No, he puts the boundary at the K/T.
1 Like
I like your description of burial order. Remove the churning chaotic upheaval that we creationists like to claim and a slow (but rapid within just a few months) burial of creatures describes exactly what we find.
Where is this perfect geologic column you describe? Pictures?
This one did.
How? By what physical mechanism? You have a great imagination but are batting .000 on the supporting evidence part. 
1 Like
First you claim “above” and “below”. In the next breath you more accurately but still so inaccurately state “in the rocks around”
So which is it? But I am still interested in this geologic column where you have dated rocks directly above and directly below fossils.
Do you really not know how radiometric dating works? Do you really not know how stratigraphy works. There are thousands of publications you could look at. Here’s one just as a sample:
Landing E., Bowring S.A., Davidek K.L., Westrop S.R., Geyer G., Heidmaier W. Duration of the Early Cambrian: U-Pb ages of volcanic ashes from Avalon and Gondwana. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 1998; 35:329-338.
I mention it because it has illustrations of stratigraphic columns showing both dated horizons and fossil horizons and because I happened to think of it first.
Well now I am disappointed. Back to my original question. Where is this perfect geologic column where rock directly above fossils and directly below has been dated?
I gave you a reference. Have you looked? There are many such papers, in which there are dates both above and below fossil beds. Of course all you really need for our purposes is the one above, since that would kill flood geology for anything below the date horizon.
1 Like
How do you account for that order? Did you read my topic OP for stratification of the fossil record?
2 Likes
[quote=“Timothy_Horton, post:108, topic:11275, full:true”]
r_speir I’d really appreciate if you answered the question instead of dodging.
1 Like
If we apply the same sort of faux mathematical reasoning used to claim “evolution is impossible” to this question, I think you will find it is FAR less likely than any claim against evolution.
1 Like
Yes, Wood does say that. But he also believes that evolutionary theory is not true. So he has to live in a form of cognitive dissonance, where all his intellectual training would lead him to conclude that evolution is real, but his YEC version of faith forbids him from drawing that conclusion. The book of nature and the book of Scripture appear to him to teach mutually incompatible truths. And there is no prospect, as far as I can see from anything that he has written, that he will ever be able to escape this conflict, for as long as he lives. Certainly not a position I would ever want to be in as a Christian.
The most obvious avenue toward a harmonious resolution would be for him to reconsider whether his reading of the book of Scripture is adequate. Perhaps he has done this, but I don’t know how thoroughly.
1 Like
A lot of things work well that are not true.
Could you be a little more expansive on this point?
It’s not such a bad thing as some people make it out to be. 
Agreed. At some point, the YEC position becomes a fascinating study in human psychology.
1 Like
The Catastrophic Plate Tectonics model suggests that the six Sloss megasequences are stages of flooding where the waters rose up, often with tsunamis attached, and then receded a bit and rose again higher, deluging different ecological systems at different altitudes. Tim Clarey is arguing from worldwide data that the first three megasequences resulted in minimal actual flooding of the pre-Flood continents, instead mostly affecting marine life. The next two were the major periods of flooding of the continents, and the Tejas megasequence occurred after the highest mountains were covered to a depth of 20 feet and was deposited during the period the floodwaters covered the earth and then receded.
The mechanism for this is the rapid subduction of the oceanic plates into the mantle, which resulted in the new sea floor being much hotter than the old one, causing it to sit higher in the mantle while the continental plates sate lower, leading to the whole earth being covered with water. During the period of subducation there would be oscillations of the continents causing the different megasequences by alternately raising and lowering the continents relative to the sea floor. Rapid plate subduction is based on an experimentally shown property of rocks called “thermal runaway”, whereby rock at high temp, pressure and shearing force deforms and gets more dense with temperature instead of less as it subducts. The evidence for this is cold regions of the mantle which have not equilibrated in temperature with the rest of the mantle (impossible for subduction rates observed today or an old earth).
The K/T boundary is a well known geologic feature found in many, many places around the world. Below this boundary you have dinosaurs. Above you do not. That K/T boundary has been dated using multiple different ratios of different isotopes. Nowhere can anyone find a dinosaur fossils above igneous rocks that have a specific ratio of isotopes in them. Here is a sample of some of the dates for the K/T boundary using multiple different pairs of parent and daughter isotopes:
What YEC needs to explain is how a flood can sort fossils so they correlate with the ratios of isotopes in igneous rocks above and below them. YEC also needs to explain why we get consistent dates when we apply the observed half-lives of the parent isotopes for multiple parent/daughter isotope pairs.
4 Likes
There is pretty much nothing in the Catastrophic Plate Tectonics model I find geologically credible, but for the moment, let us assume that is what actually happened. As per my post on the fossil record, if the all the creatures that ever lived did so at the same time as Noah’s flood, they would have died together. There is no mechanism for separating and stratifying the remains which measures up to the least degree of common sense let alone a rigorously scientific description. There are dinosaurs and mammals of the same size, speed, and ecological preferences, and yet these are completely segregated in the tens of thousands [at least] of specimens of the fossil record. This is exactly what would be expected given the conventional temporal story of life, but does not comport with a flood scenario at all. The given YEC explanations are painfully ad hoc.
2 Likes
You haven’t demonstrated that you understand the CPT model and how it explains the layers. So I have no idea which explanations you refer to as “painfully ad-hoc” or why.
I’ll ask again: How does the CPT explain the distribution of trilobites?
1 Like