Flood or Floods, Missoula?

CMI poses, there was one Flood:

The Lake Missoula Flood
By Michael J. Oard | Published 13 Jul, 2015 | Updated 25 May, 2026
https://creation.com/en/articles/lake-missoula-flood

For forty years, secular geologists denied the Lake Missoula flood happened, despite hundreds of pieces of evidence. They thought it was too ‘biblical’ in scale. Although it is now accepted, most secular geologists believe forty or more separate floods have occurred.

I have nothing in principle against a "biblical" scale, but ...

Missoula floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missoula_floods

Duration Between 15,000 and 13,000 years ago

So, 13,000 to 11,000 BC ... is that carbon dates?

2673 BC

27.32 pmC, dated as 13,399 BC

2634 BC

37.009 pmC, dated as 10,851 BC

If those dates are obtained from organic material, I would say, the span of the events range over somewhat less than the 39 years between 2673 and 2634 BC./HGL

Biological Stromatolites?

In answer to "one or two" points in Michael Oard's article, republished today as blog post on CMI site and previously published in Creation December 2017.

Are all fossil stromatolites biological?
by Michael J. Oard | This article is from
Journal of Creation 31(3):10–12—December 2017
https://creation.com/fossil-stromatolites

Salient points:

Oard and Froede gave nine reasons why stromatolites in the rocks may not be biological.8 Four of them are especially significant.

Introducing:

First, it is unlikely that there was enough time during the Flood to produce true stromatolites, nor enough time during Creation Week, unless they were created de novo.

Pre-Flood world?

Most creation scientists believe the Phanerozoic is from the Flood, except for the continuing debate over the Cenozoic. Stromatolites are not rare in Phanerozoic rocks.12–15 Thus, it appears an abiotic mechanism is required for the formation of most, if not all, Phanerozoic stromatolites.

Unless a layer can be carbon dated to a post-Flood time, as is the case with Younger Dryas (just before Babel on my view), it can be either from Flood or from post-Flood mudslides. I'd consider many carbon dated dinos in the latter category, unless you presume there were nuke explosions pre-Flood in the area, leading to higher than normal C14 content in organic material.

It is unlikely pre-Flood stromatolites could be transported into Flood sediments because of the chaos of the early Flood.

Here I disagree very much. Some were not transported but buried in situ.

Moreover, if the stromatolites were transported and not totally destroyed, we would expect the pre-Flood stromatolites to have been broken in pieces and orientated differently from living stromatolites. This all suggests that some Precambrian stromatolites are also a result of abiotic processes.

This is a precise reason why many of the pre-Flood specimina of animals need to have been buried in situ. If they had been transported, they would have been broken into pieces or pulverised to total unrecognisable powder.

If there are 30 complete skeleta of T Rex, how were they transported and not buried in situ?

If there are complete "prehistoric" whales or ichthyosaurs, how are they not buried in situ?

This is the reason why the supposed "geological column" could very profitably be reinterpreted as a land and sea map of pre-Flood world. Where you find a whale (as in Lienz) you were in the sea. Where you find a seal (as in the Nussdorf vineyards in the outskirts of Vienna) you were on the seashore, seals not going too far offshore. Where you find a pterosaur, you are arguably on land or near some shore (less sure, not certain how far they could fly across seas) as in Ankerschlag in Tyrol. If they had been transported, you could not have identified them.

The reasons second, third and fourth are however less easy to answer, if one wanted to defend biological fossil stromatolites. Difference in shape, lack of organic material, carbonates .... wait, carbonates could be the residue of organic material in them.

So, on nature of stromatolites, I tend to probably organic, at least as long as no realistic anorganic process is proposed, but I am not fully confident. But on the reasons given in "first" I think this is a place to answer a misconception of "geological column" having labels that always really are about levels, in fact, where you find fossils of index fossil type, often it's about pre-Flood habitats.

This would also answer the "not enough time" argument on stromatolites. Now, as I argued for burial in site and as stromatolites are formed under water, was Green River Formation (mentioned in text) land or water?

I go past my no longer necessary back up blog palaeocritti.blogspot.com over last messages to not the site paid site palaeocritti.com but the googlesite on which the customised url is a short link (which ceased to function, while I thought all material would go away, not the case):

Palaeocritti - a guide to prehistoric animals > By Location https://sites.google.com/site/palaeocritti/by-location

But instead of looking for Green River Formation via Utah, I go to search bar, and go to

Showing 1-10 of 11 results for Green River Formation
https://sites.google.com/site/palaeocritti/system/app/pages/search?scope=search-site&q=Green+River+Formation

And I go to the creature articles, omitting other ones.

Falcarius utahensis (land), Icaronycteris (not sure, probaby land), Onychonycteris finneyi (not sure, probaby land), Sinopa rapax and Sinopa major (land), Tritemnodon agilis (land at Douglas Creek member), Prefica nivea (not sure, probably land), Limnofregata azygosternon (land or water at Fossil Butte Member, Lincoln Wyoming), Heliobatis radians (clearly water!).

Heliobatis radians is described in this publication:

Freshwater stingrays of the Green River Formation (early Eocene) with the description of a new genus and species and an analysis of its phylogenetic relationships (Chondrichthyes, Myliobatiformes). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 284

Would that be anywhere near the stromatolites?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. John Bosco*
31.I.2019

* Augustae Taurinorum sancti Joannis Bosco, Confessoris, Societatis Salesianae ac Instituti Filiarum Mariae Auxiliatricis Fundatoris, animarum zelo et fidei propagandae conspicui, quem Pius Papa Undecimus Sanctorum fastis adscripsit.

To Michael Oard

Thank you for telling us about Sahara as wet land in your article:

The problem of the wet Sahara
by Michael Oard
https://creation.com/wet-sahara

Here is a quote I'll highlight:

The timing of the AHP has been debated, but secular researchers generally believe it started about 15,000 years ago.11,12 Based on 3,287 carbon-14 dates from 1,011 Neolithic archeological sites, they surmise that humans were in northern Africa 5,500–10,500 years ago. So, the AHP is inferred to have likely ended about 5,500 years ago in the uniformitarian timescale.

This is where I go ... well, first, let's quote your conclusion:

This corresponds to the very late Pleistocene, during deglaciation, and the early to mid-Holocene, after the biblical Ice Age.

I would object to the phrase "biblical Ice Age" - because the Ice Age as such is only vaguely hinted at in the Bible. It's like saying "biblical penecilline", not that the Bible forbids us to believe in or consume (when infected) penicilline, but that the Bible does not mention it.

I would say, this corresponds to:

• times in Biblical chronology just before the Babel project;
• times of the Babel project (40 years in one Jewish tradition, I recall);
• times after Babel but ending before Abraham, if not necessarily before his birth, at least before Genesis 14.

I base this on:

• accepting Göbekli Tepe as Babel (if "tower" means rocket, lack of tower like architecture is no problem), where the carbon dates are between 9600 and 8600 BC;
• and accepting Osgood's identification of Amorrheans of Asason-Thamar with Chalcolithic En Gedi. Meaning probably a carbon date close to 3000 BC.

In other words, Carbon date 5500 BC is between 8600 BC and 3000 BC. Carbon date 15000 BC is before 9600 BC. Obviously it is after the Flood, not just because 15000 BC is ...

... Sorry, I saw I misconstrued BP (ago, before present) as BC (before Christ). This is about how things can go wrong for a writer who is also homeless and therefore often tired. Now, this does not mean I live in a haze, it means I spend some moments surprising myself with having read myself or others in a short moment of haze. So, 10,500 years ago is 8500 BC = just after Göbekli Tepe, just after Babel. 5500 years ago = 3500 BC, within the possible span (as long as I don't find actual carbon dates cited) of chalcholithic of En Geddi, BUT as being before Pharaos, it would have to have been a bit before Genesis 13.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Kremlin Bicêtre
XII Sunday after Pentecost
12.VIII.2018

Neanderthals - Related to Michael Oard's and Anne Habermehl's Work (post-Flood Boundary and Babel Builders)

Neanderthal : Neanderthal Pre-or Post-Flood? · If Neanderthals were Carnivores, were they Post-Flood? · "what biblical, young earth creationists have always maintained" · Is there an Urban Legend that Grendel and His Mother were Dinosaurs Among Creationists? · Neanderthals - Related to Michael Oard's and Anne Habermehl's Work (post-Flood Boundary and Babel Builders) · Hugh Ross and Genetics, Featuring a Gruesome Habit (Don't Read This When You Eat!)

On today's article, Michael Oard enumerates three schools about Flood / post-Flood boundary. I am citing a minimum to show what they have in common:

• "The first believes that the Flood/post-Flood boundary is generally in the late Paleozoic"
  
  
• "The second school of thought believes the Flood/post-Flood boundary is near the Cretaceous/Tertiary (K/T) boundary."
  
  
• "The third school of thought believes the Flood/post-Flood boundary is near the end of the Cenozoic."

All of above seem to say a "defined Geologic period" is either from the Flood or from post-Flood, anywhere on earth. That Cretaceous and Jurassic could be a biotope type which was recreated after the Flood too doesn't occur to him. Or biotope types which were. To me a Hadrosaurus date by Armitage suggests that.

CMI : Defining the Flood/post-Flood boundary in sedimentary rocks
by Michael J. Oard
https://creation.com/defining-the-flood-post-flood-boundary-in-sedimentary-rocks

Of course, some geologic layers, like "recent humus soil" on top of all rocks and clay, are automatically post-Flood. No one would dispute that.

I would add some back onto that list : Younger Dryas is Post-Flood, since just before Babel, if my theory of Babel = Göbekli Tepe is correct.

Upper Palaeolithic in archaeology - or the parts carbon dated to after carbon date of last fully Neanderthal skeleton in Europe - is post-Flood. I take this to be 40 000 YA, but some have argued that Neanderthals "could have survived to 28 000 BP", which I think is based on charcoals in a cave in Gibraltar, the charcoals being from 28 000 YA, the cave including previous Neanderthal occupation.

Gibraltar 1 skull - undated.
Gibraltar 2 skull - dated to "between 30 000 and 50 000 BP"

"The original find was done in a time where the palaeontological dating was still in its infancy, and no stratigraphic information was supplied with the skull, making dating at best guesswork. Another specimen from a different locale on Gibraltar (Gibraltar 2) has however been dated to between 30 thousand to 50 thousand years old."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar_1

Giving reference 4:

Smith, T. M.; Tafforeau, P.; Reid, D. J.; Pouech, J.; Lazzari, V.; Zermeno, J. P.; Guatelli-Steinberg, D.; Olejniczak, A. J.; Hoffman, A.; Radovcic, J.; Makaremi, M.; Toussaint, M.; Stringer, C.; Hublin, J.-J. (15 November 2010). "Dental evidence for ontogenetic differences between modern humans and Neanderthals". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107 (49): 20923–20928. doi:10.1073/pnas.1010906107. PMC 3000267 Freely accessible. PMID 21078988.

Not finding the reference for Gibraltar 1 / Gibraltar 2.

The reason is excellent. I had used a wikipedian article in another shape than the present one.

Here is from my article:

Creation vs. Evolution : Neanderthal Pre-or Post-Flood?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/02/neanderthal-pre-or-post-flood.html

Common name

Gibraltar Woman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar_1

Species

Homo(sapien) neanderthalensis

Age

30,000 to 40,000 years

Place discovered

Forbes' Quarry, Gibraltar

Date discovered

1848

Discovered by

Edmund Flint

Now, same article on wiki has age as "unknown". Revision as of 01:49, 8 November 2016 - it was there. Revision as of 18:54, 28 April 2017 - it goes, replaced by "unknown", courtesy of wikipedian user Nicolas Perrault III.

Now, anyway, my point is, if her skeleton was in terms of carbon dates so much older than the charcoal at Gorham Cave, then she could be pre-Flood, the charcoal early post-Flood (of same cave).

Apart from charcoal at Gorham cave, I don't know anything which would put Neanderthals as recent, in carbon terms, as 28 000 BP.

I suppose all cave paintings to be post-Flood, not from a creationist karstological view point that caves "perhaps only formed during and after Flood", but more in terms of water of the Flood would have washed away or severely smudged the colours.

In Neanderthal caves we don't find paintings, we have found a hashtag. In Cro Magnon caves, we do find paintings ... meaning, on my view, Cro Magnon is the race which came out of the Ark.

This detail about Neanderthals will also be relavant to a point about Habermehl's theory of the "ziggurat of Babel".

AiG : Where in the World Is the Tower of Babel?
by Anne Habermehl on March 23, 2011
https://answersingenesis.org/tower-of-babel/where-in-the-world-is-the-tower-of-babel/

I am nearly totally agreed with her on the geographic sites:

Agreed

and I am relying on her effort:

36°50′24″N 40°4′7″E

Calneh (Tell Fekheriye)

37°3′29″N 40°53′44″E

Erech (Tell Aqab)

36°40′03.42″N 41°03′31.12″E

Akkad (Tell Brak)

Disgreed

37°13′23″N 38°55′21″E

Babel - HGL (Göbekli Tepe)

36.5117°N 40.7422°E - 36°51′01″N 40°04′14″E

Babel - Habermehl (Khabur triangle)

I am disagreeing with her on other topics, and this shows in her rejection of Göbekli Tepe as Babel:

"It is widely believed that the Tower of Babel was a ziggurat, also called a stepped pyramid; a quick search on the internet will bring up any number of sites that state this (for example, Livingstone 2008). There is good reason to believe this, because the many ziggurats that are known around the world20 clearly point back to a time when there was an original ziggurat, the knowledge of which traveled with people as they spread out to populate the earth. For creationists, who believe the Bible story in Genesis 11 literally, this original ziggurat has to be the Tower of Babel."

Not necessarily. To Babel in Shinar one came from the East. And there seems to be a ziggurat carbon dated in parts to 20 000 BC (pre-Babel on my view) very far indeed in the East - if Graham Hancock is right about Gunang Padang. Here is my reference between Josephus / Comestor and Gunang Padang:

Now, let's reason a bit about this. Ethann, Helioschora ... could it be Gunung Padang?

• 1) It is clearly further East than Göbekli Tepe;
• 2) If Younger Dryas involved some gigantic Floods (though inferior to Flood of Noah), this would explain the shyness of getting onto a plain (and would explain a preference for a plain where it is fairly high, like GT, now 760 meters above sea level, over a lower plain, like 34 m (100 feet) above present sea level;
• 3) Gunung Padang flourished (or started to get built) 20 000 BP, 18 000 BC, carbon dates, if Hancock is right about drill holes. This would be before Younger Dryas - and Younger Dryas is very evocative of "But they were so ill instructed that they did not obey God; for which reason they fell into calamities, and were made sensible, by experience, of what sin they had been guilty:"

My article:

Creation vs. Evolution : Is Graham Hancock Right on Göbekli Tepe? Part 4
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2017/07/is-graham-hancock-right-on-gobekli-tepe_18.html

Referring to a Hancock interview here:

Ancient Extinction Revealed: Atlantis, Göbekli Tepe & Mysteries of the Gods with Graham Hancock
TheLipTV2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62EkJlZE3jY

I therefore submit, earliest ziggurat was not Babel, but before it, in the east.

"We also do not know how many able-bodied men were available to do the building work; estimates of the total population at the time of the dispersion have varied greatly, from under a thousand (Morris 1966) to 65,000 (Tower of Babel 2010), to name two. Whatever the number was, this author takes the view that the long-lived people at Babel were Neanderthals, and thus known to be physically very strong (Cuozzo 1998; Habermehl 2010; Trinkaus 1978); they would have been able to do much harder physical work than humans today."

I disagree with Habermehl on this one.

Neanderthals are not long lived post-Flood men, they are another pre-Flood race. On the Ark, no full Neanderthal was on board, but one daughter in law of Noah (at least) would have been half Neanderthal, or less. This is why no strict Neanderthal race survives today, but some races have more Neanderthal traits than others.

That is why I set Flood / Post-Flood limit in carbon dates as last carbon date of a Neanderthal skeleton. As said above, in connection with Michael Oard.

"According to Genesis 11:3, the Tower was built of “burnt” brick—that is, kiln-baked brick. This is a very durable material, and because of this, remnants of the Tower may well have survived the ages."

You know, I heard some rocket engineers at NASA are using basically same material = ceramics = burnt brick as shields for heat or against radiation.

This obviously has to do with what I think the tower was (or was meant to be, not claiming it would have been functional) : a three step rocket at takeoff looks like a tower and only the top section actually makes it to deep space.

Also, technically, the text does not say that both tower or city or either of them was burnt brick, just that they had invented the technique.

"Remote Sensing: What Are the Chances That We Will Ever Find the Tower and City of Babel?"

Göbekli Tepe : city found, three step rocket not yet found. Perhaps not even left in place.

You see, the narration says they ceased to build on the city.

This is arguably true for Göbekli Tepe, it was even covered in sand, deliberately.

It does not say they ceased to build on the Tower. If it was a rocket prototype, one of the groups would have been able to take it away. I suppose to China, where I suppose gunpowder was invented to replace Uranium as Nimrod's planned (and very ill planned, fortunately not tried) rocket fuel. Meaning China in one way continued to build the "tower" - each Chinese forework rocket being a miniature of it. Others in other ways, like ziggurats (recall the Gunang Padang one?) and stone circles (Stonehenge and a few more).

Since it is a few months back at least that I argued about Nimrod was probably going to use Uranium as rocket fuel, and that is part of why God "stopped the Babel building," (not totally, but the immediate concerted effort, delaying millennia to Cape Canaveral and Bajkonur, so a safer fuel was discovered, H2+O2), Nimrod would have known Uranium from the probably pre-Flood times described in Mahabharata : part of the Ghita resembles an atomic exposion and was cited by Oppenheimer, and other parts reflect radioactive contamination properties). For those who consider Mahabharata matters as post-Flood, Nimrod would have known Uranium at first hand, and have been even more stupid to want to try it. I consider he knew it from hearsay (a bit less reflected than that in the later poem Mahabharata) and that the ice age as part goal from God's side, was to prevent Nimrod's getting Uranium from Canada.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Octave of the Immaculate
Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary
15.XII.2017

Why CMI in Public Ignores Me (One Probable Reason)

See this essay by Oard:

Can the relative timing of radioisotope dates be applied to biblical geology?
by Michael J. Oard
https://creation.com/can-the-relative-timing-of-radioisotope-dates-be-applied-to-biblical-geology

Summary : no it can't.

Argument : "However, a closer look reveals that the dates vary by around 200 Ma and include outliers that are billions of years too old! One example of an outlier is the 1.3 Ga Rb-Sr isochron age for lava that erupted after the Flood on the northwest rim of the Grand Canyon.10 It is obvious that the precision of relative dates is far from satisfactory to be used for absolute biblical dates."

Observation is valid for Ka-Ar, but not for C14.

Argument : "Baumgardner mentions how fission track dates agree with K-Ar radiometric ages on the Peach Spring Tuff and a tuff within the Jurassic Morrison Formation of southeast Utah.1 He argues that this a greement justifies relative dating. However, an examination of fission track data in the RATE book18 shows that indeed the dates for the Peach Spring Tuff are tightly constrained, and do agree reasonably closely with the radiometric dates. We wonder if circular reasoning wasn’t used to get the Peach Springs dates to agree. Circular reasoning is a common problem in uniformitarian earth science (see below)."

Observation is valid for fission track dates, but not for C14.

Solution proposed : "Baumgardner assumes the Flood began in the very late Precambrian.1 He sees that as an anchor point separating the antediluvian rock and the fossil record from the Flood. He also concludes that the post-Flood boundary is in the Pliocene, which is fairly close to my assessment of the situation."

Objection, this presupposes that "geological column" corresponds to different stages of the Flood.

In fact, it corresponds to zoo-geography in the immediate pre-Flood world, more usually.

Their proposal on what "relative timing" means : "The idea of using relative radiometric dating as a template for biblical earth history mostly sandwiches 4.567 billion years of uniformitarian history into 377 days of biblical earth history."

Objection, that would be the attempt to pull in ALL radiometric and uniformitarian dating under a single heading.

That is done by Setterfield and Habermehl.

I am singling out C14 for special treatment. Why? In C14, the thing to compare with present content of parent isotope is NOT present content of daughter isotope. It is atmospheric content.

And while atmospheric content has not been even roughly constant for 100 000 years, as Uniformitarians would like us to believe, it is also by the nature of the case, unlikely to change drastically from one day to the next.

The changes in atmospheric content would, mainly, have been upward. These upward changes would be complete by 500 BC, when Babylonian captivity destruction of Jerusalem is carbon dated to 2500 years ago (+83 or 86, I think). Since then, carbon dates are generally useful as given.

Now, the constant content would imply a balance between decay (the sample in the atmosphere is also a sample, and also decaying) and production of new carbon.

However, there are in fact - indirectly - limits on how quickly new carbon can form while life on earth survives, since too much cosmic rays would be lethal. We cannot have been having an incoming cosmic radiation so huge that radiation doses either at pole or equator would have equalled, for instance, those at Chernobyl 13 days after Wojtyla visited a Synagogue in Rome. Not the doses immediately close to the reactor.

This poses a limit of some kind on the speed of production of new carbon 14. And it seems the limit would depend on lots of parameters, and Ilya Usoskin has not been testing the ones I proposed around All Hallows. And this speed limit poses in its turn a limit on the disequilibrium between decay and new production, and therefore a speed limit on the rise of carbon in atmosphere and therefore ... can help with a relative chronology.

Note very well, C14 is not in any way shape or form concerned with "4.567 billion years". Anything dated in "millions" = Ka-Ar = virtually undated. Not carbon dated.

Note also, my carbon date ball park for Flood itself is fairly close to 40 000 BP, perhaps up to 5000 years younger. Anything carbon dated younger than that (including some of Armitage's dinosaurs and soft tissue) is post-Flood.

I suppose, after the Flood, the sediments were for a time still wet and soft, in order to speed drying up, God folded mountains, and while main effect was, water ran out quicker and they dried quicker, one side effect was a hazard of mudslides, providentially directed mostly to dinosaurs. Any men hit? Job perhaps asked once for mountains to cover him ... a Hadrosaur dated to 22 000 BP is from on my view, between Flood and Babel, and killed by a mudslide as described.

This is not in any way related to how the Hadrosaur is conventionally described as in Jurassic or Cretaceous or perhaps even Triassic, but only because of the carbon date; another Hadrosaur, dated to 40 000 BC, would be a pre-Flood one. This therefore means that Jurassic, and its "neighbours" Cretaceous and Triassic, are not informing us of the time scale, but of the usually pre-Flood, sometimes post-Flood biogeography.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Clement I, Pope and Martyr
23.XI.2017

Michael Oard Mixing Issues - and Avoiding What I Brought Up Previous to Now

Here is today's article from CMI:

Can the relative timing of radioisotope dates be applied to biblical geology?
by Michael J. Oard
http://creation.com/can-the-relative-timing-of-radioisotope-dates-be-applied-to-biblical-geology

Here are some "quotes" from it, with my comments under them.*

"The idea of using relative radiometric dating as a template for biblical earth history mostly sandwiches 4.567 billion years of uniformitarian history into 377 days of biblical earth history."

That is not even Anne Habermehl, since she is placing all of the radio dated timeline in post-Flood history. But as I will be seeing, there are others than she in the field.

And most who think that most of the million years dated things are from the Flood (as opposed to post-Flood or sometimes pre-Flood) are also not into using their relative dates as a relative timeline.

Carbon dates of Flood material usually do give about the same relative time : 20,000 - 50,000 BP.

I personally like to make the carbon dated place of the Flood be more precise, around 35,000 or 37,000 BP.

Now, I'll leave carbon dates for a moment and follow Oard's text:

"Both Baumgardner and Snelling make assumptions about the earth’s past outside of the Bible that drive their version of natural history and our ability to date its details by converting secular dates. One assumption is that the chronostratigraphic timescale is reliable. This allows them to claim the pre-Flood/Flood boundary is at or near the base of the Cambrian, and remain confident that this correlation point is valid all over the earth."

We are dealing with very different things when it comes to carbon dates and when it comes to chronostratigraphy.

With carbon dates you find one sample which dates as 40,000 BC, is a Neanderthal, and you ask if he or she died before the Flood, and you find another sample which carbon dates 15,000 BC and you feel confident it was after the Flood. The dates are related to the remaining content of C-14 as compared to the overall content of C, mostly C-12. The fudge factor behind the non-Biblical or Anti-Biblical Dates is how much the carbon 14 level rose.

That is one fudge factor which I am perhaps in today's world uniquely involved in circumscribing with relative constraints. On my view, anything which carbon dates 15,000 BC, unless it's an object which can be explained by reservoir effect, close to ice caps, must for instance be AFTER Flood but also BEFORE Exodus or even Abraham. When exactly is up for debate, and I am doing, not just one table but diverse tables, which are meant to give different options, some of which can then later be eliminated (though not from my writings) as not the true one because contradicting this or that or other certain fact from Bible, Tradition or History.

Chronostratigraphy, on the other hand, is a vicious circle in which two ends of one state (US) can have two types of fauna, one dinosaur and one pelykosaur, and then the excavated layer with the pelykosaur be considered as "lower" because it contains a fossil presumed to be "older" than the dinosaur.

"Thus, the Paleozoic is the ‘early Flood’, the Mesozoic is the ‘middle Flood’, and parts of the Cenozoic are the ‘late Flood’."

This is totally wrong, a pelykosaur is "late Palaeozoic (Permian)" or possibly "early Mesozoic (Triassic)", while a dinosaur is "Mesozoic" (especially "mid" or "late", i e "Jurassic" or "Cretaceous").

But the strata are NOT (and any familiarity with vertebrate palaeontology can tell you that, but it seems rare in CMI!) over and under each other on some one site where you find the dino higher or the pelykosaur lower. In other words, the evidence as we have it for vertebrate palaeontology is perfectly (at least for land vertebrates) compatible with having come there by the dinos and pelykosaurs simply having been buried fairly quickly in their natural habitat. The situation is a bit as if today's most typical fauna were buried and replaced by some which is now untypical, our mammals would be a matter for cryptozoology or palaeontology, and someone finds a wolf and a reindeer here and a moose and a bear there, and a third place, they find a wold with a bear and moose, but you never find moose with reindeers.

The reason as we know it is that reindeers and moose don't do the same habitat.

And then some palaeo considers wolf as extending over both "reindeer period" and "moose period" while reindeers are "index fossils" for the "reindeer period" only, moose and bear for the "moose period" only.**

The thing for sake of which geologists tend to overlook this is that, if you find the pelykosaur in a layer buried under some clearly other non-fossil layer of rock, that layer of rock gets the same name as a fossil bearing layer elsewhere.

If under the dino you find a non-fossil bearing layer of rock (at least as far as you are looking) it will tend to be labelled as a layer considered "older" where it bears fossils elsewhere, perhaps the layer of the pelykosaur.

This is why it is vital to distinguish the three meanings, the ideological and the two different empirical ones when dealing with chronostratigraphy. That is a "timescale" which should be reconstructed as a map, not one which should be squeezed.

Why datings by Ka-Ar tend to confirm it, at least somewhat, would probably be that many are discarded (this I trust CMI and other creationists on) but where the non-discarded ones do give a relative "timescale" it may well be because of argon dissipating later and therefore more in higher layers of lava. I don't pretend to have investigated that part, you are free to make experiments on it totally independently of any research I were to do, I have just given the general idea.

BUT, with all this, C-14 is a separate issue and therefore poses a separate challenge, one result of which may well be a squeezable time-scale.

"Humphreys makes much of the plot of radiometric dates over time,2 originally collected by Woodmorappe.9 It shows a roughly linear relationship between dates and the stages of the geological timescale (figure 2)."

[cited : Humphreys, D.R., Accelerated nuclear decay: a viable hypothesis? In: Vardiman, L., Snelling, A.A. and Chaffin, E.F. (Eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Institute for Creation Research, Dallas, TX, and Creation Research Society, Chino Valley, AZ, p. 342, 2000.
Woodmorappe, J., Radiometric geochronology appraised; in: Woodmorappe, J. (compiler), Studies in Flood Geology, Institute for Creation Research, Dallas, TX, pp. 147–175, 1999 [available from CRS Books].]

I suspect this is about non-carbon dates, and I suspect the easy way to get a solution is to do studies in lava flows and dating of lava.

"However, a closer look reveals that the dates vary by around 200 Ma and include outliers that are billions of years too old! One example of an outlier is the 1.3 Ga Rb-Sr isochron age for lava that erupted after the Flood on the northwest rim of the Grand Canyon.10 It is obvious that the precision of relative dates is far from satisfactory to be used for absolute biblical dates."

This very clearly has no bearing on carbon dates, since these do not involve dating ages of that magnitude.

"Making sense of relative dates and converting old dates to young ones, especially in light of the temporal asymmetry of the Flood, is crucial to the whole enterprise. Earth’s history extends over 6,000 years. The Flood, which produced the bulk of the sedimentary rock record, comprises only one of those years. Thus, advocates of relative dating must know when to convert old dates to years of non-Flood history, and also to days of Flood history. Thus, the location of the pre-Flood/Flood boundary becomes crucial."

No, I don't think so.

In Yacoraite, the Cretaceous as well as the Palaeocene layers are both from the Flood. Between them, there is probably (I got no answer when writing to them) a layer of Iridium.

In Karoo, the Permian, Triassic and Jurassic layers are all from the Flood. They are found side by side, and where you find Permian surrounded by Triassic faunal types, the Permian part is considered an "outcrop".

The thing is that Cretaceous and Palaeocene snails in Yacoraite, and in Karoo, the Permian Gorgonops torvus, the Jurassic Aardonyx celestae, the Triassic Eucnemesaurus fortis were all typically buried at roughly same time in the Flood in the places where they had been living.

I tried to get this through and got an answer that this research might be a good thing for later when we know more about two and three dimensional distribution of fossils, but the thing is we DO know them, if we look at palaeontology instead of looking at geology. I know this, I went through online resources. Obvious exception, marine fauna, where you do actually find trilobites clearly below (ordinary sense of the word) an Elasmosaur - as in Bonaparte Basin, as I found out in a debate.

The lacuna in my research, so far, is for where palaeontological finds are made by oil drillers rather than bone diggers. But I suspect they would all claim to have "all steps of geological column" and insofar as they could substantiate that, it would all be marine fauna steps. Whereever palaeontologists are digging, it is my picture which has so far emerged.

Unfortunately, Oard keeps overlooking this, as his words indicate:

"Therefore, until we have a better understanding of the placement of the pre-Flood/ Flood boundary, relative dating will not yield precise dates for the Flood, and the proposals of both Baumgardner and Snelling need further work."

He is still looking for a chronostratigraphical unit where you can say "these fossils are from Flood, these from after Flood". Presumably all valid kinds (as opposed to trasngenics horrors) are there both before and after Flood, because they were all on Noah's Ark.

I am not sure if Gorgonops got aboard the Ark, but then I am not sure if Gorgonops was a creature of God in roughly same form as God created it on day six, or some experiment gone horribly wrong in transgenics.

I am sure that "Jurassic" Tyrannosaur like Creatures did live both before and after Flood. I am sure that "Cretaceous" Brachiosaur like creatures (technically Sauropods***) were there both before and after Flood. Meaning, some Jurassic and Cretaceous are really Flood layers, some would rather be post-Flood layers.

When a dino carbon dates to 28,000 BP, I am for my part getting post-Flood vibes from the date.

This doesn't mean there are no pre-Flood lives and Flood burials in dinos of same type.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Friday after
Laetare Sunday
31.III.2017

PS : I am somewhat distracted this morning and early afternoon. Partly due to sleep privations (not voluntary on my part), partly due to a "hypno binge" as I term those occurrences in my life.

I have documented it on this and subsequent posts on a new blog, termed adult content (I don't want children under 13 reading about this, at least not without parental advise):

Blog 37, on Auto Hypnosis Experience : I Katherine Anne, Interactive Induction
https://hgl-hypno-journal.blogspot.fr/2017/03/i-katherine-anne-interactive-induction.html

I mentioned this distraction, because it explains why I didn't before signing mention why I place a carbon date limit for Flood at after "40,000 BP". Neanderthals being replaced by a purely "homo sapiens sapiens" or "anatomically modern man" population corresponds fairly well to Europe having in pre-Flood times been populated by men not of Noah's kin, mostly (with perhaps some exceptions, hence the earliest Cro-Magnon in Europe), but all died off in the Flood and were replaced by people who descend from Noah.

Now I have said this, and excuse me forgetting it./HGL

* In other words, quotes in quotation marks and italics, "like this", my comments no quotation marks and no italics, like this. ** And palaeoontolgists, if anything like today, would be saying "moose developed from reindeer, so reindeer period is the older of the two" or "reindeer developed from moose, so moose period is the older". *** Technical term for Tyrannosaurus, Allosaurus and the rest : Theropoda. I feel there is some symbolism in discovery of T Rex in 1905 by one Osborn - there is an Osborne who wrote a play I had to read, Look Back in Anger and 1905 was when Norway "divorced" from Sweden which it had been in personal union with since 1814.

Where I disagree with Oard

My own contributions to Young Earth creationism are mainly three:

• after seeing a chart over chromosome numbers, and knowing that unlike plants mammals don't make tetraploids (there is one mammals supposed to descend from a tetraploidisation of some strand, perhaps of rodents), and seeing PZM doesn't do geometry too well, I am saying there is no way mammals get increased chromosome numbers over time. In other words, chromosomes and laws of Mendel (which famously Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza felt bad about during his education, him being an evolutionist) means either all placental mammals would have equal numbers of chromosomes, or some strands decreasing since the common ancestor (mice have 22 - 40 chromosomes, I take it the first mouse had 40), or they would have different ancestors (which incidentally is a very minimal approach to the Biblical truth).
  
  Now, instead mammals have widely different numbers of chromosomes, som very far above 48, while 48 is sufficiently typical to be a possible estimate for first mammalian karyotype, so obviously mammals exist that are not descended from that "first mammal". Nor can it be said there are families with a common ancestor with 48 chromosomes, while others, fewer, have one with 96 (say a tetraploid before mammals developed placental immunity against widely differring chromosome numbers), since karyotypes past 48 also occur in most families. Including Primates.
  
  
• Distant starlight problem is a non-problem if angels are moving stars and planets (under a daily movement of Heaven around Earth effected directly by God) and if α Centauri instead of just seeming to move 0.76 arcseconds back and forth each year (due to earth's supposed movement) is actually doing so. Because, if so, the temporally successive triangle involving earth, star, two positions, involves just that one angle and no known side. And the contemporaneous triangle involving earth, sun, star, involves one side and one known angle, but not that known angle. So α Centauri and other stars could be just a bit outside Pluto, or perhaps twice as far from us as the Kuiper Belt, or perhaps a light day or a light week away. And then there is no such thing as "we are observing light that left the star millions of years ago" stuff.
  
  
• AND when it comes to biochronological measures of time, the most common reason they are worthless as evidence against a young earth is where these labels (such as Palaeozoic, Mesozoic, Cenozoic, or within the Mesozoic such as Triassic, Jurassioc and Cretaceous, or within Cretaceous and Palaeocene - the "latest Meso" and "earliest Ceno" Zoic ones - the two labels "around K/P boundary" namely Maastrichtian and Danian) is that they are evidence of the Flood.

Now, this is where I cite Oard's article, I am not getting into his argument for today, you can look that up yourself, dear reader, but about his background on the question:

I will assume the general order of the geological column for the sake of discussion in this article, since many creationists believe the geological column, minus the old ages, represents the order of biblical earth history. I have come to accept that the geological column represents a general order with lots of exceptions. ... I believe every stratigraphic site needs to be evaluated on its own merits. As a result I have often concluded that the Flood/post-Flood boundary is in the early to mid Pleistocene at various locations. However, in other areas, I have found evidence it could be in the Miocene or Pliocene. We cannot trust the radiometric and biostratigraphic dates of the late Cenozoic as being accurate in a relative sense.

Let me save you some trouble Mr Oard ... Every location you find big enough bone graveyards to be from the Flood only, that bone graveyard is from the Flood. If there are shrimps on top of it, those are from the Flood too (meaning fossilised shrimps in the rocks, not such as you can get out of the water and eat). When you start getting things that are purely humus or even sediment but such as can come from post-Flood erosion, no shrimps in the rocks that is, that is your local post-Flood boundary. But if the bone graveyard is so small, that it could be from a much smaller post-Flood disaster and if there are no three or ten yards of vertical trees to stop you from such a conclusion, in the rocks, that is, then such a bonegraveyard could be post-Flood whatever label the palaentologists put on it, basically. Perhaps excluding Permian, if Moschops and some others were OGMs. Like some Nodian or Nephelim (or both) experiment in transgenics. I mean, many features of creatures in Permian fossils of Karoo have a close relation to one mammal - and then you get a saurian or reptilian feature, like eyes and hips that go sideways instead of front for eyes and down for legs. That could be the result of some very evil engineering. But I suppose Ceratopsians and even more so Stegosaurs have existed post-Flood, and thus would be real kinds, recognised as such by Noah and thus by the Holy Ghost inspiring him. And that means "Cretaceous" is useless as a timelabel to distinguish even as generally as pre- from post-Flood biotope. But Cretaceous and even more so an even smaller label (I don't think Maastrichtian would be the right for Ceratopsians, not sure, but labels in that order of finesse) are very fine as descriptions of local fauna before whatever disaster wiped it away from the day of life - which would usually, but not always, be the Flood.

So instead of seeing Palaeozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic as very general timelabels with many exceptions for what was buried when in the Flood, I rather see Barremian and Maastrichtian and Danian and quite a few more as very precise labels on what kind of biotope was buried. I am generally against considering time as a fourth dimension, but this is a case where I would recommend a turning to the spatial dimensions from the so called dimension of time.

If the creationists on CMI were palaeontologists as much as there are geologists, this would probably be perfectly clear.

As it is, it is confused to them because each of these labels also has another meaning, which applies in vertical relations. If any vertical layer has fossils identifiable according to some such label as Barremian, very obviously the layers above and below will in geology and geological just so stories about how the landscape formed, be given names of labels supposedly earlier than Barremian if below, and supposedly later than Barremian if above.

So far, and excepting Grand Canyon and very little else, this is what we find if we look at palaeontology.

That is why I recommend looking at the Evolutionist produced site palaeocritti.com/ while it last, i e up to 2016, at least, and should it, in 2016, shut down, my back up blog for it, the Palaeocritti Blog.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
The Most Holy Name of Mary
12-IX-2014

Feast info : Festum sanctissimi Nominis beatae Mariae, quod Innocentius Undecimus, Pontifex Maximus, ob insignem victoriam de Turcis, ipsius Virginis praesidio, Vindobonae in Austria reportatam, celebrari jussit.

Martyrologium Romanum : Septembris mensis
http://liturgialatina.org/martyrologium/19.htm

Sites cited for article:

Palaeocritti - a guide to prehistoric animals : By Location‎ > ‎ South Africa
http://www.palaeocritti.com/by-location/south-africa

Palaeocritti Blog
http://palaeocritti.blogspot.com

And the trigger for this article, a few lines in an otherwise very good, probably (beyond my expertise) article by Oard:

CMI : Surficial continental erosion places the Flood/post-Flood boundary in the late Cenozoic
by Michael J. Oard (today)
http://creation.com/flood-boundary-erosion

Geology Revisited

1) Geology Revisited, 2) Rats from Upper Palaeocene - Means What?

Read today's artricle on CMI by Paula Weston and came across this statement divided into text and footnote of a fact box:

No-one has found fossils that show a sequence of change from a non–kangaroo-rat ancestor to the kangaroo rats. The only fossils found were clearly already kangaroo rats and these almost certainly formed after the Flood. Fossils exist in rocks designated as ‘Pliocene’, which mostly have the hallmarks of being post-Flood.

This has set me on a little chase on CMI's treatment of the Pliocene. It was not totally fruitless.

Geology indicates the terrestrial Flood/post-Flood boundary is mostly in the Late Cenozoic
by Michael J. Oard
http://creation.com/late-cenozoic-flood-boundary

Jack L., United States, 9 May 2014

Personally I find it very puzzling why creation scientists would use evolutionary names like "Cenozoic" or "K/T boundary". I have to convert these "ages" in my head from 65 million years ago to X thousand years ago, and I can't.

Shaun Doyle responds

Most creationists continue to use those names at least for the sake of established convention. If we did not, it would be practically impossible to communicate with practically any geologist today about any particular rock formation. Of course, when one labels a particular formation 'Jurassic' or 'Pleistocene' it will often raise questions like: do creationists think Jurassic rocks occurred during Noah's Flood or after? Creationists are not united in how to answer such questions. There are a spectrum of views, ranging from seeing little correspondence between geologic column designations and rock record realities to those who see the geologic column reflecting a genuine relative chronology in the rocks. Mike Oard is somewhere near the middle of that spectrum (see The geological column is a general Flood order with many exceptions). This question is the subject of the book The Geologic Column, which provides a helpful overview of the spectrum of views among Flood geologists.

George J., Canada, 9 May 2014

I agree with Jack L's sentiments.

In answer to Shaun's question "do creationists think Jurassic rocks occurred during Noah's Flood or after? ". I ask what is a Jurassic rock? Let's face it, the Jurassic is a fairy land that has no basis in reality, but it can make for a good movie. Why buy into it? A creationist may say he is using it for convenience. Convenience to do what? Discuss with an evolutionist something that the evolutionist then perceives has enough scientific support that even creationists are forced to use such terms. After having used evolutionary terminology to discuss empirical evidence, it does little good for a creationist to then say I don't agree with your model. That's like someone saying this is 2014, and then saying there is no evidence whatsoever that there was a man called Jesus.

I do not agree that, "it would be practically impossible to communicate with practically any geologist today about any particular rock formation. " One would simply do it by referring to the "particular rock formation". It's what would be done anyway, by defining the specific location. If the evolutionist subsequently sticks it into some imaginary layer, that is his choice.

Using evolutionary terms for the layers concedes a point that needs not be in any evolution/creation debate. The title Shaun referred to, "The geological column is a general Flood order with many exceptions" brought to my mind the image of looking at a pot of spaghetti and trying to figure out which noodle was put in first. With worldwide tidal waves depositing, eroding, depositing, etc., should one really be surprised that the "geologic” column may sometimes appear like a pot of spaghetti?

My opinion? This article has two Christians debating when an event happened in an imaginary model.

Shaun Doyle responds

And there are some creationist researchers who agree with you. My point was primarily about communication with deep time geologists; they are hardly going to abandon a model with a 200-year pedigree ultimately built on principles first enunciated by the father of geology Nicolaus Steno, who was a biblical creationist, just because a biblical creationist rejects it wholesale. This becomes all the more pertinent when some biblical creationists accept the basic global validity of the geologic column as a relative chronology, as e.g. Dr John Baumgardner, Dr Marcus Ross, and Dr Andrew Snelling do. Besides, even if the fine gradations of the secular framework are imaginary, there may still be a more general order (e.g. Precambrian-Paleozoic-Mesozoic-Cenozoic-Quaternary) that remains applicable nonetheless. In other words, one doesn't have to affirm every fine gradation of the modern geologic column to assert to a general viability of the basic idea. Therefore, as long as the geologic column remains a popular convention, and especially while it has cogent adherents within the biblical creationist community, it makes sense to have discussions on the rock record with respect to the geologic column idea.

I happen to have a view on this one as well. Readers not new to this blog will know it. I must however first state that it could have had a somewhat fairer treatment from CMI. On one article by Tas Walker I posted a series of comments, and Tas did not publish them, but he did email me and state that he would like to assemble them into one feedback article. He never - so far - came around to it. However, CMI has more or less if not promised at least held out hopes for different ideas getting treated. See here:

CMI is more than happy when creationists embark on research in an attempt to help the creationist cause. Our Journal of Creation seeks to act as a service to the creation community where new ideas can be aired and critiqued and even refined by fellow creation researchers.

Analysis of Walt Brown’s Flood model
by Michael J. Oard
Published: 7 April 2013 (GMT+10)
http://creation.com/hydroplate-theory

Now, I am going to take a few strokes of the pen against Shaun Doyle here. Getting back to the earlier quoted dialogue, of course. And interspersing my comments.

Doyle

Most creationists continue to use those names at least for the sake of established convention. If we did not, it would be practically impossible to communicate with practically any geologist today about any particular rock formation.

Lundahl

I have tried to communicate with geologists - or one named Brian Switek and another one named Darwin (both bloggers) - while using those conventions.

With the difference that I am not accepting they form a CHRONOLOGY, I think they simply form a MAP.

I have not got any very long answers.

Doyle

My point was primarily about communication with deep time geologists;

Lundahl

Oh, one should - insofar as these answer back.

Doyle

they are hardly going to abandon a model with a 200-year pedigree ultimately built on principles first enunciated by the father of geology Nicolaus Steno, who was a biblical creationist, just because a biblical creationist rejects it wholesale.

Lundahl

"Based ultimately" is a large word.

The chronological column of fossil bearing strata is nowhere found (not even in GC, as far as I know, except "on top").

As far as fossil bearing strata are concerned, we have a two dimensional map wrapped around a globe, we do not have a dimension of depth, of one fossil bearing stratum physically above the other one.

Where there are fossil bearing strata (excepting GC) they may be above or below or between non-fossil bearing strata from other periods.

And if the fossil bearing stratum does contain Jurassic type fossils (insofar as they have already elsewhere been identified as such) it will be labelled Jurassic. And a non-fossil stratum below it might be labelled Triassic or Permian or Cambrian or whatever they like, that does not make such a place an attestation of the sequence Jurassic above Triassic or Jurassic above Permian or anything like that. It just means there was something below the Jurassic deposits.

And a non-fossil stratum above it might be called Cretaceous or Palaeocene, or Miocene or anything else that is supposed to come after Jurassic, but if it has no fossils it will not be attesting logically any kind of temporal sequence with Jurassic below Cretaceous or Palaeogene.

Considering that Permian and Miocene are also used for certain types of fossils make it grossly misleading to label non-fossil layers below the Jurassic land fauna layer as Permian or non-fossil layers above it as Miocene.

If a place with one fossil bearing layer were labelled in its successive significant levels: pre-Jurassic, Jurassic, post-Jurassic, if Jurassic was the type, and this was consistently done, if furthermore the difference between land and marine fossil layers were consistently observed, one would normally get vertical series like:

1) a) pre-Jurassic, b) land-Jurassic, c) post-Jurassic
2) a) pre-Permian, b) land-Permian, c) post-Permian
3) a) pre-Cambrian, b) sea-Cambrian (with Trilobites), c) sea-Cretaceous (with Sharks), d) post-Cretaceous.

Grand Canyon is obviously the most detailed version of a nearly only shell-fish based fossil site.

This could very often be reduced very directly to a series like:

4) a) pre-Flood, b) early Flood getting life buried, c) late Flood adding mud.

And this is also basically the real system of Nicolaus Steno.

Doyle

This becomes all the more pertinent when some biblical creationists accept the basic global validity of the geologic column as a relative chronology, as e.g. Dr John Baumgardner, Dr Marcus Ross, and Dr Andrew Snelling do.

Lundahl

My problem with them is they are squeezing a million of years chronology into a one year chronology.

They should by turning it from a chronology to a map.

Any site has marina fauna, whether Jurassic or Pliocene (like - for Pliocene - the whales in Austria), it was sea before the Flood.

Any site has land fauna, whether Permian or Triassic (as in different parts of Karoo), it was land before the Flood.

Doyle

Besides, even if the fine gradations of the secular framework are imaginary, there may still be a more general order (e.g. Precambrian-Paleozoic-Mesozoic-Cenozoic-Quaternary) that remains applicable nonetheless.

Lundahl

In Grand Canyon, we have - except on the very top - a Precambrian to Palaeozoic heap of basically shellfish of diverse kinds. Including huge "Ammonites" or Buck-Horn Shells.

Its "fine gradations" are probably the basis for diverse gradations within Precambrian or Palaeozoic. Its real order is the obvious one of Marine Flood burial order: fish come above shellfish.

Is CMI very likely to take this hint from me? Not while I remain Catholic and Geocentric, as far as our relations have been up to now.

On the Galileo affair, they are content to cite Schirrmacher - a Calvinist "Theologian". I actually thought he was a Catholic, because his accusations about the motives of Catholic Church men were so gross (that they were punishing his attitude rather than his doctrine at the end of the game!) that the Catholics I have seen cite him, I did not think there was a Catholic alive able to cite such a thesis as Schirrmacher's, if Schirrmacher had not been a Catholic.

And of course, my turning "parallax" from geometric indication of distance mapping to angelic choreography is akin to what I am doing here too. And as obviously as I am not changing the conventional angle for proxima Centauri to anything other than 0.76 arc seconds (though that might be only the angle as compared to other stars also moving, that would be one explanation for "negative parallax") I have no interest in changing the labels given for formations by Palaeontologists. I am indeed rather thankful for them. They underline the fact that any given place can usually be described by one single period name - meaning, as already said, that there is one fossil bearing layer, thick or thin.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
St William of Vercelli
Father of the Hermits of the Mount Virgin
25/VI/2014