Evidence for Bioturbidity in between thin coal seams

Im looking for examples of bioturbidity in sedimentary layers between thin coal seams.
Does anyone have some examples of this?

1 Like

Seatearth - Wikipedia cites several references that discuss bioturbation features such as roots, as well as other features indicating paleosols (ancient soils) found in the layers under clay. Paleosols are common features in many types of sedimentary deposits. They cannot form during a flood of the sort imagined by flood geology, both because they are land deposits and because they take a while to form.


Someone help me out, please… not about coal strata, but those in the chalk of Dover. I’ve read (that’s where I need help, because I have no citations) where there was ‘bioturbidity’ from one layer to the next from creatures burrowing, and it could not have all been laid down monolithically at one time, as YECs would futilely imagine, their only evidence being a misinterpretation of Genesis and false dogma.

And there is something about intervening layers of shale, too, isn’t there? That’s not something the fantasized global flood could have accomplished, nor anything within a YECish timeframe.

1 Like

Here is an article on flint sheets embedded at Dover

How were flints in chalk formed?

Flint was formed in chalk after the chalk was deposited on the seabed as a chalky ooze, but before it was compressed into chalk rock. Silica which was dissolved in sea water precipitated within permeable pathways, which may have been animal burrows, fracture planes caused by stresses in the seabed, or changes in composition of the original sediments. After time, the precipitated silica hardened to become flint, a micro-crystalline form of silica, which took the form of the original cavities, so they can be regarded as internal moulds of cavities.

This is an nice popular article on the chalk geology of England

Rock of ages: how chalk made England

Andrew Snelling in Can Flood geology explain thick chalk beds? hides the fact that the layering and distinctive microfossil composition of these chalk formations could not be formed as one event, even if you could get past his farcical algae bloom kinetics.



All I had to see was the name John Woodmorappe cited and I knew it wasn’t going to be actual science. Though I got a great laugh from that; the ‘explanation’ given would require the Flood to have lasted a couple of millennia!

Lord, deliver us from lying fools!

1 Like

so you dont think that the following is possible in the quoted article from Creation Ministries given the right conditions?

“for example, in southern England there are three main chalk beds stacked on top of one another, then this scenario of three successive, explosive, massive blooms coincides with the rock record. Given that the turnover rate for coccoliths is up to two days,28 then these chalk beds could thus have been produced in as little as six days, totally conceivable within the time framework of the flood. What is certain, is that the right set of conditions necessary for such blooms to occur had to have coincided in full measure to have explosively generated such enormous blooms, but the evidence that it did happen is there for all to plainly see in these chalk beds in the geological record. Indeed, the purity of these thick chalk beds worldwide also testifies to their catastrophic deposition from enormous explosively generated blooms, since during protracted deposition over supposed millions of years it is straining credulity to expect that such purity would be maintained without contaminating events depositing other types of sediments. There are variations in consistency (see Appendix) but not purity. The only additional material in the chalk is fossils of macroscopic organisms such as ammonites and other molluscs, whose fossilisation also requires rapid burial because of their size”

Having taken both oceanography and coastal geology in university, no – it might work under lab conditions but not in the real world, and especially not during a catastrophic event that would increase turbidity greatly.


Right conditions?

Did you read the articles I attached?

There are no plausible conditions that could could account for the cliffs of Dover in a YEC timeframe. Flood, algae blooms, hot water, rotting floating animals, none of that matters. You still do not get the cliffs of Dover.

In Snelling’s article, even his math with its ridiculous assumptions does not get you there in the flood year. Then you have to solidify. Then you have to account for the uplift. Then you have to account for the erosion of the English Channel, because the formation extends all the way into France. When did all that happen?

And those are not the biggest problem with the YEC timeline - the hint is flint.


The silica for making flint comes largely from dissolving the silica skeletons of sponges and/or microorganisms.

“the purity of these thick chalk beds worldwide also testifies to their catastrophic deposition” is also untrue. Equally high-purity carbonate can be found being gradually deposited in many areas of the oceans today. It is untrue that the purity does not vary; chalk purity ranges quite a bit. It’s about 96% calcium carbonate around Dover, as best as I can find quickly.

More generally, this is a very common type of false young-earth argument, where something is claimed to be evidence for rapid, catastrophic deposition without actually comparing with known examples of deposition under ordinary conditions.


I suspect that were I to take the time to go over their arguments a fair number would turn out to be things that might be true in a lab situation but not in the real world at all.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.