[_ Old Earth _] The Noachian Flood and the Distribution of Fossils

[jwu]

That's charlie's post from the columnar basalt thread:

charlie:
It’s very possible the “air fall ignimbrites†were blasted through the water, high into the atmosphere, and settled back on the basin floor. But more likely, the Triassic and Jurassic , geologically, document the middle phases of a worldwide, catastrophic, tectonic and water inundation event.

O.K. Let’s back up and talk about my main point. Somehow we got sidetracked onto one of the secondary hypotheses.

[quote:f33f0]

charlie:
But more likely, the Triassic and Jurassic , geologically, document the middle phases of a worldwide, catastrophic, tectonic and water inundation event.

The various fossil assemblages represent, not evolutionary stages developing over many ages, but rather ecological habitats in various parts of the world in one age. Fossils of simple marine invertebrate animals are normally found at the lowest elevations in the geologic strata for the simple reason that they live at the lowest elevations. Fossils or birds and mammals are found only at the higher elevations because they live at higher elevations and also because they are more mobile and could escape burial longer. Human fossils are extremely rare because men would only very rarely be trapped and buried in flood sediments at all, because of their high mobility.

Dr. Henry Morris, Ph.D.

Hydraulic Engineering

http://www.icr.org/article/54/

1. Tertiary fossils include: large numbers of mammals including man and many birds.
2. Cretaceous fossils include: large dinosaurs and other reptiles, a few birds and a very few mammals (rare).
3. Jurassic fossils include: marine life, large and small dinosaurs, reptiles other than dinosaurs, a very few mammals (rare), and a very few now extinct birds.
4. Triassic fossils include: Fish, invertebrates, plants, salamanders, other reptiles, turtles, frogs, and very, very rarely, a mammal. Note, all these live at relatively low elevations.
5. The animal fossils in the Permian strata include:Trilobites, brachiopods, amphibians, and reptiles. Note, all these live at relatively low elevations.
6. The animal fossils in the Pennsylvanian strata include:Brachiopods, bivalves,cnidarians, echinoderms, and gastropods, again, all living predominantly at lower elevations
7. The Missippian is marked by all marine animal life, with the only vertebrate animals being the amphibians and fishes.
8. The Devonian is marked by all marine animal life, with the first amphibians showing up at the end of it’s chapter.
9. The Silurian period is marked by all marine life. No Amphibians are recorded.
10. The Ordovician again records all marine animal life.
11. The Cambrian, is, again, all marine animal life.


Note the digression from higher elevations to lower elevations. Also note the digression according to mobility. This is exactly how one would expect the fossil record to appear in a world wide flood. And note, each strata lies comformably upon the next, leaving no room for long ages. The only reason long ages were ever hypothesized is because ToE requires very, very long ages to even be considered remotely possible.

Alright, I'll catch up with you next week. Wifey has a long list of honey do's for me.

Cheers!! [/quote:f33f0]


Let's take a look at it piece by piece:

The various fossil assemblages represent, not evolutionary stages developing over many ages, but rather ecological habitats in various parts of the world in one age. Fossils of simple marine invertebrate animals are normally found at the lowest elevations in the geologic strata for the simple reason that they live at the lowest elevations. Fossils or birds and mammals are found only at the higher elevations because they live at higher elevations and also because they are more mobile and could escape burial longer. Human fossils are extremely rare because men would only very rarely be trapped and buried in flood sediments at all, because of their high mobility.

Dr. Henry Morris, Ph.D.

Hydraulic Engineering

http://www.icr.org/article/54/

Oh my...this is incredibly weak.
How many people die every year in flooding events? Mobility means little there, especially if one only has his legs or a horse at best and one wasn't warned. And of course, if there are no hills nearby because one lives in a plain. Or if one happens not to expect a global deluge (so one heads for the next mountain range) but just a large flooding, so one moves towards the next hill of a few dozen metres, on which one subsequently gets trapped by the rising waters.

Really, Morris isn't making any sense there.

Birds are the only ones who are excused by mobility.

1. Tertiary fossils include: large numbers of mammals including man and many birds.
2. Cretaceous fossils include: large dinosaurs and other reptiles, a few birds and a very few mammals (rare).
3. Jurassic fossils include: marine life, large and small dinosaurs, reptiles other than dinosaurs, a very few mammals (rare), and a very few now extinct birds.
4. Triassic fossils include: Fish, invertebrates, plants, salamanders, other reptiles, turtles, frogs, and very, very rarely, a mammal. Note, all these live at relatively low elevations.
5. The animal fossils in the Permian strata include:Trilobites, brachiopods, amphibians, and reptiles. Note, all these live at relatively low elevations.
6. The animal fossils in the Pennsylvanian strata include:Brachiopods, bivalves,cnidarians, echinoderms, and gastropods, again, all living predominantly at lower elevations
7. The Missippian is marked by all marine animal life, with the only vertebrate animals being the amphibians and fishes.
8. The Devonian is marked by all marine animal life, with the first amphibians showing up at the end of it’s chapter.
9. The Silurian period is marked by all marine life. No Amphibians are recorded.
10. The Ordovician again records all marine animal life.
11. The Cambrian, is, again, all marine animal life.

That's a nice selection of fossils, and it conveniently leaves out all those that don't fit the pattern, or it groups them under categories so that no-one notices them.

That "large number of mammals" of the tertiary also includes sloths, hedgehogs and so on. These are supposed to have outrun or outsmarted velociraptors and other fast dinosaurs?

And of course it doesn't even bother to mention plants except once in the triassic. All those land animals, fast or slow, were outrun by trees, grass and other plants?

I also kind of doubt the elevation information of this list. E.g. many species of salamanders are only at home in mountain ranges, and i see no correlation between invertebrates and elevation either

By the way...why would marine life be the first to die, and in that particular order?

 

[jwu]

PS:

From another thread:

Water didn't fully cover the earth until the

K/T boundary.

If the earth was fully covered by that time, how is the sorting of fossils among the cenozoic accounted for then? Even your own explaination for it ceases to work there then, as there were no higher grounds to flee to anymore, thus delaying the demise.

 

[Ambient]

It seems painfully obvious that hydrologic sorting would produce pretty much the same cross section of animals in whatever layer you are digging through. The slow and less boyant on the bottom and the faster at the top. You also wouldn't expect tools on the top layer since they would not have attempted an escape from the rain.

 

[LittleNipper]

It seems painfully obvious that hydrologic sorting would produce pretty much the same cross section of animals in whatever layer you are digging through. The slow and less boyant on the bottom and the faster at the top. You also wouldn't expect tools on the top layer since they would not have attempted an escape from the rain.

You would find tools in areas where humans settled. The most obvious conclusion is that man didn't live everywhere, nor would he hang around with dinosaurs who'd make a mess of his fields.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Hey Bro.

Looks as if I'm going to be out of pocket for a few weeks. We may have found a fully intact dinosaur skelton at the site I'm investigating:

From: Charlie Hatchett
Date: 09/29/06 06:54:51
To: bwishoff@ev1.net
Subject: That darn fossil!

Good Deal Brother Man!!

Every time I walk past that critter, I just shake my head, and think, what a waste. Not much, or any erosion of the specimen since you were last here. I was really shocked that Julian didn't want to attempt the excavation. It appears to be a whole, or a least mostly intact specimen.

I've also been trying to figure out why your not out here working on this midden (subunit Mike). Another waste. I went by the midden the other day just to check on it, and found a little old man hiding behind some trees...just shaking. I felt so sorry for the guy. I chatted with him, and tried to put him at ease, and then continued on South to see how far the midden extended out into the cultivated field. When I came back by where he had been digging, he had disappeared into the woods. At the bottom of the feeder creek that runs by the midden, I've also found an exposed portion of Igl (subunit Tango):

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/site29.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/site29a.jpg



Dude,your not going to hurt my feelings a bit if you want to get permission to dig the site, and conduct the dig yourself (The Wishoff Site?). I just don't have time to hit everything along the creek. My focus is still on the Pleistocene gravels (equivalent to Wilson-Leonard, TARL designation Igl), and the worked flint unraveling out of them. I know...you think I'm crazy, but sometimes a fella has to go with his gut.

Dr. Jim Bischoff (emeritus), with the USGS, is Uranium-Thorium dating the carbonate on two of the artifacts as we speak. There's a team of three geologists that have a hunch these pieces unraveling out of the gravels might be from the Sangamonian Interglacial (80,000-220,000 B.P.), due to the thickness of the calcrete coatings. They feel the gravels might mark the beginning of the Wisconsin glacial advance. Because of the thickness of the calcrete coatings, it's postulated the coated flint pieces are at least as old as the last prolonged dry spell prior to the Wisconsin. Guess we'll see...

Here's the two specimens I sent him:

I.

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... s%2032.jpg

4" biface- dorsal view

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... s%2035.jpg

Ventral view

II.

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20122.jpg

4.5" biface- dorsal view

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20123.jpg

Ventral view

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20124.jpg

Distal view


O.K., enough...I'm writing you a novel...lol. Call me or e-mail me when you get done with class, or tomorrow, and we'll chat some more.

Good hearing from you bro,

Charlie
-------Original Message-------

From: Bob Wishoff - dirtbrothers.org/outlawforpeace.com
Date: 09/29/06 01:54:28
To: Charlie Hatchett
Subject: That darn fossil!

Whatcha up to Charlie???
I've been driving 200 miles roundtrip for 2 hours of classes, four damn days a week... ain't it great?!
(am posting my lecture notes online... check it out sometime!)
ANYWAYS, I never hear from you... thinking you forgot me... LOL... but me, I never forget stuff LOL
Me and Charlie2 (Swenson) were drivin over to The University of Texas Archeological Research Laboratory to look some stuff up, when I get this brilliant idea to follow-up on that fossil... see if Julian did contact the Vertebrate Paleontology Lab... he hadn't...

long story short
I sent them the shots I took, and they think it's dinosaur... that the exposed bits are vertebrae (I told him skull or vertebrae)
They are going to work on getting out there and possibly extracting this important fossil--- much, much more important than a mere ancient croclike thing-- a real dinosaur type fossil...
hot damn, boy
yer fixin to be a star member o' de public son
if this proves to be a new species, why , they said they'd name the damn thing for you
wow Hatchetsaurus Tex
chop chop chew chew

gimme a holler!
(2morrow have classes from 10:30 till 1:00... am meeting with a prof after class-- call me around 5 or so bro, or sometime Saturday...
Bob

This potential dino was found in the stratum (younger) that eroded off the furnace structures I've been investigating:

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... siron.html

Also, the USGS has requested two stone artifact specimens to date via Uranium/ Thorium decay. Their in the process of testing them as I type.

Anyway, didn't want to be rude, and leave you hanging without an explanation.

Chat with you in a few weeks.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Hey Bro.

Looks as if I'm going to be out of pocket for a few weeks. We may have found a fully intact dinosaur skelton at the site I'm investigating:

From: Charlie Hatchett
Date: 09/29/06 06:54:51
To: bwishoff@ev1.net
Subject: That darn fossil!

Good Deal Brother Man!!

Every time I walk past that critter, I just shake my head, and think, what a waste. Not much, or any erosion of the specimen since you were last here. I was really shocked that Julian didn't want to attempt the excavation. It appears to be a whole, or a least mostly intact specimen.

I've also been trying to figure out why your not out here working on this midden (subunit Mike). Another waste. I went by the midden the other day just to check on it, and found a little old man hiding behind some trees...just shaking. I felt so sorry for the guy. I chatted with him, and tried to put him at ease, and then continued on South to see how far the midden extended out into the cultivated field. When I came back by where he had been digging, he had disappeared into the woods. At the bottom of the feeder creek that runs by the midden, I've also found an exposed portion of Igl (subunit Tango):

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/site29.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/site29a.jpg



Dude,your not going to hurt my feelings a bit if you want to get permission to dig the site, and conduct the dig yourself (The Wishoff Site?). I just don't have time to hit everything along the creek. My focus is still on the Pleistocene gravels (equivalent to Wilson-Leonard, TARL designation Igl), and the worked flint unraveling out of them. I know...you think I'm crazy, but sometimes a fella has to go with his gut.

Dr. Jim Bischoff (emeritus), with the USGS, is Uranium-Thorium dating the carbonate on two of the artifacts as we speak. There's a team of three geologists that have a hunch these pieces unraveling out of the gravels might be from the Sangamonian Interglacial (80,000-220,000 B.P.), due to the thickness of the calcrete coatings. They feel the gravels might mark the beginning of the Wisconsin glacial advance. Because of the thickness of the calcrete coatings, it's postulated the coated flint pieces are at least as old as the last prolonged dry spell prior to the Wisconsin. Guess we'll see...

Here's the two specimens I sent him:

I.

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... s%2032.jpg

4" biface- dorsal view

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... s%2035.jpg

Ventral view

II.

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20122.jpg

4.5" biface- dorsal view

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20123.jpg

Ventral view

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20124.jpg

Distal view


O.K., enough...I'm writing you a novel...lol. Call me or e-mail me when you get done with class, or tomorrow, and we'll chat some more.

Good hearing from you bro,

Charlie
-------Original Message-------

From: Bob Wishoff - dirtbrothers.org/outlawforpeace.com
Date: 09/29/06 01:54:28
To: Charlie Hatchett
Subject: That darn fossil!

Whatcha up to Charlie???
I've been driving 200 miles roundtrip for 2 hours of classes, four damn days a week... ain't it great?!
(am posting my lecture notes online... check it out sometime!)
ANYWAYS, I never hear from you... thinking you forgot me... LOL... but me, I never forget stuff LOL
Me and Charlie2 (Swenson) were drivin over to The University of Texas Archeological Research Laboratory to look some stuff up, when I get this brilliant idea to follow-up on that fossil... see if Julian did contact the Vertebrate Paleontology Lab... he hadn't...

long story short
I sent them the shots I took, and they think it's dinosaur... that the exposed bits are vertebrae (I told him skull or vertebrae)
They are going to work on getting out there and possibly extracting this important fossil--- much, much more important than a mere ancient croclike thing-- a real dinosaur type fossil...
hot damn, boy
yer fixin to be a star member o' de public son
if this proves to be a new species, why , they said they'd name the damn thing for you
wow Hatchetsaurus Tex
chop chop chew chew

gimme a holler!
(2morrow have classes from 10:30 till 1:00... am meeting with a prof after class-- call me around 5 or so bro, or sometime Saturday...
Bob

This potential dino was found in the stratum (younger) that eroded off the furnace structures I've been investigating:

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... siron.html

Also, the USGS has requested two stone artifact specimens to date via Uranium/ Thorium decay. Their in the process of testing them as I type.

Anyway, didn't want to be rude, and leave you hanging without an explanation.

Chat with you in a few weeks.

 

[jwu]

Could you explain how this relates to the topic at hand?

I don't even see any dino fossils on the images, and even if there are some that i miss, i fail to see the relevance. What is special about them?
If i recall correctly the strata that you have been investigating are cretaceous. The cretaceous lasted about 80 million years, so unless your strata were right below the K/T boundary, the above strata can easily have been cretaceous as well.

And what about my objections to your line of reasoning in the first post that i quoted?

 

[LittleNipper]

Could you explain how this relates to the topic at hand?

I don't even see any dino fossils on the images, and even if there are some that i miss, i fail to see the relevance. What is special about them?
If i recall correctly the strata that you have been investigating are cretaceous. The cretaceous lasted about 80 million years, so unless your strata were right below the K/T boundary, the above strata can easily have been cretaceous as well.

And what about my objections to your line of reasoning in the first post that i quoted?

I believe the explanation is that dinosaur fossils are likely found with occasional "ancient" human activity evident, but the devout evolutionist will ponder a "rational" explanation and the general public will be none the wiser, because such things are quietly ignored------so as not to confuse students, who may not be "scientifically reasonable." I remember at least two instructors who admitted that confusing data is often set aside (ignored) for later consideration (filed away) in order that such data does not contaminate (contradict) what has already been determined (believed to be true).

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Well, i guess we won't get anywhere if we now begin to argue in how far that point about not the whole earth being covered by that time was supposed to get clear with the earlier posts, so i'll leave it at that.

However...these tuffs are triassic. You previously said that the strata from the cambrian to the mesozoic or something like that (either way, way later than the triassic) were laid down by the noachian flood.

That leaves some questions: Where did the underlying strata come from? was it submerged at some time, rose above the waters, had the tuffs deposited, and then was submerged again?

What is the range of strata during which the earth was supposedly completely covered by water?

My hypothesis, at this point, is the flood strata ranges from ca. The Cambrian to somewhere around the K/T boundary:

As to the lower strata, I hypothesize they mark the earlier phases of the flood, being generally at a lower elevation than the overlying strata. That would explain the proliferation of marine organisms in the lower strata and land animals appearing in the upper strata:

The lack of a worldwide uncomformity between the different strata leads me to hypothesize there is no great age difference between each of the strata.


Quote (charlie):

Water didn't fully cover the earth until the K/T boundary.

If the earth was fully covered by that time, how is the sorting of fossils among the cenozoic accounted for then? Even your own explaination for it ceases to work there then, as there were no higher grounds to flee to anymore, thus delaying the demise.

The K/T boundary includes the Tertiary. The Tertiary is part of the Cenozoic. Man appears in the Tertiary, which is the top of my hypothesized flood strata. The geologic column displays survival of the fittest at it’s most extreme, in a very, very short period of time.


Quote (charlie):

1. Tertiary fossils include: large numbers of mammals including man and many birds.
2. Cretaceous fossils include: large dinosaurs and other reptiles, a few birds and a very few mammals (rare).
3. Jurassic fossils include: marine life, large and small dinosaurs, reptiles other than dinosaurs, a very few mammals (rare), and a very few now extinct birds.
4. Triassic fossils include: Fish, invertebrates, plants, salamanders, other reptiles, turtles, frogs, and very, very rarely, a mammal. Note, all these live at relatively low elevations.
5. The animal fossils in the Permian strata include:Trilobites, brachiopods, amphibians, and reptiles. Note, all these live at relatively low elevations.
6. The animal fossils in the Pennsylvanian strata include:Brachiopods, bivalves,cnidarians, echinoderms, and gastropods, again, all living predominantly at lower elevations
7. The Missippian is marked by all marine animal life, with the only vertebrate animals being the amphibians and fishes.
8. The Devonian is marked by all marine animal life, with the first amphibians showing up at the end of it’s chapter.
9. The Silurian period is marked by all marine life. No Amphibians are recorded.
10. The Ordovician again records all marine animal life.
11. The Cambrian, is, again, all marine animal life.

That's a nice selection of fossils, and it conveniently leaves out all those that don't fit the pattern, or it groups them under categories so that no-one notices them.

That "large number of mammals" of the tertiary also includes sloths, hedgehogs and so on. These are supposed to have outrun or outsmarted velociraptors and other fast dinosaurs?

And of course it doesn't even bother to mention plants except once in the triassic. All those land animals, fast or slow, were outrun by trees, grass and other plants?

I also kind of doubt the elevation information of this list. E.g. many species of salamanders are only at home in mountain ranges, and i see no correlation between invertebrates and elevation either

By the way...why would marine life be the first to die, and in that particular order?

Quote (charlie):

The various fossil assemblages represent, not evolutionary stages developing over many ages, but rather ecological habitats in various parts of the world in one age. Fossils of simple marine invertebrate animals are normally found at the lowest elevations in the geologic strata for the simple reason that they live at the lowest elevations. Fossils of birds and mammals are found only at the higher elevations because they live at higher elevations and also because they are more mobile and could escape burial longer. Human fossils are extremely rare because men would only very rarely be trapped and buried in flood sediments at all, because of their high mobility.

Dr. Henry Morris, Ph.D.

Hydraulic Engineering

http://www.icr.org/article/54/

Oh my...this is incredibly weak.
How many people die every year in flooding events? Mobility means little there, especially if one only has his legs or a horse at best and one wasn't warned. And of course, if there are no hills nearby because one lives in a plain. Or if one happens not to expect a global deluge (so one heads for the next mountain range) but just a large flooding, so one moves towards the next hill of a few dozen metres, on which one subsequently gets trapped by the rising waters.

Really, Morris isn't making any sense there.

Birds are the only ones who are excused by mobility.

Your first statement means little. Dr. Morris was a doctorate level hydraulic engineer, who studied the geologic column the vast majority of his long life.

I agree there are exceptions to the overall mobility/ elevation variable, such as a crippled human, but these exceptions would be rare compared to the overall fossil record formation, hence making them a very rare find. Then you have the circular reasoning of academia: if man is found in the stratum, then the strata is assigned as Tertiary. But, for the most part, it makes total sense. Marine invertebrates, living at low elevations and being relatively immobile would be the first to be covered by the stirred up ocean floor sediments. Follow the mobility/ elevation variable up the geologic column and see if you don’t agree that the pattern makes sense in a macro sense.

I think an interesting issue to investigate is the correlation between the strata in which a particular species is found, and it’s metabolism (warm or cold blooded- mobility). It appears there’s a strong correlation between warm-blooded, very mobile species and the sequence of deposition. The first unequivacable warm-blooded species to appear in the column are mammals. As you probably know, the debate between dinosaurs being warm or cold-blooded is a hotly debated topic.

As to the plants, there are species at all elevations. Simple, ocean marine invertebrates, no...

 

[jwu]

As to the lower strata, I hypothesize they mark the earlier phases of the flood, being generally at a lower elevation than the overlying strata. That would explain the proliferation of marine organisms in the lower strata and land animals appearing in the upper strata:

And why would a flood have killed those marine organisms? They do rather well in water.

Moreover, why are the ones which wwe find in e.g. the cambrium so different than those which are alive today?

The K/T boundary includes the Tertiary. The Tertiary is part of the Cenozoic. Man appears in the Tertiary, which is the top of my hypothesized flood strata. The geologic column displays survival of the fittest at it’s most extreme, in a very, very short period of time.

You're quite mistaken there. The K/T boundary is a transition layer between cretacous and tertiary, it doesn't include any significant portion of neither of the layers and is only a few inches thick.
And we're in the quarternary now, not the tertiary.

Your first statement means little. Dr. Morris was a doctorate level hydraulic engineer, who studied the geologic column the vast majority of his long life.

An appeal to authority won't make my refutation go away.

I agree there are exceptions to the overall mobility/ elevation variable, such as a crippled human, but these exceptions would be rare compared to the overall fossil record formation, hence making them a very rare find.

How about those who live on a plain with no mountains nearby? Or those who fled on a hill and then got trapped by the waters?
And by the way...even today mobility means little in flooding events. I think you're quite aware how many people die there

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood#Sign ... ern_floods

E.g. between 800.000 and 4.000.000 dead in a flood in China.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1931_Huang_He_flood
Why didn't their mobility save them?

Then you have the circular reasoning of academia: if man is found in the stratum, then the strata is assigned as Tertiary.

No, just no. While early humans (which did not bury their dead) can be used as an index fossil, this is only done if the stratum doesn't have an age assigned yet. If such remains were found in e.g. jurassic strata, then that'd stir up quite some dust.

Marine invertebrates, living at low elevations and being relatively immobile would be the first to be covered by the stirred up ocean floor sediments.

Except that these don't all live at the ocean flood but are quite capable of swimming.

E.g. sponge fossils have been found in the devonian, jurassic and cretaceous

And by the way...your own image up there shows clams as typical fossils of some "medium old" strata...why weren't these killed?

Another thing are corals...they're extremely sensitive to their environment, and couldn't possibly grow during a global flood which stirs up the sediments. Moreover, they grow extremely slowly, even if they were capable of living under such conditions there isn't nearly as much time for them to form in a one year flood.
Yet they are found all over the geologic column; cambrium, devonian, permian, triassic, jurassic, cretaceous and cenozoic.

I think an interesting issue to investigate is the correlation between the strata in which a particular species is found, and it’s metabolism (warm or cold blooded- mobility). It appears there’s a strong correlation between warm-blooded, very mobile species and the sequence of deposition. The first unequivacable warm-blooded species to appear in the column are mammals. As you probably know, the debate between dinosaurs being warm or cold-blooded is a hotly debated topic

Mobility however has little to do with survival though, for the aforementioned reasons. It can save one in lucky circumstances, with sufficiently high regions nearby, but even then not everyone, these hills can become death traps if the flood rises higher, and in many places there simply are no elevations nearby that one could flee too.

As to the plants, there are species at all elevations.

There are...the problem is which ones they are.
E.g. conifers, even though an very ancient taxa, show a clear pattern of distribution. Those genera which are found today can be traced back up to 60 million years, prior to that there are different genera.

Palaeobotany deals with the change of plant life over many millions of years, there is a lot of that...why don't we find modern oak trees in the cambrium?

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

jwu:
And why would a flood have killed those marine organisms? They do rather well in water.

Moreover, why are the ones which wwe find in e.g. the cambrium so different than those which are alive today?

The stirred up ocean floors sediments would have covered the bottom dwellers, and those living close to the bottom, first (don’t know if they would have died first). Many of the relatively immobile bottom dwellers became extinct.

You're quite mistaken there. The K/T boundary is a transition layer between cretacous and tertiary, it doesn't include any significant portion of neither of the layers and is only a few inches thick.
And we're in the quarternary now, not the tertiary.

That’s fine and dandy in theory, but in the field, it’s not that clear cut. Let me give you an example from the site I’m researching:

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/site11.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/site24.jpg

Igl, Isi and Icl are presumed Cenozoic deposits. Ked is Late Cretaceous limestone. In Ica and Ice, the problems with interpretations begin. These two strata covered the smelting furnace, blowholes, and intricate mold carved into the Ked limestone. The Ica stratum contains the dinosaur from which The University of Texas’ Vertebrate Paleontology Lab is excavating. So by standard geologic dating, this stratum would be dated, at youngest, Late Cretaceous. But then you have solid proof of man (or some really smart dinosaurs) smelting iron below the “Late Cretaceous†stratum.

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%2037.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%2028.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%2029.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%2012.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%2011.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%2097.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%2054.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%2055.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%2056.jpg


Then you have solid evidence of man and dinosaurs concurrently stomping around in carbonate rich mud, also along the Balcones Escarpment, 100 miles North:

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-3b-java.htm

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-3b-ov ... mation.gif

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-3b-cl ... mation.gif

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor+3-1972.jpg

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor+1-cast-1970.jpg

So, in the standard geologic column, where do we position this strata?

How about those who live on a plain with no mountains nearby? Or those who fled on a hill and then got trapped by the waters?
And by the way...even today mobility means little in flooding events. I think you're quite aware how many people die there

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood#Sign ... ern_floods

E.g. between 800.000 and 4.000.000 dead in a flood in China.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1931_Huang_He_flood
Why didn't their mobility save them?

10 And after the seven days the floodwaters came on the earth.
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second monthâ€â€on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.
Genesis 7:11-12

Note the hypothesized flood occurred over a period of 40 days. This is not a sudden occurance, like a dam breaking, a flash flood or a Tsunami. Man could have traveled 2,000 miles in this time frame, assuming a pace of 3 miles/hour for 16 hours a day...or less sleep and time to eat and drink. He also possessed the intelligence of where to head in a macro sense. The other creatures did not.

No, just no. While early humans (which did not bury their dead) can be used as an index fossil, this is only done if the stratum doesn't have an age assigned yet. If such remains were found in e.g. jurassic strata, then that'd stir up quite some dust.

See above. Break out your duster.

Except that these don't all live at the ocean flood but are quite capable of swimming.

E.g. sponge fossils have been found in the devonian, jurassic and cretaceous

And by the way...your own image up there shows clams as typical fossils of some "medium old" strata...why weren't these killed?

Another thing are corals...they're extremely sensitive to their environment, and couldn't possibly grow during a global flood which stirs up the sediments. Moreover, they grow extremely slowly, even if they were capable of living under such conditions there isn't nearly as much time for them to form in a one year flood.
Yet they are found all over the geologic column; cambrium, devonian, permian, triassic, jurassic, cretaceous and cenozoic.

Because they live at different elevations. The lower elevations...Devonian, the higher elevations...Cretaceous.

Mobility however has little to do with survival though, for the aforementioned reasons. It can save one in lucky circumstances, with sufficiently high regions nearby, but even then not everyone, these hills can become death traps if the flood rises higher, and in many places there simply are no elevations nearby that one could flee too.

I disagree. See my discussion above for my explanation concerning long term, thought out mobility and intelligence.

There are...the problem is which ones they are.
E.g. conifers, even though an very ancient taxa, show a clear pattern of distribution. Those genera which are found today can be traced back up to 60 million years, prior to that there are different genera.

Palaeobotany deals with the change of plant life over many millions of years, there is a lot of that...why don't we find modern oak trees in the cambrium?

Conifers exist at all elevations: Cyprus in swamps, Fir in the highest of mountains...

As to no Oaks being in Cambrian strata, no land life is present in the Cambrian, so we wouldn’t expect Oaks.

Peace Bro 8-)

 

[Barbarian]

So why don't we find oaks in Triassic deposits anywhere at all? Why not just accept that the fossil record says what it ways?

 

[LittleNipper]

So why don't we find oaks in Triassic deposits anywhere at all? Why not just accept that the fossil record says what it ways?

1. We have not looked everywhere.
2. Do we know what sorts of trees make up our coal deposits?
3. Perhaps oak was far more susceptible to rot, etc...
4. Perhaps the floating capacity of oak to other sorts of trees once water soaked was different.

 

[Slevin]

1. We have not looked everywhere.
2. Do we know what sorts of trees make up our coal deposits?
3. Perhaps oak was far more susceptible to rot, etc...
4. Perhaps the floating capacity of oak to other sorts of trees once water soaked was different.

Ad hoc answers.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

The Barbarian wrote:
So why don't we find oaks in Triassic deposits anywhere at all? Why not just accept that the fossil record says what it says?

Little Nipper

1. We have not looked everywhere.
2. Do we know what sorts of trees make up our coal deposits?
3. Perhaps oak was far more susceptible to rot, etc...
4. Perhaps the floating capacity of oak to other sorts of trees once water soaked was different.

I think Nittle Nipper makes an excellent point: The correlation between softwoods and hardwoods and buoyancy. It appears all the Triassic trees were softwoods.

This is why water-logged soft, porous woods will sink in water when all their air spaces become filled with water. Ironwoods are so hard and heavy because they contain numerous long, tightly-packed wood fiber cells with very thick, heavily lignified cell walls and little or no air spaces.

http://waynesword.palomar.edu/plsept99.htm

During the Triassic Period, from about 225 million to 190 million years ago, the two dominant flora were cycadophytes and conifers. The cycadophytes were relatively small cycad-like trees; some of the conifers grew to about 220 ft (60 m) in height and 10 ft (3 m) in diameter. The conifers often grew in large forests, in marshes, and in other very humid habitats.

http://www.sierra.cc.ca.us/museum/exhib ... ossils.htm

During the Triassic...No flowering plants, grasses or hardwood trees until Cretaceous.

http://gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/mesozoic.htm

Catch up with ya'll this weekend.

Peace

 

[Barbarian]

Nope. "Differntial escape." Oaks can run faster than pines, you know...

 

[Barbarian]

I get it. Cedar trees living in the lowlands outran the slower pine trees living on mountains, so they are found higher in the geologic column.

How silly of me not to have realized it.

 

[Guest]

4. Perhaps the floating capacity of oak to other sorts of trees once water soaked was different.

I get it. Cedar trees living in the lowlands outran the slower pine trees living on mountains, so they are found higher in the geologic column.

How silly of me not to have realized it.

You appear to be speaking in tongues. What the heck are you talking about...running trees? I take it your parents had to sign a form for you to get on here?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian on the notion that different levels of deposits reflect "differential escape.":

I get it. Cedar trees living in the lowlands outran the slower pine trees living on mountains, so they are found higher in the geologic column.

How silly of me not to have realized it.

You appear to be speaking in tongues. What the heck are you talking about...running trees?

Cedar trees exist on lower levels than conifers, and yet they are higher in the geologic column. According to YE creationism, that is explained by differential escape.

I take it your parents had to sign a form for you to get on here?

Fortunately not. They are both deceased.

 

[Guest]

Cedar trees exist on lower levels than conifers, and yet they are higher in the geologic column. According to YE creationism, that is explained by differential escape.

What, different buoyancies of wood??? Nonsense...dude... :o

Your not serious are you...differential escape...never heard of the term.

I can see how this might apply to mobile organisms, but not immobile organisms.