Is the discovery of tuff amongst dinosaur fossils in Utah incompatible with scientific consensus about dating of the fossils?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
32
down vote

favorite












A Creation Ministries International article makes the following claim about the multiple-local-flood explanation for the deposits at the Morrison Formation:




The idea of many local floods might at first seem a possibility.
However, a notable feature of the water-worked sandstone in which the
dinosaur bones are entombed complicates the picture for
uniformitarians—these rocks contain abundant grains of a rock called
‘tuff’. Tuff forms from the solidification of hot ash ejected from
volcanoes. This, and layers of volcanic ash elsewhere in the
formation indicate that an explosive volcanic eruption occurred at
much the same time as all the dinosaur remains were buried by
flooding. No volcano is known in the vicinity of the deposit, and
geologists have placed the nearest source for the tuff to vents in
southern California or Nevada. Ash clouds depositing over such
considerable distances point to an extremely catastrophic volcanic
event.



The coincidence of floods and eruptions happening together on multiple
occasions, over vast spans of time, stretches the credibility of the
uniformitarian ‘just so’ story.




Has tuff been found amongst the deposits at the Dinosaur National Monument? Is this incongruous with the scientific consensus that the fossils were produced at various times hundreds of millions of years ago, rather than all at once in a worldwide flood event?










share|improve this question



















  • 2




    @hdhondt Reminds me of the Gish gallop being used outside of a debate structure.
    – JMac
    Aug 15 at 11:08






  • 3




    I completely miss the logical link between ash in the fossils and the (im)possibility of many local floods happening. Sounds like non sequitur to me.
    – Dmitry Grigoryev
    Aug 15 at 13:46











  • @DmitryGrigoryev: Not to affirm or contradict it... the claim is that while the consensus believes the Morrison Formation to have been formed in uniformitarian fashion through many local floods over the course of 10 million years, the presence of tuff throughout would indicate volcanic activity at each flooding event, so then the absence of nearby volcanoes calls into question the likelihood that the deposition really did take 10 million years.
    – elliot svensson
    Aug 16 at 14:27















up vote
32
down vote

favorite












A Creation Ministries International article makes the following claim about the multiple-local-flood explanation for the deposits at the Morrison Formation:




The idea of many local floods might at first seem a possibility.
However, a notable feature of the water-worked sandstone in which the
dinosaur bones are entombed complicates the picture for
uniformitarians—these rocks contain abundant grains of a rock called
‘tuff’. Tuff forms from the solidification of hot ash ejected from
volcanoes. This, and layers of volcanic ash elsewhere in the
formation indicate that an explosive volcanic eruption occurred at
much the same time as all the dinosaur remains were buried by
flooding. No volcano is known in the vicinity of the deposit, and
geologists have placed the nearest source for the tuff to vents in
southern California or Nevada. Ash clouds depositing over such
considerable distances point to an extremely catastrophic volcanic
event.



The coincidence of floods and eruptions happening together on multiple
occasions, over vast spans of time, stretches the credibility of the
uniformitarian ‘just so’ story.




Has tuff been found amongst the deposits at the Dinosaur National Monument? Is this incongruous with the scientific consensus that the fossils were produced at various times hundreds of millions of years ago, rather than all at once in a worldwide flood event?










share|improve this question



















  • 2




    @hdhondt Reminds me of the Gish gallop being used outside of a debate structure.
    – JMac
    Aug 15 at 11:08






  • 3




    I completely miss the logical link between ash in the fossils and the (im)possibility of many local floods happening. Sounds like non sequitur to me.
    – Dmitry Grigoryev
    Aug 15 at 13:46











  • @DmitryGrigoryev: Not to affirm or contradict it... the claim is that while the consensus believes the Morrison Formation to have been formed in uniformitarian fashion through many local floods over the course of 10 million years, the presence of tuff throughout would indicate volcanic activity at each flooding event, so then the absence of nearby volcanoes calls into question the likelihood that the deposition really did take 10 million years.
    – elliot svensson
    Aug 16 at 14:27













up vote
32
down vote

favorite









up vote
32
down vote

favorite











A Creation Ministries International article makes the following claim about the multiple-local-flood explanation for the deposits at the Morrison Formation:




The idea of many local floods might at first seem a possibility.
However, a notable feature of the water-worked sandstone in which the
dinosaur bones are entombed complicates the picture for
uniformitarians—these rocks contain abundant grains of a rock called
‘tuff’. Tuff forms from the solidification of hot ash ejected from
volcanoes. This, and layers of volcanic ash elsewhere in the
formation indicate that an explosive volcanic eruption occurred at
much the same time as all the dinosaur remains were buried by
flooding. No volcano is known in the vicinity of the deposit, and
geologists have placed the nearest source for the tuff to vents in
southern California or Nevada. Ash clouds depositing over such
considerable distances point to an extremely catastrophic volcanic
event.



The coincidence of floods and eruptions happening together on multiple
occasions, over vast spans of time, stretches the credibility of the
uniformitarian ‘just so’ story.




Has tuff been found amongst the deposits at the Dinosaur National Monument? Is this incongruous with the scientific consensus that the fossils were produced at various times hundreds of millions of years ago, rather than all at once in a worldwide flood event?










share|improve this question















A Creation Ministries International article makes the following claim about the multiple-local-flood explanation for the deposits at the Morrison Formation:




The idea of many local floods might at first seem a possibility.
However, a notable feature of the water-worked sandstone in which the
dinosaur bones are entombed complicates the picture for
uniformitarians—these rocks contain abundant grains of a rock called
‘tuff’. Tuff forms from the solidification of hot ash ejected from
volcanoes. This, and layers of volcanic ash elsewhere in the
formation indicate that an explosive volcanic eruption occurred at
much the same time as all the dinosaur remains were buried by
flooding. No volcano is known in the vicinity of the deposit, and
geologists have placed the nearest source for the tuff to vents in
southern California or Nevada. Ash clouds depositing over such
considerable distances point to an extremely catastrophic volcanic
event.



The coincidence of floods and eruptions happening together on multiple
occasions, over vast spans of time, stretches the credibility of the
uniformitarian ‘just so’ story.




Has tuff been found amongst the deposits at the Dinosaur National Monument? Is this incongruous with the scientific consensus that the fossils were produced at various times hundreds of millions of years ago, rather than all at once in a worldwide flood event?







evolution geology young-earth-creationism paleontology






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Aug 16 at 14:20









MichaelK

5,14322535




5,14322535










asked Aug 14 at 23:48









Shannon T

22026




22026







  • 2




    @hdhondt Reminds me of the Gish gallop being used outside of a debate structure.
    – JMac
    Aug 15 at 11:08






  • 3




    I completely miss the logical link between ash in the fossils and the (im)possibility of many local floods happening. Sounds like non sequitur to me.
    – Dmitry Grigoryev
    Aug 15 at 13:46











  • @DmitryGrigoryev: Not to affirm or contradict it... the claim is that while the consensus believes the Morrison Formation to have been formed in uniformitarian fashion through many local floods over the course of 10 million years, the presence of tuff throughout would indicate volcanic activity at each flooding event, so then the absence of nearby volcanoes calls into question the likelihood that the deposition really did take 10 million years.
    – elliot svensson
    Aug 16 at 14:27













  • 2




    @hdhondt Reminds me of the Gish gallop being used outside of a debate structure.
    – JMac
    Aug 15 at 11:08






  • 3




    I completely miss the logical link between ash in the fossils and the (im)possibility of many local floods happening. Sounds like non sequitur to me.
    – Dmitry Grigoryev
    Aug 15 at 13:46











  • @DmitryGrigoryev: Not to affirm or contradict it... the claim is that while the consensus believes the Morrison Formation to have been formed in uniformitarian fashion through many local floods over the course of 10 million years, the presence of tuff throughout would indicate volcanic activity at each flooding event, so then the absence of nearby volcanoes calls into question the likelihood that the deposition really did take 10 million years.
    – elliot svensson
    Aug 16 at 14:27








2




2




@hdhondt Reminds me of the Gish gallop being used outside of a debate structure.
– JMac
Aug 15 at 11:08




@hdhondt Reminds me of the Gish gallop being used outside of a debate structure.
– JMac
Aug 15 at 11:08




3




3




I completely miss the logical link between ash in the fossils and the (im)possibility of many local floods happening. Sounds like non sequitur to me.
– Dmitry Grigoryev
Aug 15 at 13:46





I completely miss the logical link between ash in the fossils and the (im)possibility of many local floods happening. Sounds like non sequitur to me.
– Dmitry Grigoryev
Aug 15 at 13:46













@DmitryGrigoryev: Not to affirm or contradict it... the claim is that while the consensus believes the Morrison Formation to have been formed in uniformitarian fashion through many local floods over the course of 10 million years, the presence of tuff throughout would indicate volcanic activity at each flooding event, so then the absence of nearby volcanoes calls into question the likelihood that the deposition really did take 10 million years.
– elliot svensson
Aug 16 at 14:27





@DmitryGrigoryev: Not to affirm or contradict it... the claim is that while the consensus believes the Morrison Formation to have been formed in uniformitarian fashion through many local floods over the course of 10 million years, the presence of tuff throughout would indicate volcanic activity at each flooding event, so then the absence of nearby volcanoes calls into question the likelihood that the deposition really did take 10 million years.
– elliot svensson
Aug 16 at 14:27











1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
64
down vote



accepted











Has tuff found amongst the deposits at the Dinosaur National Monument?




Yes. The most famous section of the rocks in Morrison Formation in Dinosaur National Monument, the Brushy Basin Member, is chock full of volcanic ash beds that have long since been converted to rock (1, 2, 3). It's also chock full of dinosaur fossils, which is what makes it so famous.




Is this incompatible with the theory that fossils were produced hundreds of millions of years ago?




Not just no, but emphatically no. In fact, exactly the opposite applies. Those many volcanic ash beds are the key to precisely dating the various parts of the Bushy Basin Member (1, 3, 4) to 148 million years old at the top of the member to 150 million years old at the bottom (4). At that time, what would become the Great Basin (i.e., just west of where Dinosaur National Monument is now) was colliding with the subducting Farallon Plate, forming a chain of volcanoes to the west (3) that occasionally dropped ash (and sometimes a lot of ash) on the area where Dinosaur National Monument is now.




The referenced Creation Ministries article makes a straw man parody of uniformitarianism to which no geologist or biologist ascribes. There have been times in the Earth's past where catastrophes have happened (e.g., the Chicxulub impact, the Deccan traps, the Siberian traps). Perfect uniformitarianism is a nonsense concept. The basic concept of uniformitarianism is not a nonsense concept. It remains a cornerstone of geology, biology, astronomy, and cosmology.



The globe looked just a bit different at the time the Brushy Basin Member formed than it does today.



The Earth, 150 million years ago




References:



  1. Christiansen, Eric H., Bart J. Kowallis, Michael J. Dorais, Garret
    L. Hart, Chloe N. Mills, Megan Pickard, and Eric Parks. "The record
    of volcanism in the Brushy Basin Member of the Morrison Formation:
    Implications for the Late Jurassic of western North America." Geol
    Soc Am Spec Pap
    513 (2015): 399-439.

  2. Bell, Thomas E. "Deposition and diagenesis of the Brushy Basin
    Member and upper part of the Westwater Canyon Member of the Morrison
    Formation, San Juan Basin, New Mexico." in SG 22: A Basin Analysis
    Case Study: Morrison Formation, Grants Uranium Region, New Mexico

    (1986): 77-91.

  3. DeCelles, Peter G. "Late Jurassic to Eocene evolution of the
    Cordilleran thrust belt and foreland basin system, western USA."
    American Journal of Science 304, no. 2 (2004): 105-168.

  4. Kowallis, Bart J., Eric H. Christiansen, Alan L. Deino, Fred
    Peterson, Christine E. Turner, Michael J. Kunk, and John D.
    Obradovich. "The age of the Morrison Formation." Modern Geology
    22, no. 1-4 (1998): 235-260.





share|improve this answer






















  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – Sklivvz♦
    Aug 15 at 19:37






  • 1




    I don't think that the theory under scrutiny by the article in question is general uniformitarianism, but rather the consequence of our scientific consensus that the ash and flood events all happened at different times, rather than all at once. Naming volcanic ash as the raw material for geologic dating does not apply the opposite conclusion to the evidence, although it does point toward the consensus.
    – elliot svensson
    Aug 15 at 22:44







  • 2




    @elliotsvensson - Make no doubt: The theory under scrutiny by the referenced article is almost all of science, except perhaps chemistry and the medical sciences (so long as they steer clear of evolution). Physics, astronomy, anthropology, cosmology, geology ..., and evolutionary biology (the worst offender saved for last) represent threats to a literal belief in just about any religious text.
    – David Hammen
    Aug 16 at 3:05


















1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
64
down vote



accepted











Has tuff found amongst the deposits at the Dinosaur National Monument?




Yes. The most famous section of the rocks in Morrison Formation in Dinosaur National Monument, the Brushy Basin Member, is chock full of volcanic ash beds that have long since been converted to rock (1, 2, 3). It's also chock full of dinosaur fossils, which is what makes it so famous.




Is this incompatible with the theory that fossils were produced hundreds of millions of years ago?




Not just no, but emphatically no. In fact, exactly the opposite applies. Those many volcanic ash beds are the key to precisely dating the various parts of the Bushy Basin Member (1, 3, 4) to 148 million years old at the top of the member to 150 million years old at the bottom (4). At that time, what would become the Great Basin (i.e., just west of where Dinosaur National Monument is now) was colliding with the subducting Farallon Plate, forming a chain of volcanoes to the west (3) that occasionally dropped ash (and sometimes a lot of ash) on the area where Dinosaur National Monument is now.




The referenced Creation Ministries article makes a straw man parody of uniformitarianism to which no geologist or biologist ascribes. There have been times in the Earth's past where catastrophes have happened (e.g., the Chicxulub impact, the Deccan traps, the Siberian traps). Perfect uniformitarianism is a nonsense concept. The basic concept of uniformitarianism is not a nonsense concept. It remains a cornerstone of geology, biology, astronomy, and cosmology.



The globe looked just a bit different at the time the Brushy Basin Member formed than it does today.



The Earth, 150 million years ago




References:



  1. Christiansen, Eric H., Bart J. Kowallis, Michael J. Dorais, Garret
    L. Hart, Chloe N. Mills, Megan Pickard, and Eric Parks. "The record
    of volcanism in the Brushy Basin Member of the Morrison Formation:
    Implications for the Late Jurassic of western North America." Geol
    Soc Am Spec Pap
    513 (2015): 399-439.

  2. Bell, Thomas E. "Deposition and diagenesis of the Brushy Basin
    Member and upper part of the Westwater Canyon Member of the Morrison
    Formation, San Juan Basin, New Mexico." in SG 22: A Basin Analysis
    Case Study: Morrison Formation, Grants Uranium Region, New Mexico

    (1986): 77-91.

  3. DeCelles, Peter G. "Late Jurassic to Eocene evolution of the
    Cordilleran thrust belt and foreland basin system, western USA."
    American Journal of Science 304, no. 2 (2004): 105-168.

  4. Kowallis, Bart J., Eric H. Christiansen, Alan L. Deino, Fred
    Peterson, Christine E. Turner, Michael J. Kunk, and John D.
    Obradovich. "The age of the Morrison Formation." Modern Geology
    22, no. 1-4 (1998): 235-260.





share|improve this answer






















  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – Sklivvz♦
    Aug 15 at 19:37






  • 1




    I don't think that the theory under scrutiny by the article in question is general uniformitarianism, but rather the consequence of our scientific consensus that the ash and flood events all happened at different times, rather than all at once. Naming volcanic ash as the raw material for geologic dating does not apply the opposite conclusion to the evidence, although it does point toward the consensus.
    – elliot svensson
    Aug 15 at 22:44







  • 2




    @elliotsvensson - Make no doubt: The theory under scrutiny by the referenced article is almost all of science, except perhaps chemistry and the medical sciences (so long as they steer clear of evolution). Physics, astronomy, anthropology, cosmology, geology ..., and evolutionary biology (the worst offender saved for last) represent threats to a literal belief in just about any religious text.
    – David Hammen
    Aug 16 at 3:05














up vote
64
down vote



accepted











Has tuff found amongst the deposits at the Dinosaur National Monument?




Yes. The most famous section of the rocks in Morrison Formation in Dinosaur National Monument, the Brushy Basin Member, is chock full of volcanic ash beds that have long since been converted to rock (1, 2, 3). It's also chock full of dinosaur fossils, which is what makes it so famous.




Is this incompatible with the theory that fossils were produced hundreds of millions of years ago?




Not just no, but emphatically no. In fact, exactly the opposite applies. Those many volcanic ash beds are the key to precisely dating the various parts of the Bushy Basin Member (1, 3, 4) to 148 million years old at the top of the member to 150 million years old at the bottom (4). At that time, what would become the Great Basin (i.e., just west of where Dinosaur National Monument is now) was colliding with the subducting Farallon Plate, forming a chain of volcanoes to the west (3) that occasionally dropped ash (and sometimes a lot of ash) on the area where Dinosaur National Monument is now.




The referenced Creation Ministries article makes a straw man parody of uniformitarianism to which no geologist or biologist ascribes. There have been times in the Earth's past where catastrophes have happened (e.g., the Chicxulub impact, the Deccan traps, the Siberian traps). Perfect uniformitarianism is a nonsense concept. The basic concept of uniformitarianism is not a nonsense concept. It remains a cornerstone of geology, biology, astronomy, and cosmology.



The globe looked just a bit different at the time the Brushy Basin Member formed than it does today.



The Earth, 150 million years ago




References:



  1. Christiansen, Eric H., Bart J. Kowallis, Michael J. Dorais, Garret
    L. Hart, Chloe N. Mills, Megan Pickard, and Eric Parks. "The record
    of volcanism in the Brushy Basin Member of the Morrison Formation:
    Implications for the Late Jurassic of western North America." Geol
    Soc Am Spec Pap
    513 (2015): 399-439.

  2. Bell, Thomas E. "Deposition and diagenesis of the Brushy Basin
    Member and upper part of the Westwater Canyon Member of the Morrison
    Formation, San Juan Basin, New Mexico." in SG 22: A Basin Analysis
    Case Study: Morrison Formation, Grants Uranium Region, New Mexico

    (1986): 77-91.

  3. DeCelles, Peter G. "Late Jurassic to Eocene evolution of the
    Cordilleran thrust belt and foreland basin system, western USA."
    American Journal of Science 304, no. 2 (2004): 105-168.

  4. Kowallis, Bart J., Eric H. Christiansen, Alan L. Deino, Fred
    Peterson, Christine E. Turner, Michael J. Kunk, and John D.
    Obradovich. "The age of the Morrison Formation." Modern Geology
    22, no. 1-4 (1998): 235-260.





share|improve this answer






















  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – Sklivvz♦
    Aug 15 at 19:37






  • 1




    I don't think that the theory under scrutiny by the article in question is general uniformitarianism, but rather the consequence of our scientific consensus that the ash and flood events all happened at different times, rather than all at once. Naming volcanic ash as the raw material for geologic dating does not apply the opposite conclusion to the evidence, although it does point toward the consensus.
    – elliot svensson
    Aug 15 at 22:44







  • 2




    @elliotsvensson - Make no doubt: The theory under scrutiny by the referenced article is almost all of science, except perhaps chemistry and the medical sciences (so long as they steer clear of evolution). Physics, astronomy, anthropology, cosmology, geology ..., and evolutionary biology (the worst offender saved for last) represent threats to a literal belief in just about any religious text.
    – David Hammen
    Aug 16 at 3:05












up vote
64
down vote



accepted







up vote
64
down vote



accepted







Has tuff found amongst the deposits at the Dinosaur National Monument?




Yes. The most famous section of the rocks in Morrison Formation in Dinosaur National Monument, the Brushy Basin Member, is chock full of volcanic ash beds that have long since been converted to rock (1, 2, 3). It's also chock full of dinosaur fossils, which is what makes it so famous.




Is this incompatible with the theory that fossils were produced hundreds of millions of years ago?




Not just no, but emphatically no. In fact, exactly the opposite applies. Those many volcanic ash beds are the key to precisely dating the various parts of the Bushy Basin Member (1, 3, 4) to 148 million years old at the top of the member to 150 million years old at the bottom (4). At that time, what would become the Great Basin (i.e., just west of where Dinosaur National Monument is now) was colliding with the subducting Farallon Plate, forming a chain of volcanoes to the west (3) that occasionally dropped ash (and sometimes a lot of ash) on the area where Dinosaur National Monument is now.




The referenced Creation Ministries article makes a straw man parody of uniformitarianism to which no geologist or biologist ascribes. There have been times in the Earth's past where catastrophes have happened (e.g., the Chicxulub impact, the Deccan traps, the Siberian traps). Perfect uniformitarianism is a nonsense concept. The basic concept of uniformitarianism is not a nonsense concept. It remains a cornerstone of geology, biology, astronomy, and cosmology.



The globe looked just a bit different at the time the Brushy Basin Member formed than it does today.



The Earth, 150 million years ago




References:



  1. Christiansen, Eric H., Bart J. Kowallis, Michael J. Dorais, Garret
    L. Hart, Chloe N. Mills, Megan Pickard, and Eric Parks. "The record
    of volcanism in the Brushy Basin Member of the Morrison Formation:
    Implications for the Late Jurassic of western North America." Geol
    Soc Am Spec Pap
    513 (2015): 399-439.

  2. Bell, Thomas E. "Deposition and diagenesis of the Brushy Basin
    Member and upper part of the Westwater Canyon Member of the Morrison
    Formation, San Juan Basin, New Mexico." in SG 22: A Basin Analysis
    Case Study: Morrison Formation, Grants Uranium Region, New Mexico

    (1986): 77-91.

  3. DeCelles, Peter G. "Late Jurassic to Eocene evolution of the
    Cordilleran thrust belt and foreland basin system, western USA."
    American Journal of Science 304, no. 2 (2004): 105-168.

  4. Kowallis, Bart J., Eric H. Christiansen, Alan L. Deino, Fred
    Peterson, Christine E. Turner, Michael J. Kunk, and John D.
    Obradovich. "The age of the Morrison Formation." Modern Geology
    22, no. 1-4 (1998): 235-260.





share|improve this answer















Has tuff found amongst the deposits at the Dinosaur National Monument?




Yes. The most famous section of the rocks in Morrison Formation in Dinosaur National Monument, the Brushy Basin Member, is chock full of volcanic ash beds that have long since been converted to rock (1, 2, 3). It's also chock full of dinosaur fossils, which is what makes it so famous.




Is this incompatible with the theory that fossils were produced hundreds of millions of years ago?




Not just no, but emphatically no. In fact, exactly the opposite applies. Those many volcanic ash beds are the key to precisely dating the various parts of the Bushy Basin Member (1, 3, 4) to 148 million years old at the top of the member to 150 million years old at the bottom (4). At that time, what would become the Great Basin (i.e., just west of where Dinosaur National Monument is now) was colliding with the subducting Farallon Plate, forming a chain of volcanoes to the west (3) that occasionally dropped ash (and sometimes a lot of ash) on the area where Dinosaur National Monument is now.




The referenced Creation Ministries article makes a straw man parody of uniformitarianism to which no geologist or biologist ascribes. There have been times in the Earth's past where catastrophes have happened (e.g., the Chicxulub impact, the Deccan traps, the Siberian traps). Perfect uniformitarianism is a nonsense concept. The basic concept of uniformitarianism is not a nonsense concept. It remains a cornerstone of geology, biology, astronomy, and cosmology.



The globe looked just a bit different at the time the Brushy Basin Member formed than it does today.



The Earth, 150 million years ago




References:



  1. Christiansen, Eric H., Bart J. Kowallis, Michael J. Dorais, Garret
    L. Hart, Chloe N. Mills, Megan Pickard, and Eric Parks. "The record
    of volcanism in the Brushy Basin Member of the Morrison Formation:
    Implications for the Late Jurassic of western North America." Geol
    Soc Am Spec Pap
    513 (2015): 399-439.

  2. Bell, Thomas E. "Deposition and diagenesis of the Brushy Basin
    Member and upper part of the Westwater Canyon Member of the Morrison
    Formation, San Juan Basin, New Mexico." in SG 22: A Basin Analysis
    Case Study: Morrison Formation, Grants Uranium Region, New Mexico

    (1986): 77-91.

  3. DeCelles, Peter G. "Late Jurassic to Eocene evolution of the
    Cordilleran thrust belt and foreland basin system, western USA."
    American Journal of Science 304, no. 2 (2004): 105-168.

  4. Kowallis, Bart J., Eric H. Christiansen, Alan L. Deino, Fred
    Peterson, Christine E. Turner, Michael J. Kunk, and John D.
    Obradovich. "The age of the Morrison Formation." Modern Geology
    22, no. 1-4 (1998): 235-260.






share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Aug 16 at 14:20









MichaelK

5,14322535




5,14322535










answered Aug 15 at 4:48









David Hammen

4,57731824




4,57731824











  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – Sklivvz♦
    Aug 15 at 19:37






  • 1




    I don't think that the theory under scrutiny by the article in question is general uniformitarianism, but rather the consequence of our scientific consensus that the ash and flood events all happened at different times, rather than all at once. Naming volcanic ash as the raw material for geologic dating does not apply the opposite conclusion to the evidence, although it does point toward the consensus.
    – elliot svensson
    Aug 15 at 22:44







  • 2




    @elliotsvensson - Make no doubt: The theory under scrutiny by the referenced article is almost all of science, except perhaps chemistry and the medical sciences (so long as they steer clear of evolution). Physics, astronomy, anthropology, cosmology, geology ..., and evolutionary biology (the worst offender saved for last) represent threats to a literal belief in just about any religious text.
    – David Hammen
    Aug 16 at 3:05
















  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – Sklivvz♦
    Aug 15 at 19:37






  • 1




    I don't think that the theory under scrutiny by the article in question is general uniformitarianism, but rather the consequence of our scientific consensus that the ash and flood events all happened at different times, rather than all at once. Naming volcanic ash as the raw material for geologic dating does not apply the opposite conclusion to the evidence, although it does point toward the consensus.
    – elliot svensson
    Aug 15 at 22:44







  • 2




    @elliotsvensson - Make no doubt: The theory under scrutiny by the referenced article is almost all of science, except perhaps chemistry and the medical sciences (so long as they steer clear of evolution). Physics, astronomy, anthropology, cosmology, geology ..., and evolutionary biology (the worst offender saved for last) represent threats to a literal belief in just about any religious text.
    – David Hammen
    Aug 16 at 3:05















Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Sklivvz♦
Aug 15 at 19:37




Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Sklivvz♦
Aug 15 at 19:37




1




1




I don't think that the theory under scrutiny by the article in question is general uniformitarianism, but rather the consequence of our scientific consensus that the ash and flood events all happened at different times, rather than all at once. Naming volcanic ash as the raw material for geologic dating does not apply the opposite conclusion to the evidence, although it does point toward the consensus.
– elliot svensson
Aug 15 at 22:44





I don't think that the theory under scrutiny by the article in question is general uniformitarianism, but rather the consequence of our scientific consensus that the ash and flood events all happened at different times, rather than all at once. Naming volcanic ash as the raw material for geologic dating does not apply the opposite conclusion to the evidence, although it does point toward the consensus.
– elliot svensson
Aug 15 at 22:44





2




2




@elliotsvensson - Make no doubt: The theory under scrutiny by the referenced article is almost all of science, except perhaps chemistry and the medical sciences (so long as they steer clear of evolution). Physics, astronomy, anthropology, cosmology, geology ..., and evolutionary biology (the worst offender saved for last) represent threats to a literal belief in just about any religious text.
– David Hammen
Aug 16 at 3:05




@elliotsvensson - Make no doubt: The theory under scrutiny by the referenced article is almost all of science, except perhaps chemistry and the medical sciences (so long as they steer clear of evolution). Physics, astronomy, anthropology, cosmology, geology ..., and evolutionary biology (the worst offender saved for last) represent threats to a literal belief in just about any religious text.
– David Hammen
Aug 16 at 3:05


Popular posts from this blog

How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?