From: jjh00@outs.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Help needed to debunk creationism
Summary: Hydrodynamic sorting can't explain Iowa
Keywords: bunk
Date: 25 Aug 92 20:24:34 GMT
Reply-To: jjh00@OUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

> eftv03@castle.ed.ac.uk (L R Watt) writes:
> 4. I need a debunking of the hydrodynamic sorting theory
>    of stratification.

I can add a little to Seth Kroger's excellent points:

The American Midwest, from Ohio to Nebraska, is underlain
by many thousands of feet of Paleozoic sedimentary rock.
The strata have tilted and bowed slightly over the
ages;  glaciers and water erosion have removed some of
the upward arches, giving us huge slanted cross-sections
of the strata, stretched out across the bedrock of several
states.  Interpretation of this geological column is
straightforward, and so obvious that there isn't much
recent literature about it.  Nevertheless, it alone
is sufficient to debunk hydrodynamic sorting.

Iowa, in particular, looks like this in cross section:
(dip angle exaggerated due to limits of ASCII graphics,
 east and west reversed so that I can use slashes instead
 of backslashes)

E                                                                    W

Mississ.     Devonian            Silurian           Ordovician
/ / // /   // / / / /// /  /  //  / / //// / / / // /// // //// / / / /
 / // /   // / / / /// /  /  //  / / //// / / / // /// // //// / / / /
/ // /   // / / / /// /  /  //  / / //// / / / // /// // //// / / / /
 // /   // / / / /// /  /  //  / / //// / / / // /// // //// / / / /
// /   // / / / /// /  /  //  / / //// / / / // /// // //// / / / /
/ /   // / / / /// /  /  //  / / //// / / / // /// // //// / / / /
 /   // / / / /// /  /  //  / / //// / / / // /// // //// / / / /
/   // / / / /// /  /  //  / / //// / / / // /// // //// / / / /
   // / / / /// /  /  //  / / //// / / / // /// // //// / / / /


My point is based on two kinds of fossils: brachiopods, which
are small, durable bivalves that look a little like clams, and
on massive coral reefs.

Brachiopods were numerous and diverse in the Paleozoic; they are
among the world's most common fossils.  Their types change
over the ages -- it's easy for an invertebrate paleontologist
to assign them to the correct period.  No brachiopod characteristic
of the Devonian has ever been found in the Missisippian, Silurian,
or Ordovician layers -- yet the brachiopods are hydrodynamically
very similar to each other.  This consistent and continent-spanning
correlation between brachiopod types and geological period
cannot be explained by hydrodynamic sorting.

The same case can be made with other common fossils;
crinoids, for example, or fishes -- in no case do we
find anachronistic fossils outside
of their appropriate strata.

In these same limy formations are found huge, _intact_ coral
reefs, made by extinct types of corals.  Some
of these reefs are hundreds of feet thick, and miles long.
Like brachiopods, the corals show distinct types that correlate
with the geologic period.

How can a flood that is so powerful as to rip up, displace, and
sort solid limestone reefs weighing millions of tons
be so delicate in sorting out the brachiopod types?
_Perfectly_?  Without _one_ mistake?


Another point: one of Lyell's first insights into the
inability of the biblical deluge to explain the geology
we see came when he examined a formation of the type
called an "angular unconformity".  Get yourself down
to the library or bookstore, and get any undergraduate
text on geology (Raup and Stanley's _Earth_and_Life_Through_Time_
is a good choice), and look up angular unconformity in the index.

---
Joel Hanes