In order to validate the biblical account of the Flood from geological evidence, it is not sufficient, though it was helpful as a precursor, to show that all our mountains were once under water. We need to ask if the whole of the UK was simultaneously under water recently.
Our foray into the uniformitarian literature to answer these questions, ignored by those who practise uniformitarianism, starts with our figure 1, taken from Rayner,* and based on primary sources such as Hancock and Rawson.** In what is described as the ‘Late Cretaceous’ period and dated around 65 Ma, her composite map shows all of England, much of Wales, and major parts of Scotland under water. It also shows the whole of the Ireland landmass under water, as well as major parts of continental Europe. Furthermore, this map is regarded as ‘conservative’ by Rawson20 and Gannon,15 who point out that a ‘radical’ view of the exposed land mass of Britain around 65 Ma is smaller than Rayner’s map shows, and may even have been nonexistent.
Others who have studied the ‘Cretaceous’ period have maps which show a small island of land in the Lake District (LD), and an extension of area ‘W’ to the south to include the Brecon Beacons (BB); for example, Gale.21 Rawson,20 in a solo-authored article, apparently contradicting what is described above, shows the area ‘W’ to be in the south of Wales rather than the north (his figure 12.2B). The latter is possibly a draughtsman’s error because of the relative heights of the respective areas. Whatever the individual causes for the differences, part of the explanation is the problem of identifying which igneous deposits were subaerial and which were subaqueous, as mentioned above.
* Rayner, D.H., The Stratigraphy of the British Isles, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1981.
** Hancock, J.M. and Rawson, P.F., Cretaceous, Geol. Soc. London Mem. 13:131–139, 1992.
So far no problem. We do not have a very great area of land fauna from Cretaceous in UK, though its specimens are conspicuous and include pterodactyl kind fossils.
This accords with their take on adapting the labels like Cretaceous to Flood Geology and it accords with mine.
Next quote:
A further question is the relative height of the Snowdonian area and the other outliers in figure 1, during the ‘Cretaceous’. The height was what it is today, plus what was eroded in the ‘post-Cretaceous’ period less any rise in the basement rocks. Estimates of as much as 1.5 to 2.0 km for the additional height exist. Obviously, these put Snowdon above water, but these heights are ‘guesstimates’. If there was land in those positions, then there would be a high probability of land-derived clastics in the chalk. They don’t exist. The estimates of heights are based on the recognition that the dykes and the host rocks in these areas were once topped with much more ‘over-burden’ than they are now.
However, since the bulk of this ‘over-burden’ has since disappeared, we know that the top of the ‘over-burden’ was once under water much later than that first igneous intrusion, and that that water must have had extensive erosive power to remove that additional ‘over-burden’. This ‘Late Cretaceous’ period seems to fit closely.
My one divergence from John D. Matthews is that he seems here to take "late Cretaceous" as a definite period within the Flood, during a much shorter time span, like uniformiatarians do on a longer one.
What I would like to know - though this apporach might be OK while only classifying rocks - is, from a Palaeontological view, how do we know position x in UK was covered with water during Cretaceous?
If position x has marine invertebrates, like almost any position with fossils, well, that just means it was convered by water through the Flood. It tells us nothing of what the position was like before the Flood, because all was covered with clams and mussels and mussels and clams and "cockles and mussels alive alive O". (Not just punning : some creationist videos I have seen indicate that mussels were buried as alive by sediment and did not have time to die before getting buried and immobilised).
If position x has marine fossils of kinds associated with specifically Cretaceous vertebrate marine fauna, this probably means position x was in the Sea before the Flood. With some margin of displacement.
If position x has fossils associated with Cretaceous vertebrate land fauna, this probably means position x was on Land before the Flood - also with some margin for displacement.
Now take Ordovician. I don't know if one has found any Ordovician land fauna, but if position x has marine fossils associated with specifically Ordovician vertebrate marine fauna, this probably means position x was in the Sea before the flood. With some margin of displacement.
If position x has land fossils associated with specifically Jurassic vertebrate land fauna, this probably means position x was on Land before the Flood. With some margin of displacement.
But what is the difference between position x having Jurassic vertebrate land fauna or Cretaceous vertebrate land fauna? Both were, with some margin of displacement, on land before the Flood, but with different faunas.
And what if on point x you dig one metre and find Cretaceous vertebrate land fauna, and then continue digging and at 3 metres depth of same hole find Jurassic vertebrate land fauna?
My whole point is that all I know of Palaeontological discoveries and exhibit materials is that this has nowhere ever happened.
You can find and do find rocks, in which formation lies over formation. Each usually assigned to a different time period, and here the standard Flood geologists are right to say that the formations that lie on top of each other must have come into place during successive parts of the flood.
But in such places, you will not find that fossilised faunas lie on top of each other (except marine invertebrates, which for instance can have been sorted by size - heavier and larger ammonites getting lower down in GC, for instance). Where you find Cretaceous rock above (in the strict usual sense) Jurassic rock, you will not find Cretaceous land fauna above Jurassic land fauna with a clear demarcation of species belonging to the one or the other.
You may find a rock of type x and a rock of type y partially superposed so that x is above y, and beside you will find y containing Jurassic fossils and x containing Cretaceous fossils. Jurassic coast would be an ideal spot for this exercise. When this happens, this is taken as confirmation that Cretaceous is newer than Jurassic.
When you find a Jurassic animal in the Cretaceous fauna, you will usually take this as extending the time limits for the survival of the kind forward a few million years into the Cretaceous (if you do this, this means you can no longer tell Jurassic from Cretaceous on basis of this kind, but this doesn't stop someone else from doing so if he ignores or contests that you extended the life span of the genus or even species). If instead you find a Cretaceous animal in the Jurassic fauna, you will take this as a token you can extand the lifespan of the kind earlier, back a few million years into the Jurassic. It developed earlier than one had thought. And same observation applies, as to its use as "index fossil" for Jurassic/Cretaceous limit.
If you were on the other hand to find a rock of type x and a rock of type y partially superposed so that x is above y, and beside you will find y containing CRETACEOUS fossils and x containing JURASSIC fossils, you will supposed some shift has occurred. But this happens rarely, because the index fossils between these are taken from the majority and are, as said, sometimes devalorised by extended life span of the species.
It is usually true you never find Ceratopsians (a Cretaceous animal) UNDER Dimetrodon (a Permian animal). But it is equally true that you never find Dimetrodons under Ceratopsians either, if you take above and below in the strict vertical sense.
So, the Cretaceous islands of land on the map in figure one are the spots where UK had Cretaceous land fauna previous to the Flood.
I predict - in the way scientists use the word: I take this as a conclusion supposing my intelligent guess is right - that the islands of Jurassic and the islands of Permian (not sure UK had any such) will not coincide locally.
This said, hat off for the very intelligent observations about what Uniformitarians take as Eocene Amazon sized rivers and what Flood Geologist John D. Matthews takes more realistically as a sea current during the flood.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Timothée Diacre
Martyr en Mauritanie
19-XII-2014
Source for quotes:
CMI : Why was the UK once totally under water?
by John D. Matthews
http://creation.com/uk-once-under-water
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire