Thanks for responding to my queries re your page 'Fish to Amphibian'.
I'm sure you will agree that an understanding of the true nature of the
Noahic Flood is crucial to the current debate, and that no stone be left
unturned in our efforts to clarify the matter. For an evolutionist like
yourself this, clearly, is no longer an issue: the inundation must have
been 'local'. However, as one who takes the Bible - and its warnings -
seriously, I have a problem with this view, for it flies in the face (a)
of the powerful narrative of Genesis 6-9, (b) of statements made by our
Lord and Peter (Mt.24:37-39, Lk.17:26-27, 1Pe.3:20), and (c) of common
sense.
For example, in the evolutionary scenario life would have extended far
beyond any site proposed for the alleged 'local' flood. Yet we read 'All
flesh that moved on the earth perished...', ie God sent the Flood to
destroy both both man and animal because both were corrupt. How could
this be accomplished other than by submerging the whole earth in water?
God's Covenant was with the entire globe (Gn.9:9-10). Does this make any
sense if the Flood were local? Again, the whole account is one of a
're-creation' - as we discover by comparing Gn.9:1 with Gn.1:28, Gn.9:2
with Gn.1:28, and Gn.9:4-5 with Gn.1:29-30. [Interestingly, this is
confirmed numerically in that Gn.8:14 (marking the end of the old order,
and heralding the new) has - in the original Hebrew - the same value as
Gn.1:1, viz 2701 - a large triangular number with impressive
attributes!]
For these reasons I believe Christians need to ask more questions about
the methods used in reading the 'record of the rocks'. Let me begin with
a few of my own:
(1) Glenn, you give size and specific gravity as the only factors which
determine the sedimentation rates of water-borne objects. But surface
features and shape must also play a part, wouldn't you agree?
(2) Do I gather from your illustration re conodonts that exactly the
same sequence is found in every site worldwide, without exception?
(3) You mention volcanic ash and lava flows as providing opportunities
for applying radiometric techniques to fix absolute dates for these
sediments. What particular methods are eligible for this purpose? On
what basis is it reasonable to assume that the 'clock' is properly reset
at the time such deposits are laid?
Sincerely,
Vernon
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/index.htm
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~indexer/miracla1.htm
Morton, Glenn wrote:
>
> Vernon wrote:
> >>Hi Glenn,
>
> We've crossed swords over this matter before - but on another list. I
> write on this occasion as a result of some recent correspondence with
> Paul in which I cited the alleged transition as one which stretches the
> imagination to breaking point. He responded by suggesting I looked at
> the list of evidences that you had compiled at
>
> http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/transit.htm
>
> Having now done that, I am wondering whether you would mind clarifying
> some of the matters raised, viz
>
> (1) I am a little surprised that the 'timetable' you give fits the
> sequence of alleged transitionals so well. Can you confirm that these
> temporal data in respect of the sites of discovery - some of which were
> widely spread (eg Pennsylvania, Scotland, and Russia) - really preceded
> the claimed discoveries? I have to confess, I had no idea that
> geological dating in sedimentary deposits was so exact a science these
> days! Can you perhaps briefly explain the method(s) used.
>
> (2) Assuming the reported details to be true, how would you respond to
> the suggestion that the fossil remains might equally well be interpreted
> as relating to created kinds, now extinct?
>
> Sincerely, and with kind regards,
>
> Vernon<<<<<<
>
> First off, my apologies for not being able at this moment to profer the
> usual abundant documentation. I am in the midst of a move and my papers etc
> are not available. I also had my computer stolen with many of my research
> notes. My back ups have not been completely restored. Secondly, there are
> error bars on each of the dates on my page that I did not report. What was
> reported was the most probable age.
>
> Most of the dating of these stratum is based upon two items: biostratigraphy
> with input from radiometric dating. The biostratigraphy largely consists of
> extinct animal species which are found in a predicatable order around the
> world. These consist of marine graptolites, trilobites, conodonts etc.
> Each index species is a unique shape and is found in a unique worldwide
> order and are found only in a few layers. When these layers overlie a layer
> to be dated, say conodont A lies over a sandstone where a given fossil is
> found, we know that the fossil is older than the index conodont A. If we can
> radiometrically date a layer with conodont A then we can date the
> fossil-bearing strata as no younger than that date.
>
> Now, creationists have long complained about index fossils being circular.
> They are not.
>
> If I have the following order of conodonts--world wide then the layering of
> the geologic strata acts as a relative age marker.
>
> conodont X
> conodont w
> conodont T
> conodont s
> conodont r
> conodont m
> conodont n
> conodont g
> conodont b
> conodont a
>
> If the order is invariably, worldwide in this pattern, then I KNOW that
> Conodont X is younger than w because the layer containing X must have been
> deposited AFTER the layer containing w.
> So when I can attach a radiometric date to a given layer say the layer
> containing conodont w (345 myr) and r(352 myr), then I know that s and T
> must be between those ages. Similarly, for the amphibians, if I can find a
> terrestrial or estuarine deposit between two worldwide biostratigraphic
> horizon whose associated radiometric dates average at 364 and 360 myr
> respectively, then I know that the deposit is somewhere around 362 myr old.
> The datings are done on items like volcanic ash which is a geologically
> instantaneous deposit, or a lava flow, which is also an almost instantaneous
> deposit but not as much as a bentonite(ash) bed.
>
> Can this ordering of fossil species be due to a global flood? No. Floods
> and water in general can only sort things according to size and specific
> gravity. Often the sizes of index fossils range from small to large to
> huge, but the species are still sorted. The best case is of the ammonites
> of the jurassic. juvenile and mature specimens are found at each level but
> each level ONLY contains specimens with a peculiar suture pattern on their
> shells. Floods can't sort things according to how they look, only on their
> size and density.
>
> It is the worldwide vertical distribution of the same suture shape or the
> same graptolite or conodont pattern that allows us to escape the charge of
> circularity that creationists often claim.