I have to ask the question....just how many layers have been misidentified by the geologist..that is believing there are millions upon millions years of seperation between the strata when in fact they have deposited rapidly?
That is a good question, and I don't know--I figure probably a few. Gradual sedimentary rock tends to be deposited in well-ordered linear layers like a wedding cake, and quick deposits tend to be ordered in a somewhat chaotic fashion like ingredients thrown one at a time into a mixing bowl. Also, I would expect that quick depositions would have blurred boundaries between layers, as opposed to sharp boundaries between gradual sedimentary rock, because in sedimentary layers one layer hardens before the next is deposited. If there are mistakes, then at least two radiometric dating tests are all that are needed to know for sure. Creationists have the funding for such a test--a sample from the top layer of a polystrate fossil, a sample from the bottom layer, send it to an appropriate dating lab without any details, and see what dates are returned. If the dates returned are hugely different, then doubt will be thrown on the whole science of geology.
Are only the layers with polystrate fossils in them deposited rapidly?
They tend to be, although an upright tree can be slowly buried over like a hundred years or so.
TempestTossed argument seem to be to easily fabricated.
Still, check this out:
From what I read the evos claim that about 75% of the species were wiped out at the K/T boundary during and shortly after an asteroid or meteor slammed into the earth depositing iridium around the globe.
My question, shouldn't we find fossils in the iridium layer? Shouldn't we find footprints on it's surface and many fossils just above this layer?
Yes, I would expect that you would find just as many in that range of layers as any other.
I ask this because if 75% of the species were killed during this event, I would think most of them died as the iridium was settling or shortly after. Shouldn't we find poly-strata fossils in this layer due to the relatively quick deposit? Shouldn't we find an over abundance of fossilized "victims" such as dinosaurs just above and below the iridium strata?
It seems as if the fossil population just above and below the iridium layer compared to the rest of the geological column comes up short. Would not such an earth changing event that caused a mass extinction provide an opportunity to create a lot of fossils?
Not really. All organisms eventually die, whether from old age, illness, or getting eaten. The asteroid killed off many species likely because of the change in climate it caused, cutting off sunlight and killing foliage. They likely didn't die directly from any burial of the comet collision. So fossils in the KT boundary would be no more likely than fossils anywhere else, I would figure. It takes other special circumstances, like getting stuck in a tar pit, getting buried in sediment, getting buried in a mudslide, and that sort of thing.
Could it be that the iridium strata is not the smoking gun that the evo would like it to be?
I don't think of it as a smoking gun. The complete geologic column provides a detailed history of the planet, and the iridium-laced KT boundary is just one small part of the entire picture. If young-Earth creationism demands to be taken seriously, then it should explain such patterns. What is the YEC explanation for the abnormal abundance of iridium found in a single thin layer all over the world? Maybe there is one, I don't know.
