and paleontologists are the "CSI Gondwanaland" and "CSI Pangea" of the past.)Interested people can read:Kitts, David B., 1977, The Structure of Geology. Southern Methodist
University Press, Dallas, Texas.Yours,Bill

In message 314, Robert Byers wrote:"YES YES YES We insist as is our right and history in
America that revealed religion is a legitamate way to get
truth. Prove our revealations wrong. Fine."I think we have gotten way off the topic from the original discussion of fossil sorting. It has become quite apparent that Byers has no interest in trying to explain the way fossils are "sorted" within the sedimentary record either in terms of a Noachian Flood or demonstrating this sorting simply doesn't exist. He apparently doesn't want to discuss either topic. Rather, Mr. Byer seems more interested in a nebulous, know-nothing, arm-waving denunciation of evolution from his personal evangelical point-of-view, of which he is incapable of supporting with anything approaching either independently verifiable scientific evidence or logical detailed arguments.For example above he talks about people having to prove his "revelations" (from God??) false. However, he completely failed to present any evidence at all that the so-called "revelations" that he is giving are anything but his personal interpretations. I question this because having gone with people to their churches and mosques, other than the one I attend, I find that some people make the mistake of confusing their personal interpretation of scripture and religious opinions with either the "truth" or "revelations" from God. During these visits, I found that if these were real revelations or the "truth", than God (Allah) has given different people extremely contradictory revelations and versions of the "truth". All I can conclude is that all of these different revelations and versions of the "truth", which Byers and others have claimed as such, are too contradictory to all be real. Thus, Byers, as anyone else, who told me they know what the "truth" is, needs to provide some proof that their revelation / "truth" is actually what they claim it to be and not just their personal opinion confused with them.Thus, before Byers can challenge us to "Prove our revealations wrong", he needs to prove, using concrete, independently verifiable evidence, that his revelations / "truth" are actually real (and from God?) and not simply the fallible interpretations / opinions of a fellow fallible human being.Robert Byers wrote:"BUT you can not disqualify us from the race before it starts.
This is what your doing when you say we must show evidence
for the claims in Genesis BEFORE we can contend with
opponents. We don't."Well, Mr Byer disqualifies himself from the discussion. If a person doen't want to discuss the either data or observations about whether the Noachian Flood can account for the observed distribution of fossils in the sedimentary record, they shouldn't be here in the first place. If all a person can do is dismiss anything that contradicts his personal interpretations of the Bible, which he mistakenly confuses as being "revelations", as not being science, even though it is science, that person ends up disqualifying himself from the discussion as he obviously has no interest in discussing the topic of this thread in a scientific manner.An important part of science is having to defend one's ideas by showing objective and verifiable evidence and using logical arguments based on scientific principles. Personal interpretations, mislabeled as revelations, and religious texts, whether they be either the Bible, the Koran, or any other religious text, are neither of these. In science a person can't simply say that it is true because either the Bible, Koran, or some other religious text says it is true. (Of course, I have yet to come across a Bible that actually spoke to me and told me how to interpret it. Like all mere mortals, I have to read it and interpret it as to what it means.) A person must show hard evidence that can be interpreted using logical arguments, for their interpretations. Otherwise, they disqualify themselves from scientific discussions because they aren't doing science. They are just pounding everyone else on the head with a Bible insisting that we blindly accept their personal religious beliefs to be true....additional incoherent ranting and mumble jumble deleted...In Dinosaurs 4500 years ago, message 69, Byers wrote:" Creationists accept, as is the history of the English-speaking
people, the most intelligent people, ..."I now understand why Quebec wants to leave Canada and become a separate country. :-)Yours,BillThis message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 07-24-2004 11:51 PM

In message 336, Robert Byers"It seems clear these fossils in the field are just
sitting there. And just a product of a fossilization
EVENT. Not the result of millions of years of
accumulation. But suddenly."The proposal that there was just one fossilization event, is completely refuted by by an abundance of evidence. First, there is an abundance of evidence that shows that many fossils weren't immediately buried after the death of the animal. If Young earth creationists would bother to closely examine fossils bones and shells in an objective manner, they would find that the vast majority of hard parts had been either bored, gnawed, or otherwise chomped on before being buried. There is not going enough time during a global flood for animals to leisurely chomping on each other, while being buried under sediments at the rate of meters per hour.In addition, fossil shells are commonly encrusted by other organisms, including serpulid worm tubes, barnacles, encrusting echinoids, bryozoans, corals, algae, and foraminifera. For them to have been encrusted, the shells had to lay on the ocean bottom for an extended period of time as animals and algae can't live in muddy, sediment-filled water as it smothers animals and derives plants of the light they need for photosynthesis. This refutes the proposal that a single rapid event created all fossils.A specific example of this is the work of Stephen T. (Steve) Hasiotis as discussed in the February 1998 Discover Magazine in an article entitled "A Secret History of Life on Land" by Carl Zimmerman and in "Trace fossils of dermestid beetles" at:http://geowords.com/histbooknetscape/h28.htm
USGS.gov | Science for a changing worldThis research, Hasiotis examined the fossil bones of dinosaurs found at Dinosaur National Monument (DNM). A carefully examination of these bones found numerous borings made by dermestid beetles. These are beetles that lay eggs on dead and decaying corpses. The beetles that emerge from these eggs strip the remaining flesh on a corpse and chew into the underlying bones leaving very distinctive marks. The presence of these marks clearly show that the dinosaurs had died and lay exposed on solid ground long for eggs to be laid, the eggs to hatch, and for the beetles to eat the flesh down to and into the bone. It is quite obvious that these, and many other dinosaur bones found elsewhere with the same dermestid beetles marks, weren't drown and buried during a single Global Flood. Rather they died on solid ground where they decayed and were scavenged by a variety of animals including the beetles before their bones were eventually buried.Second, Mr. Byers and other Young earth creationists overlook the demonstrated fact that numerous accumulations of fossil bones, for example the vertebrate fossils of the Karoo system of South Africa and the Badlands of South Dakota, are preserved within calcareous nodules that formed within buried soils, called paleosols. These bones occur not within a **single** paleosol as a Noachian Flood would produced, but within hundreds of paleosols which occur throughout the vertical thickness of these strata. For example in one single 143 m (470 ft) interval of fossil-bearing strata, Rettallack (1993) observed and described 87 distinct paleosols (fossil soils), of which many contained fossils in calcareous nodules created by soil-forming processes.Each of these fossil soils (paleosols) represents an extended period of non-deposition separating a distinct period of sediment accumulation. The degree of development of the features in each soil clearly shows that sedimentation stopped and a stable, subaerial ground surface existed for hundreds, sometimes thousands of years. From these soils, it is clear that sedimentation completely stopped, at least 87 times within this 470-foot thick fossil-bearing sequence of sediments for hundreds to thousands of years, and that fossils found in the pedogenic calcareous nodules in different paleosols were buried at different times. It is impossible for the fossil bones found in different paleosols within the Badlands of South Dakota, and fossil bones found in innumerable other fossil soils (paleosols), as in the strata of the Karoo system, a favorite topic of John Woodmorappe, to have been the result of a single fossilization event. In addition, the highly weathered nature and gnawed aspects of many of the fossil bone showed that they accumulated over a period of time within the paleosols over a long period of time. They clearly weren't abruptly buried. The highly bioturbated and slightly weathered nature of the fine-grained sediments lying between the fossils soils demonstrated that these sediments accumulated gradually over a period of time, but fast to prevent the formation of any distinct soils.The Badland paleosols are discussed in:Retallack, G.J., 1983, Late Eocene and Oligocene fossil
paleosols from Badlands National Park, South Dakota. Special
Paper 193. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado.Information on the Karoo paleosols can be found in:Richardson, Darlene S., 1993, Paleosols of the Molteno and
Elliot formations of the Triassic Stormberg Group of the
Karoo System, Lesotho, Southern Africa. Geological Society
of America, Abstracts with Programs. Vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 399
(October 1993)Retallack, Gregory John, Smith, Roger M. H., and Ward, Peter
D., 2003, Vertebrate extinction across Permian-Triassic boundary
in Karoo Basin, South Africa. Geological Society of America
Bulletin. Vol. 115, no. 9, pp. 1133-1152 (September 2003)Smith, R. M. H., 1990a, Alluvial Paleosols and pedofacies
sequences in the Permian Lower Beaufort of the southwestern
Karoo Basin, South Africa. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology.
Vol. 60, no.2, pp. 258-276 (March 1990)Smith, R. M. H., 1990b, Paleoenvironmental interpretation of
alluvial Paleosols in the Lower Permian Karoo sequence,
South Africa. 13th International Sedimentological Congress
Abstracts. Vol. 13, pp. 504-505.A person could continue forever with evidence refuting the proposal that all fossils were buried in a single mythical fossilization event. However, one of the strongest evidence is the complexity of the stratigraphic record itself. There are numerous places were fossil bearing strata is separated by multiple angular unconformities, were required a complex history of deposition, lithification, deformation, uplift, and erosion repeated multiple times. In such deposits, it is quite clear that the fossils were buried and fossilized at very different times.Finally, another strong argument against a single period is the main point of this thread, the "sorting" of fossils found in geologic column. This can only be explained by different organisms having occupied the Earth at different periods of its history and being buried within sedimentary strata as it accumulated over an extended period of time. A single fossilization event is incapable of even explaining the biostratigraphy of vertebrate fossils within the Karoo system.Of course, Mr. Byer when confronted by evidence that he is incapable of explaining in any detail in terms of a single Noachian Flood dismisses it all out of hand as "it is just an explanation". However, it is an explanation based on fundamental principles of chemistry, physics, and biology and observed and documented processes. In contrast, the Young Earth creationist explanation is based being deaf, dumb, and blind to what can be seen in outcrops of geologic strata and willful ignorance and disregard of basic principles of chemistry, physics, and biology. (I can only hope that Young Earth creationists show more care and logic in their study of theology than they do in their study of geology.)Bill"Geology shows that fossils are of different ages.
Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of
species representing changes through time. Taxonomy
shows biological relationships among species.
Evolution is the explanation that threads it all
together. Creationism is the practice of squeezing
one's eyes shut and wailing "DOES NOT!"-- Dr. Pepper (a former contributer to another creation -
evolution messageboard.Note: More about the vertebrate fossils within the Karoo system can be found in " A Critical Look at Flood Geology" at:http://www.geocities.com/pgspears/f.htm

Robert Byerwrote:"I would also add that Darwin's biological idea was based on the
premise of a uniformatarian geology idea. Here comes the crash"This isn't true. In fact, Drawin theory of evolution contradicts two of Lyell's original principles of uniformitarianism, 1. uniformity of state and, in case of mass extinctions, 2. uniformity of rate. In fact, Darwin publically disagreed with the way Lyell originally formulated uniformitarian. How can Darwin's theory of evolution be based upon uniformintarianism when, if true, would refute it as originally defined by Lyell?Yours,Bill Birkeland