About a month ago I wrote about some of the challenges (An Ancient and Alien Forest Reconstructed: A challenge for young earth creationism- Part I) that a recent spectacular fossil discovery present to the creation science worldview. I have much I want to say say in the future in regards to the questions that I raised in Part I but for now I felt compelled to comment on a response (finally) to these fossils by Brian Thomas at the Institute for Creation Research. I wish I could say that Brian has addressed some of the questions I raised but he has spectacularly managed to avoid the real challenges of this research while attempting to spin the story into evidence that these fossils support a global flood. Brian Thomas is the science writer for ICR and is responsible for writing daily science updates which grace the front of the ICR website.
Just to review the story and context of my challenge, recent studies (see references below) of multiple intact fossilized forests provide a very detailed account of the presence of an seemingly alien forest that has was found in multiple locations across the entire globe at some point in the past. A forest completely devoid of the presence of any flowering plants such as oaks, maples and beech trees or even conifers such as firs, hemlocks or cedars. The contrast between modern geology and young-earth flood geology explanations of these fossil forests could not be more striking than in the case of the “Permian Pompeii” fossilized forests found in China. The former sees this forest as a real community of plants growing in space and time that was preserved in volcanic ash, while the latter imagines these plants, and the coal seams they are found between, as collections of plants caught up in the middle of a global flood that laid them down to form layers of rock including the coal and ash layers over a short period of time (days to weeks).
What does Brian have to say about this amazing fossil forest reconstruction? Well, he admits it is amazing and incredibly well preserved (see images below of some of the fossils) fossil find. He reports (you can read the original article here)on some of the facts including the types of vegetation are found. He then proceeds to try to explain how this forest might have come to be preserved during a global flood.
The majority of plant fossils, such as those found in coal, were washed in from elsewhere, sorted, and compacted. But these plants look as though they were buried in place, preserving their original spacing along an ancient forest floor. Most of the plants were relatively short tree ferns. Dwarf shrubs, cycads, and clusters of ferns also grew, and much taller trees dotted the ancient scene. The study authors wrote, “It is likely that the same type of vegetation would have covered the very extensive mire in all directions and to the horizon.”
But they did not mention the possibility that the entire forest may have been transported like a giant sheet. Although the tall trees had been toppled, the collective root mass appeared intact. Perhaps it originally was a floating forest.
To the right is a diagram of site showing that there are two thick coal seams with a thick (1/2 meter) layer of volcanic ash where this forest was found preserved. Note also that there are multiple other thin layers of volcanic ash representing multiple smaller volcanic events. These ash layers can be found over hundreds of square miles in these coal seams (see picture below for other coal seams with thin ash layers). Now Brian suggests that coal seams represent plant fossils that are “washed in from elsewhere, sorted and compacted.” I don’t know where he gets the idea they were sorted and compacted and washed from where? He does admit that the plants in this ash layer look like they were buried in place and that they do preserve the original spacing of an ancient forest floor. So if this is a forest that is preserved in place how could a forest be found in the middle of the flood (remember these coal layers are in the middle of the geological column so there are thousands of feet of layers of rock below and where as much or more above them). He proposes that this preserved forest represents what was a giant floating forest.
These floating forests are the standard young earth creationist explanation for the origin of coal and in-situ forests found all over the world. Does it make any sense? Not really, for many reasons but let just focus on one. How, in the middle of a raging flood (see his description just below of the cataclysmic conditions of Noah’s Flood) do thick layers of vegetation only get compacted and separated from other sediments while at the same time having layers of thin but very discrete layers of volcanic ash laid down and then have a huge volcanic event which was then covered over by many layers of coal and then by thousands of feet of other sediments. How is all this laid down quickly in the space of days or even weeks without disturbing the fine volcanic ash layers? The floating forest hypothesis never really gets around to explaining any details. It is a hypothesis created for only one reason: to provide a possible explanation for a conundrum for flood geology that will hopefully prevent further questions from being asked.
What about my other observations in my prior post about this fossils site that Thomas seems to be careful to avoid. He doesn’t try to explain why there are NO flowering plants in this forest. Nor does he seem to be aware or have done the research to find out that there are similar forests that have been described from several other places on earth. How could it be that there could be floating forests circling the earth in the middle of a cataclysmic flood which were devoid of flowering plants?
But it gets better. Thomas then tries to turn the research around to suggest that it directly contradicts an old earth though he uses the word evolution here for more rhetorical punch.
Evolution maintains that these Permian plants existed 240 million years ago. But ironically, according to that same evolutionary timeframe, their fossils should no longer exist. The fossils and all of China should have completely eroded about 14 million years after they were deposited, assuming the evolutionary paradigm and known erosion rates. The study authors wrote, “Excavation was necessary to secure the stunning specimens of this flora because weathering occurs rapidly and destroys the fossils.” So, did China’s landscape experience no weathering for over 200 million years?
In contrast, biblical history easily explains these “catastrophically preserved floras.”1 The extraordinarily cataclysmic conditions of Noah’s Flood—so violent that Scripture records that it totally destroyed the earth’s surface—provided the tremendous energy required to wash plant matter into mats that would later turn to coal, to dislodge and transport a whole forest, and to unleash volcanic explosions that covered vast regions.
Wow, now Thomas really starts to show why he has become a something of a favorite pinata among creationists critics. I myself find it difficult to be charitable toward a person that has been placed in a position of science writer by an influential creationist organization. Is this really the best advocate they could find as science commentator? Brian Thomas reveals on an almost daily basis his ignorance of science and yet he is in many ways the face of their website. I don’t want to go horribly long here so I will keep it brief. This suggestion that erosion should have destroyed these fossils displays a complete lack of familiarity with modern geology. He even uses his own article on erosion of the continents as his reference for his statement that they should have all eroded within 14 million years. That article is littered with misconceptions about the geological record. For example, he assumes that continents have always been exposed and thus available to erode for 240 million years but when the ice caps have melted vast areas of the continents would be covered by water and thus rather than erosion but additional sedimentation would occur (ie. the opposite of erosion would be occurring). The argument about erosion is nothing but a diversion to lead the reader away from many of the more troubling conclusions of the paper regarding the types of plants present, the type of plant that are missing, the lack of any animals in the volcanic ash, the lack of fish in the volcanic ash, the presence of thin layers of ash in an otherwise uniform type of material, the lack of other sedimentary rocks, etc…
So, has Thomas met the challenge? I don’t even think he has taken it up! He has skirted around much of the data and has chosen not to tell the readers how this fossil forest fits with many other fossil forests from other parts of the world in similar rocks. He has proposed a possible explanation for the presence of a forest (the floating forest idea) in the middle of layers of massive numbers of separate plant parts (coal) which might sound plausible initially but will not stand up to any scrutiny. Most importantly he has not addressed why flowering plants would not be present in a real preserved forest nor why flowering plants are not found in the coal layers either.
It is job of Thomas to place science stories such as this one into a young earth worldview to provide the lay Christian with confidence that creation scientists have a viable alternative interpretation of the fossil evidence. If it takes ignoring the big questions, producing side issues of dubious value (erosion argument for a young earth), and not bringing all the evidence to bear on the question (he hasn’t done any homework to find out how this forest is related to other fossil sites) then how does this prepare the lay Christian to defend themselves against an old-earth worldview? His mission is clearly a failure if providing a viable alternative interpretation is the goal. However, his mission is a success if it is simply to provide enough misdirection and seemingly plausible alternative hypotheses so as to cause those committed to young earth creationism to not pursue the meaning of these fossils any further. Unfortunately, Thomas is a very successful writer.
Wang, J., Hermann W Pfefferkorn, Y. Zhang, and Z. Feng. 2012. Permian vegetational Pompeii from Inner Mongolia and its implications for landscape paleoecology and paleobiography of Cathaysia. PNAS 1115076109. Early Edition.
Dimichele, W. and H. J. Falcon-Lang. 2011. Pennsylvanian “fossil forests” in growth position (Time zero assemblages): origin, taphonomic bias and palaeocological insights. J. Geological Society. 168: 585-605.
Pfefferkorn, H and J. Wang. 2007. Early Permian coal-forming floras preserved as compression from the Wuda District (Inner Mongolia, China).