Get Even More Visitors To Your Blog, Upgrade To A Business Listing >>

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.


This post first appeared on Creation Vs Evolution, please read the originial post: here

Share the post

Biological Stromatolites?

×

Subscribe to Creation Vs Evolution

Get updates delivered right to your inbox!

Thank you for your subscription

×