Cordova and Runyon on the fossil record

That’s exactly what he said:

There is only one layer that could possibly be described as “lower shale layer”, and it’s the correct one. He even quoted the page as saying:

Above the non-conformity (represented in red) is a Lower Cambrian sequence.

The Lower Cambrian sequence misses at this location the Zabriskie Formation (which is found immediately to the right of the area) and starts with the trilobite-rich Latham Shales, followed by the oncolite-rich Chambless Formation.


Another classic example is the (subtle) unconformity between the Ordovician and Silurian at this river cliff on the River Onny in the UK.

(Photo credit me)
Both the Purple Shales above and the Onny Shales below are highly fossiliferous.


Much better.

1 Like

The problem with that is that the fossils are above the unconformity, which can be fit into the Flood time scale: below the unconformity, ancient, lifeless, pre-Flood; above it, life in Flood deposits.

Sure, I just wanted to make it clear that @Timothy_Horton description of the unconformity was correct. @r_speir asked for unconformities that “contain traces of life”, so it wasn’t really clear which of the 2 contacting strata he was interested in. The unconformity refers to the relationship between 2 layers, not a particular one.


The point is that an unconformity with fossils above and below causes big problems for the flood model, as it requires sediment to be deposited, lithified, folded, and eroded, and then more sediment deposited atop the erosional surface, all in a few days.

1 Like

Those physical challenges are a huge problem for Flood geology even if the strata above and below contains no fossils. That’s the whole point. The “fossils” angle is just a distraction.

You still don’t understand do you. There are about 4.4 billion years of earth history before Noah’s Flood. Does that maybe give you a hint to the answer to your question?

1 Like

No.No.No, it does not present a problem. There is not a hard and fast rule about where fossils will reside in relation to an unconformity. I did not make that claim.

Many major unconformities will reside in basement rock. That will not always be the case. Again, there is no rule about this…!!!

Which you claim is almost completely devoid of life, right? That’s why finding fossils in pre-flood rocks is a problem for you.

1 Like

Not a problem at all. If you find fossils in what you think is a pre-Flood layer, then you are incorrect about the “pre-Flood” label. It is that simple.

Lol listen to yourself. In other words, no evidence can contradict your model, by definition.


Ahh well there you have it. If reality and doctrine differ, reality is wrong and doctrine is right.


So you lose the argument and make an appeal to doctrine? Strange that you would go where I have not even touched. How does this empty come-back make you look? Intelligent?

How did you come to that number for the age of the earth when you disregard the very same dating methods when they tell you that fossils are ancient?

What? How does one even respond to this intelligently? You do not understand what I am saying, so you make unintelligible accusations?

Not for r_speir. Remember, he’s an old earth, young life creationist Anything without fossils below it can be claimed to be a pre-flood rock, potentially billions of years old.

I believe radio-dating of the planet returns a very, old age. My private and personal thoughts on the matter however, are that the earth may be much older than the radio date return. We must rely on old lava flows to date the planet and the question becomes How deep has our oldest flow gone? Is there deeper material within the mantel that would date our planet very differently?

Yes. Does this mean that we finally understand one another? Should I count on that?

1 Like