Fossils found spanning sedimentary layers?

[Bolero]

Quick background:
Ongoing arguments with fundie creationist (possibly soon-to-be-ex) spouse, because he insists on feeding the children creationist bullshit. Need to refute whatever he throws at me. I had a small success with "Lucy and the Angle Grinder" on the RDF, where members provided me with the mis-informed creationist propaganda, and the solid arguments against it. He conceded he was wrong on that point. Baby steps....

Anyway, here's the next ludicrous claim of "proof that evolutionary thoery isn't fact".

Not quite sure how to put this one, but apparently there's a creationist argument out there which says there have been fossils found which "span" rock layers (i.e. the fossils cover two or more different eras). Even as I type this, I feel embarrassed because it's so ridiculous. I can't think where he's got this one from, but often with these arguments, there's some true story which has been distorted and misrepresented by the creationists. Anyone able to help?

Bolero.

[Xeno]

Of course fossils can appear in multiple geological strata but there should not be an unreasonable gap between appearances in different ages. Are you able to point us to an example of the claim?

[Bolero]

From creationism.org:

FOSSILS - "The Creationist's Best Friend" (i.e. the fossil record) shows mass death and burial of former life around the world. A dead fish today doesn't sink - it floats. And if a human body is exhumed from 6 feet under it already shows signs of decay, not superb preservation. How deeply would you have to quickly bury organic material in order to preserve its structure? Just what process buried all of the well-preserved fossils that we find in the sedimentary layers?


This photo of a (compressed) huge fish was taken at the Smithsonian - it is well preserved!

Tree trunks regularly traverse multiple sedimentary and volcanic layers. Evolutionary dating methods are inconsistent often showing deeper layers to be much "younger" and vice versa. The post-flood world is but a remnant of the life that was. The observed "Cambrian Explosion" was actually within the 6 days of creation; life started suddenly (well, not suddenly … over the course of 6 days). Life flourished on the continents, the oceans (before the Flood) were less saline allowing for more abundant life, and there is evidence that many creatures had longer lifespans; humans could live for over 900 years (per Genesis) and dinosaurs and insects grew to be huge. The pre-Flood world must have been magnificent to behold. But due to sin (violence filled the Earth) it was destroyed. The evidence of Earth life's one time massive destruction in the Great Flood lies beneath your feet right now; we call this the fossil record. Massive tidal waves washed over the continents and buried former life en masse.

The bit highlighted in red would be one example, I guess, of what he's talking about.

[Xeno]

So far, this is looking like pure invention. Let me do some more reading.

[Thinking Aloud]

Something, perhaps, to do with the actual shape of a tree (or any other 3D object found in the ground) ...

A tree stands upright. If it's buried under layers of sediment, or indeed volcanic debris, then yes, it will "span sedimentary layers", but it will be dated to the layer in which its roots are found. I'd ignore any claims to "dating methods" being inaccurate - this is well-known misinformation or plain ignorance on the part of Creationists. Radiometric dating works. (They will often claim that Carbon Dating is unreliable for this or that period - yes, Carbon dating only works over periods up to a few tens of thousands of years, if I recall correctly. There are other isotopes that work spectacularly well for longer periods.)

[GrahamH]

...
Not quite sure how to put this one, but apparently there's a creationist argument out there which says there have been fossils found which "span" rock layers (i.e. the fossils cover two or more different eras).
...

This is probably a reference to 'polystrate tree fossils'.

Do you know about TalkOrigins.org ? It is a very useful starting point for addressing creationist claims. They have info on 'polystrate' tree fossils

Are "polystrate" fossils a problem for conventional geology?

Well, they were not a problem to explain in the 19th century, and are still not a problem now. John William Dawson (1868) described a classic Carboniferous-age locality at Joggins, Nova Scotia, where there are upright giant lycopod trees up to a few metres tall preserved mainly in river-deposited sandstones. These trees have extensive root systems with rootlets that penetrate into the underlying sediment, which is either a coal seam (i.e. compressed plant material), or an intensely-rooted sandstone or mudstone (i.e. a soil horizon). Dawson considered and rejected anything but an in situ formation for these fossils, and his interpretation is closely similar to current interpretations of sediments deposited on river floodplains. An interesting feature of these examples is the presence of vertebrate fossils (mostly small reptiles) within the infilling of the stumps.

The reason I am using Dawson rather than a more recent reference is to emphasize that many supposed "problems" with conventional geology were solved more than 100 years ago using very basic principles. The people suggesting these "problems" exist are so out of date that even 19th-century literature refutes their presentations.

[Xeno]

GrahamH has given the useful response in TalkOrigins. I have flicked over the 700 pages of Dawson's 1868 book (looking for pictures ) and noticed that two "crucial" illustrations on the http://www.earthage.org site are discreetly admitted to be inventions by them -- "if these trees were one in the same, then the drawings below provide some idea what it may have looked like" except they are not one and the same and the drawings illustrate only the author's fantasies.

Dawson's book describes no anachronistic placements of flora or fauna. His diagrams do not describe any fossil crossing fossiliferous strata between ages.

It is all made up, using tendentious diagrams, made up diagrams, quote mining and tendentious use of real text entirely separated from diagrams loosely referenced.

It might also be worth noting that most of the links, the notional references, to be found on pages of earthage.org in fact refer to more pages on the same web site.
"I am the supporting reference for myself."

[Randydeluxe]

This has to be among the five stupidest things I've ever read in my life, and that is saying something:

from creationism.org:

A dead fish today doesn't sink - it floats.

I am thunderstruck by the lack of critical thought that went into that statement. We truly walk among the living brain-dead.

[normal]

Talkorigins have nice answers for most of the crazy claims of creationists.

Polystrate fossil trees:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

[GrahamH]

GrahamH has given the useful response in TalkOrigins. I have flicked over the 700 pages of Dawson's 1868 book (looking for pictures ) and noticed that two "crucial" illustrations on the http://www.earthage.org site are discreetly admitted to be inventions by them -- "if these trees were one in the same, then the drawings below provide some idea what it may have looked like" except they are not one and the same and the drawings illustrate only the author's fantasies.

Dawson's book describes no anachronistic placements of flora or fauna. His diagrams do not describe any fossil crossing fossiliferous strata between ages.

It is all made up, using tendentious diagrams, made up diagrams, quote mining and tendentious use of real text entirely separated from diagrams loosely referenced.

It might also be worth noting that most of the links, the notional references, to be found on pages of earthage.org in fact refer to more pages on the same web site.
"I am the supporting reference for myself."

They are lying for Jesus?

[Xeno]

Good Heavens! Surely not?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The first time a species appears and the last time a species appears can span one or sedimentary layers. There are literally millions of layers visible to me where they cut the local Interstate Highway. If a species, a shark for example, is successful it will be found in a range of layers. And if there are gaps it may be they just haven't found a fossil in that layer yet.

[Deep Sea Isopod]

I'm sure I read somewhere about a landslide that had mixed up the fossils or something.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm sure I read somewhere about a landslide that had mixed up the fossils or something.

Yeah, Prothero talks about such things. He points out that this is why we don't go with a single specimen as being conclusive. It's a cautionary tale about using, say, a single book for your sources.

[Bolero]

I just spent a good half hour on Talkorigins...really rewarding stuff. Thanks for that.

I'll be ready for him next time.....