1,127
edits
Pisco formation: Difference between revisions
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to navigationJump to search
→The site: clean up
m (Pisco Formation moved to Pisco formation) |
(→The site: clean up) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
==The site== | ==The site== | ||
The Pisco formation is a fossil site | The Pisco formation is a fossil site in Peru that contains some 346 well preserved whales and some other fossil animals. It has an area of 1.5-km2 and is 80-m thick. Using [[radiometric dating]] methods, the site gave an age of 10-12 million years old. It mainly consists of a sedimentary rock called diatomite. This site, which was brought to attention by [[Art Chadwick]], [[Leonard Brand]], [[Raúl Esperante]], and [[Poma]], is one of the world's best examples of a formation being created by Noah's flood. | ||
===state of fossil preservation=== | ===state of fossil preservation=== | ||
The preservation of the whale fossils is amazing. Of the hundreds of whale fossils, 145 are complete fossils. There are no signs of | The preservation of the whale fossils is amazing. Of the hundreds of whale fossils, 145 are complete fossils. There are no signs of what one would expect from sea floor decay(wormholes, barnacle encrustations, and a utter lack of any sign of bioturbation). Brand et al point out that when a marine creature dies, scavengers quickly devours the corpse. Furthermore, the baleen of some whales, a part rarely found, is preserved. As a result, Brand et al claim that this site is clearly an example of rapid burial.[http://origins.swau.edu/who/chadwick/whales.1] | ||
{{cquote|Observations of modern whale carcasses on the seafloor indicate that baleen does not remain long within the mouth of a dead whale. This is due to the non-bony nature of baleen and the fact that the plates are not rooted in the upper mandible but just glued to it. Sedimentological and taphonomic features suggest that the exceptional occurrence of the baleen apparatus of these fossil is the result of very rapid burial of the carcasses, which likely occurred after most of the soft tissue decayed but before baleen was removed.}}[http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2006AM/finalprogram/abstract_112216.htm] | {{cquote|Observations of modern whale carcasses on the seafloor indicate that baleen does not remain long within the mouth of a dead whale. This is due to the non-bony nature of baleen and the fact that the plates are not rooted in the upper mandible but just glued to it. Sedimentological and taphonomic features suggest that the exceptional occurrence of the baleen apparatus of these fossil is the result of very rapid burial of the carcasses, which likely occurred after most of the soft tissue decayed but before baleen was removed.}}[http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2006AM/finalprogram/abstract_112216.htm] | ||
Also in support of rapid burial | Also in support of rapid burial is the fact that the amount of whales facing up and the amount facing down are about equal. This shows a picture of a highly chaotic environment.[http://origins.swau.edu/who/chadwick/raul.pdf] | ||
===Interpretation of data=== | ===Interpretation of data=== | ||
Since there are | Since there are signs of sharks eating away at the whale corpse, there is clear evidence that the whale were not merely deposited in preexisting diatomite. The diatomite was formed at the same time whales died. Brand et al conclude, after debunking other interpretations, that the formation is a result of a massive diatom [[bloom]].There is some evidence of volcanism and this would supply to essential nutrient to produce a diatom bloom. This in turn killed the whales because bloods poison the water. | ||
==Implications== | ==Implications== | ||
