Shoddy YEC Scholarship

[cycad]

The August 2004 edition of TJ, the technical journal of Answers in Genesis, contains an article by Emil Silvestru entitled “Human and Dinosaur Footprints in the Upper Cretaceous of North America?” The author is described on the AiG website as “A world authority on the geology of caves“ and “His areas of expertise include: Sedimentology of clastic deposits,……”

In the paper, Silvestru says he is happy that the discoverers of the alleged human footprints in the Dunvegan Fm. first contacted a “professional geologist with a Christian worldview” to examine the features, rather than a secular one.

Leaving aside the question of whether the footprints are human (Silvestru, after examination, concludes “personally, I lean towards interpreting WOC02 and 06 as metatarsal dinosaurian footprints, too, although I would not completely rule out the possibility of them being human”), let’s look at his section on paleoenvironment.

He hints that something profound is coming by stating that “the entire slab surface is ripple marked; a very clear and rather precise paleoenvironmental marker which will be discussed later.” Ripples are not mentioned again in the paper.

He gives the mainstream interpretation of the Dunvegan as deltaic, citing Plint and Battacharya:

Human and Dinosaur Footprints in the Upper Cretaceous of North America? TJ 18(2), 2004, p. 114-120.

(p. 114) “The Dunvegan Formation (DF) is described as a deltaic complex of Cenomanian age, advancing into the sea about 400 km from NW to SE (from British Columbia to Alberta), over about 2 million years.8 ……..A creationist interpretation of this formation would be a primarily depositional environment under fluctuating water levels during the Flood, as discussed later.”



And (p. 118) “As mentioned before, the paleoenvironment of the area is considered to be deltaic. Reconstructions, based on well logs and sequence stratigraphy, infer a north-east to south-west shoreline (the Western Internal [sic] Seaway) with rivers draining towards the south-east.9 Several transgressions (ocean rising and the shoreline moving inland) interrupted the Dunvegan advance to the south-east, resulting in seven marine tongues within the Dunvegan Formation. These episodes are interpreted as tectonically induced subsidence during periods of renewed thrusting in the Cordillera. 9

© source where applicable

He then says that modern deltas don’t look anything like these ancient sequences ascribed to deltaic environments. He has a better idea: the Flood.

Human and Dinosaur Footprints in the Upper Cretaceous of North America? TJ 18(2), 2004, p. 114-120.

(p. 118) “The standard “long-age” interpretation of deltaic and near-shore deposits is commonly taught as the process that formed most of the massive sandstone sedimentary sequences around the world. However, such sequences bear little resemblance to the complex and irregular geological profile of modern-day river deltas. The ‘present’ is clearly not ‘the key to the past’ for these formations. A more satisfactory interpretation would be a depositional setting comprising fluctuating floodwaters within a tectonic basin, which was being rapidly filled with sediments washed in from the eroding continent during the Inundatory stage (first half of the Flood).17 Under such circumstances, it is possible that at least some of the dinosaurs recurrently arrived in the area on large floating mats of wood debris from the Flood.”

© source where applicable

These empty assertions, with absolutely no supporting data, would earn a failing grade in an undergrad geology paper, but they are good enough for TJ, which is supposedly a peer reviewed (by YECs) publication. His reference #17 is to Tas Walker’s Biblical Geologic Model. This does not support his re-interpretation of the Dunvegan Formation. The only place in this document where the word delta occurs is in the section on Modern Rocks (post-Flood).
Those “secular” scientists, on the other hand, have been researching the Dunvegan for a few decades, gathering data (thousands of well logs and dozens of outcrop sections), making logical, well supported interpretations of the data, and publishing their findings in peer reviewed mainstream journals, where they have withstood critical examination. The data (many many root horizons, coal seams, mappable river channel systems, paleosols, dinosaur tracks) utterly refutes Silvestru’s assertions.

Fluctuating floodwaters? Of course, dinosaurs cannot make tracks in sediments that are deep underwater, so Silvestru is forced to ascribe the making of tracks to time periods when there was dry land or at least shallow water (length of dinosaur’s legs). If he is assigning Upper Cretaceous rocks to the first half of the Flood, everything below it (thousands of meters of sediments) must be pre-Flood or ‘first half of Flood’ rocks. Silvestru has unwittingly destroyed his own global flood hypothesis, since the Cretaceous and Tertiary rocks above the Dunvegan Formation have non-marine intervals with dinosaur tracks (Cretaceous) and mammals (Tertiary). So when was the entire earth covered in water, and what sediments are a result of this?

He then states that although there were apparently no physical barriers to prevent sauropods from reaching western Canada during the Cretaceous, no Cretaceous sauropod tracks or bones have been found in Canada thus far. His answer?

Human and Dinosaur Footprints in the Upper Cretaceous of North America? TJ 18(2), 2004, p. 114-120.

(p. 119) “Within a young-earth Flood scenario, such an unusual distribution is easy to explain. It is possible that larger dinosaurs like the sauropods did not have the opportunity to find temporary refuge from the floodwaters ‘on board’ floating mats.”

© source where applicable

This is a flaw in logic. If his explanation was true, why are there Cretaceous (or Jurassic) sauropod tracks anywhere? It is not “easy to explain” with an unsupported speculation.
He states that:

Human and Dinosaur Footprints in the Upper Cretaceous of North America? TJ 18(2), 2004, p. 114-120.

(p. 119) “From a paleoenvironmental point of view, the dinosaur fossil record is mostly located within 200 km of the sea20.”

© source where applicable

The real quote from Dodson?

Dodson, P., Dinosaur Paleoecology, [url]http://208.164.121.55/reference/dinosaur/dodson.htm[/url] May 2004

“The fossil record of dinosaurs is biased towards lowland sedimentary environments near the sea. Probably most dinosaur fossils come from within 200 km of the sea.”

© source where applicable

This is shameless quote mining. Silvestru doesn’t understand, or pretends not to understand, what Dodson is saying: The preservation potential of sediments and their associated fossils is higher for lowland sedimentary environments near the sea.
Note that he leaves out these sentences from the same paragraph of Dodson:

Dodson, P., Dinosaur Paleoecology, [url]http://208.164.121.55/reference/dinosaur/dodson.htm[/url] May 2004

“Genuine upland environments have been identified (Two Medicine Fm., St. Mary River Fm., Late Cretaceous, Montana) or situations far removed from marine influence (Morrison Fm., Late Jurassic, western U.S.; Late Cretaceous, Gobi Desert, Mongolia). Burial in wind-blown sand has been recorded in the Late Cretaceous of China and Mongolia.”

And

“Typical terrestrial environments for the preservation of dinosaurs are fluviatile sediments including channel sands, point bar deposits, channel fills, and reduced or oxidized overbank deposits.”

© source where applicable

More quote mining.

Silvestru refers to National Geographic:

Human and Dinosaur Footprints in the Upper Cretaceous of North America? TJ 18(2), 2004, p. 114-120.

(p. 119) “Even dinosaur sites found at sites interpreted to be far away from the sea, like the Late Cretaceous ones in Mongolia, are believed to have been buried in sand dunes saturated in rain water.21”

© source where applicable

While we all know that NG is an excellent popular level treatment of science, Silvestru’s choice to refer to a one sentence explanation in an illustration caption of NG shows the depth of his research. I’m betting he has no clue where the original data was published; otherwise he would have cited the original reference. Interestingly, the same article has a section relevant to the issue. The section discusses differing interpretations of dinosaurs as predators or scavengers. “this is precisely the kind of argument that can’t be won by speaking louder than one’s opponents. Science requires data. Science requires that ideas be subjected to tests.” (p. 14) I guess he never read that part…..

What we have here is a great example of unsupported assertions, flaws in logic, and good old fashioned quote mining. Remember, this is the technical journal of AiG – this is as good as it gets!



8. Plint, A. G. Sequence Stratigraphy and Paleogeography of a Cenomanian deltaic complex: the Dunvegan and Lower Kaskapau formations in subsurface and outcrop, Alberta and British Columbia, Canada, Bull. Canadian Petroleum Geology 48(1): 43-79, March 2000.

9. Bhattacharya, J. P., Cretaceous Dunvegan Formation of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin, www.ags.gov.ab.ca/publications/ATLAS_WWW/A_CH22/CH_22_F.shtml, May 2004.

17. Walker, T. A Biblical Geologic Model; in Walsh, R.E., (Ed.), Proc.3rd Int. Conf. Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, pp. 581-592, 1994.

20. Dodson, P., Dinosaur Paleoecology, http://208.164.121.55/reference/dinosaur/dodson.htm May 2004

21. Achenbach, J., Flesh and Bone, National Geographic, March 2003, p. 27.

[rach12]

Great summary, Cycad.

Your comment on National Geographic reminded me of something. When in the course of writing a research paper on the tectonic history of the Great Basin, I made the unfortunate mistake of using Bill Fiero's Geology of the Great Basin as a source. I happened to think the book was pretty good, but my professor was NOT impressed. He wrote a scathing note (in blood red ink, of all things!) reminding me that research should be supported by peer reviewed technical papers not a coffee table book. YOUCH!!!

By the way, does AiG have a geologic column for their flood scenario that is comparable to the old earth column? It would be really interesting to see where in the flood the K sediments were deposited. I doubt it, however. That would mean YECs would have to stick their necks out a bit too far.

[SteveF]

I particularly like the idea of dinos floating round on bits of vegetation. On the one hand, YECs say that the flood scoured the world, floods of the deep, huge catastrophe etc etc. On the other, these animals are happily lounging on a floating mat, presumably taking in the sun and playing a bit of deck tennis.

Edited for a bit of misreading!

[Minnesota]

"Shoddy scholarship" is a double misnomer. The piece goes beyond shoddy and into the realm of deliberate deception. And, such nonsense doesn't come close to any kind of scholarship. But I know what you mean: worthless tripe. Good post, by the way.

[kuboes1831]

Another insult to God from TJ

[grmorton]

The August 2004 edition of TJ, the technical journal of Answers in Genesis, contains an article by Emil Silvestru entitled “Human and Dinosaur Footprints in the Upper Cretaceous of North America?” The author is described on the AiG website as “A world authority on the geology of caves“ and “His areas of expertise include: Sedimentology of clastic deposits,……”

The way it works in geology, one is an expert in carbonates or one is an expert in clastics. I can't think of a single expert in both, excepting AIG's megalomania.

He hints that something profound is coming by stating that “the entire slab surface is ripple marked; a very clear and rather precise paleoenvironmental marker which will be discussed later.” Ripples are not mentioned again in the paper.

I wonder what that could imply other than that it took time to deposit the Dunvegan (Anyone outside of the UK know the real spelling of Dunvegan

He then says that modern deltas don’t look anything like these ancient sequences ascribed to deltaic environments. He has a better idea: the Flood.

Then he isn't the expert in clastics that he claims he should look at the Booch delta shown below:

[attachment=1]

That looks like a modern delta.

His statement below is pure bunk.


[size=3][font=Arial]

Human and Dinosaur Footprints in the Upper Cretaceous of North America? TJ 18(2), 2004, p. 114-120.

(p. 118) “The standard “long-age” interpretation of deltaic and near-shore deposits is commonly taught as the process that formed most of the massive sandstone sedimentary sequences around the world. However, such sequences bear little resemblance to the complex and irregular geological profile of modern-day river deltas. The ‘present’ is clearly not ‘the key to the past’ for these formations. A more satisfactory interpretation would be a depositional setting comprising fluctuating floodwaters within a tectonic basin, which was being rapidly filled with sediments washed in from the eroding continent during the Inundatory stage (first half of the Flood).17 Under such circumstances, it is possible that at least some of the dinosaurs recurrently arrived in the area on large floating mats of wood debris from the Flood.”

© source where applicable

Those “secular” scientists, on the other hand, have been researching the Dunvegan for a few decades, gathering data (thousands of well logs and dozens of outcrop sections), making logical, well supported interpretations of the data, and publishing their findings in peer reviewed mainstream journals, where they have withstood critical examination. The data (many many root horizons, coal seams, mappable river channel systems, paleosols, dinosaur tracks) utterly refutes Silvestru’s assertions.

AMEN!

[Kulindrichnus]

The way it works in geology, one is an expert in carbonates or one is an expert in clastics. I can't think of a single expert in both, excepting AIG's megalomania.

Oh, rubbish. That is an antique view. I have most of my published work on carbonates, but my doctorate in clastics (including volcaniclastics), and I now work mostly on glacigenics! I am not claiming to be an expert in any of them, but the idea that a sedimentolgist must be either clastic or carbonate (and that glacigenics are the preserve of geographers) is getting very long in the tooth.

That aside, anybody who talks about the the 'western internal seaway' shows himself as a complete charlatan. More specific elements of his expertise need not be investigated.

K

[grmorton]

Oh, rubbish. That is an antique view. I have most of my published work on carbonates, but my doctorate in clastics (including volcaniclastics), and I now work mostly on glacigenics! I am not claiming to be an expert in any of them, but the idea that a sedimentolgist must be either clastic or carbonate (and that glacigenics are the preserve of geographers) is getting very long in the tooth.

That aside, anybody who talks about the the 'western internal seaway' shows himself as a complete charlatan. More specific elements of his expertise need not be investigated.

K

Well I stand corrected. Sorry. I just hadn't met any dual experts in my career. I had met lots of people who had worked both.

[Kulindrichnus]

Well I stand corrected. Sorry. I just hadn't met any dual experts in my career. I had met lots of people who had worked both.

Hehe . Lesson in modesty, understood and accepted.

'tis an old adage though, and not necessarily true anymore. Geology is now very 'integrated'. There are plenty of people who have 'worked both'; but in the eyes of some 'old boys' that fact alone will always disqualify us from being 'experts' in either! I've always thought it an unreal divide, and used for unfair purposes by archaic people who are frightened of the 'other sedimentology' (whichever one) that they know nothing about.

Cheers

K

[grmorton]

Hehe . Lesson in modesty, understood and accepted.

'tis an old adage though, and not necessarily true anymore. Geology is now very 'integrated'. There are plenty of people who have 'worked both'; but in the eyes of some 'old boys' that fact alone will always disqualify us from being 'experts' in either! I've always thought it an unreal divide, and used for unfair purposes by archaic people who are frightened of the 'other sedimentology' (whichever one) that they know nothing about.

Cheers

K

Well, the oil industry is full of old farts. The average age is something like 48 so we probably are those guys you are complaining about.

[rach12]

That aside, anybody who talks about the the 'western internal seaway' shows himself as a complete charlatan. More specific elements of his expertise need not be investigated.

K

Oh, I can't believe I missed that!!! That is too funny. So much for anyone actually reviewing that paper.

[cycad]

Oh, I can't believe I missed that!!! That is too funny. So much for anyone actually reviewing that paper.

Review?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/tjguidelines.asp

All members of the Editorial Team adhere to the Answers in Genesis (AiG) Statement of Faith

© source where applicable

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/About/faith.asp

6. By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

© source where applicable

Enough said!

[geochron]

That aside, anybody who talks about the the 'western internal seaway' shows himself as a complete charlatan. More specific elements of his expertise need not be investigated.

Would you mind explaining?

[SteveF]

I have to admit to being dismayed by this thread. It is clear that the posters are stuck fast in a rigid uniformitarian mindset that believes dinosaurs floating around on wet logs in the middle of an epic global flood is a stupid idea. Open your minds people.

Oh and Emil Silvestru has a PhD. And is an expert in caves (where presumably he has been living). And clastics. So he must be right.

[rach12]

Would you mind explaining?

It's not the Western Internal Seaway,' but the Western Interior Seaway... or the Cretaceous Seaway.

Pretty embarassing.