Three Meanings of Chronological Labels

Three Meanings of Chronological Labels

In detail:1) How do Fossils Superpose?, 2) Searching for the Cretaceous Fauna (with appendix on Karoo, Beaufort), 3) What I think I have refuted, 4) Glenn Morton caught abusing words other people were taught as very small children

In debate or otherwise on Assorted Retorts: 1) ... on How Fossils Matter , 2) ... on Steno and Lifespan and Fossil Finds, 3) Geological Column NOT Palaeontolical [Censored by CMI-Creation-Station? Or just by the Library I am in?], 4) Same Debate Uncensored, One Step Further, 5) Continuing debate with Howard F on Geology / Palaeontology, 6) Howard F tries twice again ...

First meaning of names like Permian or Jurassic, like Cretaceous or Palaeocene is of course a time in the past as supposed by the Evolutionists.

Second meaning is layers of rock. Such a layer - maybe thousand wharves* or maybe without wharves or maybe a dried out lake or ... - is from Permian, another layer is from Triassic above it, and above that you get Jurassic, above that Cretaceous, above that Palaeocene on same location. This is verifiable now, and it is the Geological Meaning of the word.

Third meaning is fauna and flora. Such a beast is from Permian only, such a one died out in late Permian, such another arose in Cretaceous. Fossils are found in layers belonging to one of these time labels. This is the Palaeontological Meaning of each such word.

Only, there is a discrepancy between Palaeontological and Geological meaning. In the Geological sense any place has rocks from very many of these times on top of each other. In the Palaeontological sense, fossils found on one location are pretty uniformly from one and same time label.

I already proved this preliminary by sorting the time labels from diverse fossil sites from a list taken on wikipedia.

Now I have gone through about one hundred and twenty five or thirty fossil species on palaeocritti site. No, let's wait. South Africa, Brazil, Arizona are ready, but there is so much more. And each is incomplete in original documentation of palaeocritti site, or most of them are. Antarctica, Zimbabwe, although ready too are very small as far as number of species on palaeocritti site is concerned. As for Tanzania I have just got started. Some of the species or genera already covered are also represented in UK and Ireland, which I have not started. I have though made the only contribution that needs to be made for Ireland.

So, no, it is too early, I cannot yet say I have completed the empirical evidence for this observation as far as it is available. I can only say that the wikipedia list of fossil sites was one probe and the going through of these countries on the palaeocritti site yet another probe leading me to expect that the complete available empirical evidence will also confirm my conclusion. Most Geological labels about layers of rock on top of each other are not backed up as Palaeontological fossil sites on top of each other. Or so far none is.

Unless there was a place in Mexico where Cenozoic marine fauna was on top of Mesozoic land fauna, something a Flood Geologist would explain with marine animals getting in with the new level of water above the first layer of mud during the Deluge and then getting buried themselves.

Some may ask themselves what right I have to copy the palaeocritti site. You will find the relevant correspondence with Nobu Tamura here:

• Wrote to Palaeocritti about Jonkeria
• I Hope This Blog will Get More Writers - it is a Salvage Blog
• Approved by Nobu Tamura!

In other words I am making a salvage blog for a site not paid for after 2016, like I would have wanted for my own MSN Group Antimodernism before it closed in 2009. So the Palaeocritti Blog, being a backup for someone else's site (mainly, with few additions by me) is unlike this one not mine to dispose of.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Francis Xaver
3-XII-2013

* Clarification on "wharves":

I was seeking for a word meaning thin strata (lithological sense).

Not strata wide enough to include any fossils, but rather so thin there are several decades or hundreds of them visible on a rock wall at the same height as that of a fossil which presumably is within "a stratum" (palaeontological sense).

Thanking Mr Darwin of the blog Darwin Catholic for pointing out an unclarity, and hoping to have removed it./HGL

PS to footnote: Swedish would for this sense of "layer, coat, stratum, course, lap, seam" use either "skikt" or "hvarf" (varv in Modern Orthography). It is simply too thin to be confusable with the other sense of stratum./HGL

PPS to footnote: the English word would have been wharves if a cognate of Swedish hvarf. However, the English word is rather a loan from the modernised version thereof: varves.

Update 12/VII/2014:

On this video, Kent Hovind spends much time talking on how sorting happened in the flood:

The Kent Hovind Creation Seminar (6 of 7): The Hovind Theory
Kent Hovind OFFICIAL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfffRl4RT4s

The irony is he cites a man who said fossils aren't that much sorted. Precisely what I was saying here./HGL