Rats from Upper Palaeocene - Means What?

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

Paula Weston:

Encyclopædia Britannica claims the earliest known rodents come from the upper Paleocene (supposedly about 57 million years ago) of North America, yet it admits these animals ‘had already acquired all of the diagnostic features of the order.’ In other words, these ‘early’ animals were easily recognizable as rodents.

Rats: no evolution!
by Paula Weston
http://creation.com/rats-no-evolution

As I forgot her credit on the previous one, here it is:

Kangaroo rats
by Paula Weston
http://creation.com/kangaroo-rats

Today I am not delving into any further articles, just into (at least mainly) that one paragraph.

If the claim is "the earliest rodents are from Upper Palaeocene" that reads as (I suppose the info is already outdated) "we have found more recent rodents in [making example up] Miocene and Oligocene, but no older rodents in Cretaceous or Jurassic".

I am not sure there have been no rodents found in Cretaceous since that article was written, but the point is that if Palaeocene, Miocene, Oligocene, on the one hand, and Cretaceous, Jurassic on the other hand are not ordered on a time scale, the real reading is of course "we have found rodents in some types of fossil biotopes, but not in others."

Rats are on the evolutionist view an indicator of age Palaeocene to "later" biotopes. Triceratops of Cretaceous or perhaps "earlier back to" Jurassic biotopes.

If Rats and Triceratops were ever to be found together (perhaps it has happened since article of Enc. Brit. was written), a palaeontologist who believes that Palaeocene, Cretaceous, and the rest of them, are time periods, would have three choices:

• 1) Rodents being older than thought. Like from Cretaceous on. (I think this might be what has taken place after such or roughly similar finds, so that "small mammals" - that could mean rodents - have now been documented "since" the Cretaceous).
  
  
• 2) Triceratops hanging on longer than thought. Logically this would be as possible, but palaeontologists would be wary of this kind of thing. Pal Ul Don is supposed to be Edgar Rice Burrough's SciFi/Fantasy land, not sth one could really come across. Cryptozoologists would not be against this for this reason, but they are hardly ever asked on their opinion when it comes to geochronology.
  
  
• 3) Misplaced fossils. A Classic. Find a hammer deep down incrusted in coal that is supposed to be from Carboniferous or sth, and oh boy, are they eager to say "it must have fallen down from miners later on". Even if that is either:
  
  
  • a) problematic in explanation for the incrusting which would have been abnormally fast, if fossilisation and such like processes take as long as they claim, OR
    
    
  • b) problematic in proving of the long ages of other things, if incrusting and suchlike processes take as short as the "misplaced coal miner's hammer" theory would have it.

The fourth choice - which they systematically avoid - is saying that Palaeocene and Cretaceous were never different time periods anyway. Because if all the fossil Lagerstätten from all these "time labels" are simultaneous, oh boy are we back at solid proof for Noah's Flood.

Actually, I am delving into another paragraph of that essay of hers:

Comprising 50% of all mammal species, rodents should be prolific in the fossil record, and evolutionists should expect to find numerous examples of transitional species. ...

Did you just hear that?

Comprising 50% of all mammal species, rodents ... OK, rodents are among only themselves, 50% of all mammalian species? But how many different kinds are rodents? Here we have a situation which gives added feasibility to Noah's Ark. How many pairs of rodents were there on board? Half the number of the mammals on board, or far fewer? Rodents are pretty unique among mammals when it comes to speciation through varied chromosome numbers. I hold - against P. Z. Myers - that even they can only vary it downwards. But this is one key to understanding how Noah's Ark could float and was not a crowded prison train or slaughterhouse train or slave ship leaving half the inmates dead before arrival.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary
to Elisabeth
2-VII-2014

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

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