Dear All,
The Australian museum paleo staff have looked at the
gosford site which did exist in a rail corp ballast
quarry north of Gosford. I have been told that there
is nothing left there, but you never know. The fish
from the quarry was written up in memoirs of the
Geological survey of NSW. Palaeontology Memoirs 1895?
By woodward. the site is also brefly mentioned in Paul
Willis book Digging Deep time.


The fossil dealer in Gosford is Martin Rosser of
Willyama AKA Geodiscoveries.

Rodney

--- "john.mail@..."
<john.mail@...> wrote:


---------------------------------


Hi Chris,

I still haven't joined the Fossil Club.

I want to but I am awful with filling in forms and
snail-mailing anything.   If you, or my secretary,
would do that part for me I'll hand over the cold
cash.

As for Gosford I have never been to it yet myself but
am told that it is very close to the railway station
and that the fossil bed was near the base of the
quarry ...  I suppose just a bit above the level of
the railway line.

Who owns the quarry now and what the exposure there is
like I have no idea of.

The quickest way of determining these things would be
just to hop on a train and go and have a look I think.

I've written to Gosford Council about it but they are
unaware of anybody at all being intereted in it.

There, however, is at least one local man, Peter
Adderley at Gosford who is very interested in geology
- AND there is also a gem and mineral and fossil
seller/displayer in the area (sorry I do not know the
name) AND somebody else told me there is a woman
locally who is interested in the question of whether
any more fish may remain unbattered and pristine there
at rest in their shaley bed ... but again am sorry to
say I do not have here name either.

The Mines Department (now merged with Forests and Fish
and Ag as Primary Industries) has a service called
"Ask Bill the Geo" ---- ask any geological question to
the service (it's on their webpage) and the wheels may
grind and a satisfactory answer perhaps be
forthcoming.

And regaring all your "so much more that i couldnt
even explain to you!" sites ... if you email any views
I'd be interested to maybe add them to the geo-sites
directory.

I think I'll be adding some more  'forms of
ferruginisation' pics and ideas ..... sure they aren't
fossils, but interesting to speculate on how they
formed anyway.

I'm interested in all the weird and wonderful ideas
the public has on how geological features form.

There is one man (known as Buzz) who maintains that
the polygonal weathering found along the plateau top
on Hawkesbury Sandstone is the actual
preserved/fossilised skin of the Rainbow Serpent.

Cheers,


John




On Fri Jan 18 11:50 , 'cows_300' sent:

Nice Info John,

Great site and Pictures, really interesting. I have
seen so many
different structures in the Hawkesbury Sandstone, its
such an
amazing formation...so much cross bedding, iron
stains, concretions,
spherical iron stained bedding plains and so much more
that i
couldnt even explain to you!

Thanks for the info and a great read!

When are you going to the fish quarry? i would love to
get in there
and have a look aswell, is it a part of the fossil
Club? when are
you planning on going?

Regards Chris

--- In fossilclubgroup@..., John
wrote:
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
> An excurion took place recently to see the fossil
trees
photographed in an
> article by creationist geologist Tasman Walker.
>
> The site is Box Hill, Bouddi Peninsula.
>
> The existence of the Box Head "fossil trees"
structures was first
published
> on in 2003, including a photo of them taken by
Andrew Taylor.
>
> The cyclindrical objects photographed certainly look
like
> sideritised/haematitic trunks.
>
> However, many other vertical ferruginous cylindrical
structures
were found
> to be present in the sandstone there and from the
range of
features it is
> seen that they are definitely vertical concretionary
structures,
not trees.
>
> Photos may be see under "GOSFORD" at
>
http://www.lachlanhunter.deadsetfreestuff.com/JB/geo-sitesG-I.htm
>
> Still to be visited is Coal and Candle Creek on the
other side of
the
> Hawkesbury where a fossil stump was discovered by a
member of the
Fossil
> Club many years ago.
>
> The Coal and Candle Creek position (near the
tidewater limit) is
likely at
> the same or very similar stratigraphic level near
the top of the
Narrabeen
> Group and first guess would now be that it is
another
occurrence/exposure
> of these vertical ferruginous cylinders.
>
> I do not know of any other occurrences of similar
things in other
parts of
> the world .. does anybody else?
>
> Also planned for 2008 is a revisiting of the famous
fossil fish
beds at
> Gosford. I've never been to that quarry myself yet.
It is known
as Blunts
> Quarry.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
>
> John Byrnes
>
> (LachlanHunter Associates, Sydney)










      
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Nice Info John,

Great site and Pictures, really interesting. I have seen so many
different structures in the Hawkesbury Sandstone, its such an
amazing formation...so much cross bedding, iron stains, concretions,
spherical iron stained bedding plains and so much more that i
couldnt even explain to you!

Thanks for the info and a great read!

When are you going to the fish quarry? i would love to get in there
and have a look aswell, is it a part of the fossil Club? when are
you planning on going?

Regards Chris

--- In fossilclubgroup@..., John
wrote:
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
> An excurion took place recently to see the fossil trees
photographed in an
> article by creationist geologist Tasman Walker.
>
> The site is Box Hill, Bouddi Peninsula.
>
> The existence of the Box Head "fossil trees" structures was first
published
> on in 2003, including a photo of them taken by Andrew Taylor.
>
> The cyclindrical objects photographed certainly look like
> sideritised/haematitic trunks.
>
> However, many other vertical ferruginous cylindrical structures
were found
> to be present in the sandstone there and from the range of
features it is
> seen that they are definitely vertical concretionary structures,
not trees.
>
> Photos may be see under "GOSFORD" at
> http://www.lachlanhunter.deadsetfreestuff.com/JB/geo-sitesG-I.htm
>
> Still to be visited is Coal and Candle Creek on the other side of
the
> Hawkesbury where a fossil stump was discovered by a member of the
Fossil
> Club many years ago.
>
> The Coal and Candle Creek position (near the tidewater limit) is
likely at
> the same or very similar stratigraphic level near the top of the
Narrabeen
> Group and first guess would now be that it is another
occurrence/exposure
> of these vertical ferruginous cylinders.
>
> I do not know of any other occurrences of similar things in other
parts of
> the world .. does anybody else?
>
> Also planned for 2008 is a revisiting of the famous fossil fish
beds at
> Gosford. I've never been to that quarry myself yet. It is known
as Blunts
> Quarry.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
>
> John Byrnes
>
> (LachlanHunter Associates, Sydney)

Yeah...im interested in coming!!, what sort of fossils do you hunt for?
and how many days?

Thanks

--- In fossilclubgroup@..., "jillyonly1"
<jillyonly1@...> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
> I'm enquiring about the Fossil Grous's trip to Yass at Easter. I
went
> with the group the year before last, it was a great weekend. Can
anyone
> let me know what the numbers may be like for this year. I would be
> interested in car sharing if that's an option, I can drive my car, I
> live near the city or get a lift with someone else. I stayed in one
of
> the old hotels in Yass,very good value for only $20 for a single
room
> with shared facilities. Feedback please?
> Jill Harrison
>

Thanks a lot Albert!

--- In fossilclubgroup@..., Fossil Club of NSW
<fossilclubnsw@...> wrote:
>
>   Hi Chris
>   ·      If you are over 18 year of age, you pay separately - $15.
>   ·        If you are under 18 year of age, you can go under the
family rate of $20. But if you are working, you will need to pay $15.
>   ·        If you are a student 16 year of age and over and are
going to High School, TAFE or Uni, it is $10.
>
>   Each person will need to pay $2.50 insurance whether you pay
family, student or separately.
>
> I hope this is a little clearer.
>
> Albert
>
>
>
> cows_300 <cows_300@...> wrote:                               Hey,
this is directed at the main person for the fossilclub NSW
>  Im filling out my Membership form and I will post it tommorow
>  but...one question, if I want to pay for my dad and me can I pay
under
>  a family? 20$ + 5$ insurance???? or is it 10 for me and 15 for
him and
>  5 insurance?
>
>  Sorry a bit confused
>
>  Thanks!
>
>  Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7
Mail now.
>

Hi everyone,
I'm enquiring about the Fossil Grous's trip to Yass at Easter. I went
with the group the year before last, it was a great weekend. Can anyone
let me know what the numbers may be like for this year. I would be
interested in car sharing if that's an option, I can drive my car, I
live near the city or get a lift with someone else. I stayed in one of
the old hotels in Yass,very good value for only $20 for a single room
with shared facilities. Feedback please?
Jill Harrison

Hey, this is directed at the main person for the fossilclub NSW
Im filling out my Membership form and I will post it tommorow
but...one question, if I want to pay for my dad and me can I pay under
a family? 20$ + 5$ insurance???? or is it 10 for me and 15 for him and
5 insurance?

Sorry a bit confused

Thanks!

Chris

Hello,


Re envisaged excursion to visit rock features at Elvina Track later this
year, in late Feb or thereafter ( .... view snames or circular fire scars,
smaller circles that are likely concretions, polygonal jointing and
Aboriginal carvings thought inter alia to preserve some 'astronomical'
ideas ... ) the continued planning for this suggests by now that about six
people are interested in going.  (Trip will most likely be post-Feb)

Tessa Corkill has been arranging things and had gotten from Michael Barry,
co-author with John Clegg re the "snames" name, and also from John,
responses that each would be interested in attending.  Seeing it would be
very good to have the originator/s of the fire theory present we'll likely
organise a time that best suits Michael/John and a majority of those
potentially interested.

We've incidentally been communicating to any others we think might be
interested that we are keen to encourage more interest in geological
heritage, and also cross-disciplinary co-operation of any sort.

Tessa is off to Canberra and will work out a final time after she gets back.

If you know of anyone else who might like to come to visit these features
then please let Tessa or myself know.


Thanks,



John Byrnes

Hello

Found this one at allandale along with lots of eurydesma some other
clams and a few gastropods.
Does anyone know what it is? extreamly confused

Thanks
Chris

[IMG]http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s175/kauffy_photos/P1060796.jpg
[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s175/kauffy_photos/P1060807.jpg
[/IMG]

Hey Everyone
I figured with your expertise i might be able to find some places
(such as road cuts, Hills, cliffs ect) where it is possible to find
trilobites?
I know there are large Devonian and Sil deposits south and west but
can anyone give me specific locations?
Love trilobits and thought they would make a neat addition to my
collection, I also want to expand my collection into different time
epochs...all i have is permian and triassic at the moment.
Also while on the topic of places to hunt, does anyone know any
carboniforous exposures, marine or terrestrial near the hunter valley?

Thanks a lot People!!

Regards Chris

Hey, this is directed at the main person for the fossilclub NSW
Im filling out my Membership form and I will post it tommorow
but...one question, if I want to pay for my dad and me can I pay under
a family? 20$ + 5$ insurance???? or is it 10 for me and 15 for him and
5 insurance?

Sorry a bit confused

Thanks!

Chris

Hello,


Snames were defined in 2001 as circular firescars (so inferred) on stone.
As far as I am aware they are so far known only on Hawkesbury Sandstone
surfaces but there seems no reason (if the fire theory is correct) why they
might not also occur on other sandstone formations, like the Narrabeen
Group on the Blue Mountains plateau.

The name "snames" was published from Elvina track in Ku-Ring-Gai Chase by
Michael Barry and John Clegg.

An excursion is being organised for mid February or later to view this
"type locality" of the snames.

If interested in attending, or in knowing more, please contact me and I'll
keep you individually informed as whatever final date is decided upon.

Also at later times comparative visitations might be organised to snames
and associated features elsewhere (e.g. Maroota/Gosford areas).

We are possibly going to try and see if we can get either Barry or Clegg
(John Clegg is now retired) to attend on the visit to Elvina Track.

Cheers,



John Byrnes

(Sydney geologist)
(LachlanHunter -
http://www.lachlanhunter.deadsetfreestuff.com/JohnByrnes.htm )

< From JOANNA CATTANACH of the The Dallas Morning News,
jcattanach@... >



"Lone Star", the four-tusked mastodon skull found in a gravel pit in La
Grange, Texas, sold for $191,200 (which included a 19.5 percent cut for the
auction house).

The buyer bid by phone and was not identified.

The skull was sold by struggling fossil museum owner Joe Taylor, to try and
save his museum.

Mr. Taylor, director and curator of the Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum in the
West Texas town of Crosbyton, said he has been dogged for six years by a
number of creditors.

Mr. Taylor wore his best black boots and hat for the occasion, and hopes to
use the proceeds to help fund his struggling museum.

Mr. Taylor said it'll be hard to let Lone Star go.

He'd like to meet the buyer and deliver the mastodon himself.  "It's like
seeing your daughter getting married off," Mr. Taylor said.

Although Mr. Taylor's Volkswagen-sized mastodon was the auction's premier
piece, several other items, including a foot-long golden nugget, also
fetched a handsome price.

The famed "Boot of Cortez", a 26-pound gold nugget discovered in Caborca,
Mexico, by a man with a handheld metal detector, sold for nearly $1.6
million, drawing a rousing round of applause.

A pallasite meteorite found near Fukang, China, sold for $155,350.

A 30-million-year-old, 3½ -inch fossilized lizard found in the Dominican
Republic and encased in perfectly preserved amber sold for $143,440.



~~~~~

Other refs:

Mt. Blanco - About Us - I’m Joe Taylor, the director and curator of the Mt.
Blanco Fossil Museum. If you like fossils, dinosaur digs and other old
things you have come to the right place.  www.mtblanco.com/AboutUs.htm

"The Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum is a scientific and educational institution
dedicated to a correct interpretation of Earth history and fossil remains.
We believe that the fossil record speaks of catastrophic events happening
several thousand years ago rather than slow processes taking place over
millions or billions of years as is held by the popular establishment."

An associate of the museum work, Mr James Taylor (Joe's nephew), graduated
from Texas A&M University, class of '93, with a BS in Biomedical Science.
He maintains the web site and has helped Joe on numerous digs dating back
to the famous mammoth find in Mt. Blanco canyon in 1984.  James currently
serves as the co-pastor of the Crosbyton Primitive Baptist Church.  He and
his wife, Julie, along with their four children moved back to Crosbyton in
November 2006 from Aberdeen, MS where he had been co-pastor of the Aberdeen
Primitive Baptist Church.  James says about evolution vs. creationism as
follows:

"I can honestly say my reason for not believing in evolution certainly
wasn't because I was not taught it.  We had weeks even months of
evolutionary teaching during my time at Texas A&M.  Thankfully, I was
already involved in digging up fossils and seeing the real evidence for
myself.  I knew from first hand experience that when all the facts are
known, evolution simply doesn't add up.  My college professors, indeed all
evolutionists, only ever tell you half the story and it's the half that's
slanted to make evolution look true.  I will have to tell you they made a
very convincing case.  Were it not for my knowledge of all the facts and
especially my faith in Christ, it would have been easy to succumb to the
lie of evolution.
Ultimately, belief in evolution or creation is a matter of faith.  Hebrews
11:1 describes faith as the "evidence of things not seen."  Has anyone seen
where the dinosaurs or any fossils came from?  Has anyone seen how they
were buried?  Has anyone seen how the creatures originally came into
existence?  Rhetorically the answer is of course, no.  No matter whether
you believe in creation or evolution your belief about origins is based on
faith.  Believing that the universe started with a big bang and that things
evolve from a state of lower order to a state of higher order (which is a
flagrant contradiction of the Second Law of Thermodynamics) can only be
believed by faith.  In order to be scientific, it must be able to 1. be
observed and 2. be repeatable under carefully controlled experiments.  The
"theory" of evolution regarding origins fails both these qualifications
miserably.  You can't observe the origins of the universe, the earth, the
plant and animal life any more than you can repeat it.  Therefore, what you
believe about origins, whether you are a creationist or evolutionist can
only ever be believed by faith.  All the fossils that can be dug up can
only tell us that we found a fossil and it was in the dirt (or rock as the
case may be) and that’s it.  Nothing more.  It’s a dead animal or plant and
it can’t say one word about where it came from or how it got there.
Period.  We can interpret, based on any number of factors, such as geology
and geography etc., how it got there but that is called interpretation
based on evidence.  And interpretations are always subject to your
predisposition.  That's not to say the evidence is unimportant or that we
can't learn anything from the evidence.  The point is there is no
scientific mechanism to prove how it got there or why it is there.  I think
it's funny, sad and ironic that the evolutionists expect us to believe that
everything evolved from nothing purely by chance with no intelligence and
then these same "brilliant” minds can't make one single little simple life
form either by chance or with their genius intellect.  Frankly, they prove
the opposite of what they expect us to believe.  Only a dummy (talking
about the scientists) believes it takes no intelligence to start life and
then they with all their supposed brilliance have not the first clue about
how to create a life using their 'intelligence'.  If it can just happen by
chance without the catalyst of intelligence then it should be a simple
matter for their genius intellect to make one little itty bitty bacteria
shouldn't it?   They make a laughing mockery of themselves.  Of course
that's what the Lord said about them in the first place, Ps 2:4.  Even if
our science advances to the point (I don’t think it will) that we can
create life then these same people who have been telling us for the last
100-150 years that it takes no intelligence to create life will have just
proved that it does take intelligence to create life.  Ultimately their
fight isn't for the truth.  They don't want the truth because they hate it
and suppress it as Paul said in Rom 1:18.  They hate one person and
especially one person, Jesus Christ.  They hate him pure and simple.  If,
"In the Beginning God created the heaven and the earth", then you owe God
your obedience but the nature of fallen man despises God and loves sin and
disobedience, Rom 3:10-18.  If they acknowledge that God created the
universe (as Moses said that He did) then they will have to follow Moses'
command given in Duet 18:15, to hear the person who would come after Moses.
  Moses went on to say you must not only hear but obey Him.  That "Him" is
none other than Jesus Christ, Acts 3:22.  My faith in Jesus and the
infallibility of the Bible were instrumental in keeping me from falling for
the lie of evolution.  I read Genesis chapter 1 a lot in those days.
Second semester biology was almost entirely about evolution.  In that
particular course I didn’t do very well grade wise and ended up just barely
passing with a C-.  But when it comes to believing God’s word, however, I’m
thankful to believe that I have passed with an A+.  Whether one just barely
passes their required evolutionary course work in college with a C or an A,
I hope that all will pass God’s examination of your belief in Him and His
creation with an A+.  The evidence that we at Mt. Blanco dig up contradicts
evolution and 'proves' God’s special creation to be true.  But, dear
reader, your faith ultimately stands or falls on 'Thus saith the Lord.' In
the end I hope we can all be like the Apostle Paul and simply say, 'I
believe God', Acts 27:25."

~~~~


"Boot of Cortez" - Desert Gold Diggers - The "Boot of Cortez" is the
largest natural gold nugget in existence from the Western Hemisphere. Its
weight is 389.4 troy oz. home.att.net/~desert-gold-diggers/gold/tgms04.htm

"The 'Boot of Cortez' is the largest natural gold nugget in existence from
the Western Hemisphere. Its weight is 389.4 troy oz. and was found in the
Sonora Desert with a metal detector in 1989. (Note that the owner corrected
me in that it is not the largest ever found in the Western Hemisphere but
the largest surviving nugget.)

( Note also on this webpage "Nice big nugget from Australia", but no
location given, and also the The Fricot crystallized gold mass - 201.40
troy oz. (approx. 13 lbs.) Discovered August, 1865 by William Russell Davis
at the Grit Claim, Spanish Dry Diggings, Middle Fork of American River, El
Dorado County, California  .... I think that the Fricot specimen and others
like it have been dissolved from quartz probably with hydrofluoric acid
?????  ~ John )

Hello,


As mentioned before the objects at Box Head do, in photographs, look very
much like vertical trees in sandstone .. but a visit to them found them not
to be so.

They are one of at least two asserted fossil wood occurrences in the broad
Sydney region which skeptics have much doubted.
These 'wood' occurences in Triassic sandstone were published by creation
scientists who are geologists, or creation geologists.

The Box Head 'trees' were published by creation geology writer Tasman Walker.

At about the same time another creation geologist, Dr Andrew Snelling,
published on some fossil wood in sandstone down south, Bundanoon way, with
a very young carbon dating.

I didn't take much notice of this myself .. why couldn't such a thing, if
wood, just be a deep tree root into the sandstone, for example!?  But one
might not like to say such a thing .. as it could seem a little unkind to
Dr Snelling?  However, somebody else has commented on this 'occurrence'
too, as below and has been quite harsh on Dr S. at "1" below.

Tas Walker has responded to the views of the 'Skeptics' - defending the
original expressed ideas (also below, with links or references) = at "2"
below.

Tas's words

... "The article in the Skeptic tried to dismiss the obvious evidence for
catastrophe provided by the broken tree trunks standing vertically in
sandstone outcrops. The author said ‘floods are well known in modern river
systems. There is no reason to invoke a worldwide flood to explain tree
trunks in fluvial deposited sedimentary rocks.’  However, the vertical logs
are at least 3 m long and enclosed within only one or two beds of a
large-scale sandstone formation....  These features point to vast and fast
water flows. The Kosi fan does not have similar logs standing vertically in
the earth waiting to be buried by gradually accumulating sediment. Neither
do large logs commonly protrude vertically from the beds of braided-river
environments. Thus, in spite of the author’s attempt to brush off the
evidence, it is not possible to dismiss so easily the significance for
catastrophe of the vertical trees within thick, cross-bedded strata..."...

are in reference to the unusual tubular or vertical cylindrical iron oxide
accumulations present at Box Head - which are clearly concretionary when
one can view their features up close  [viz. in
http://www.lachlanhunter.deadsetfreestuff.com/JB/geo-sitesG-I.htm )



Cheers,




John





~~~~~~~~~~


1) EXAMPLE OF SOME OF THE CRITICISM


Andrew Snelling and the Iron Concretion?

Added July 25, 2003:  One of the recent claims is that coal also contains
C-14 that allows it to be dated.  An article on coal and C-14 is posted at
the TalkOrigins site http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html and is worth
a look.

Andrew Snelling (of Answers in Genesis) claims that a piece of 'wood'
obtained from a Triassic sandstone yielded a C-14 age that was much too
young for it to be a Triassic deposit.   In doing so, he claims to have
invalidated the C-14 dating method and the old earth time scale.  Snelling
has not submitted this article for peer-review, nor does he apparently have
any intention of doing so.  The paper is for dissemination to other
young-earth creationists.  As you read, please note that the principle
question regarding these studies is the level of contamination in the
samples.  Snelling NEVER addresses the fundamental objection.

Photo of Alleged Sample (See above reference)

Intrigued, I decided to pursue this matter in a bit more detail.  I wrote
to the head of Geochron Labs Radiocarbon group (Dr. Cherkinsky) who
responded to my inquiry with the following e-mail:

From: Alex Cherkinsky[SMTP:ACHERKINSKY@...]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 6:58:55 PM
To: Meert Joe
Subject: Re: Some questions

Dear Joe

I remember this sample very well. So they called it "wood'? It wasn't wood
at all and more looked like the iron concretion with the structures lightly
similar to wood. I have told about that to submitter, but anyway they
wanted to date the sample. I think maybe this concretion was formed
significantly later than Triassic period and I do not think that is a very
rare case when you can find younger formation in the old deposits
especially if it is sand or sandstones which
could be easy infiltrated with oil solutions. If you have more questions
please let me know.

Best regards.

Dr.Alexander Cherkinsky
Radiocarbon Lab Manager


Snelling had a fit when I posted this to a Cre-evo discussion board and
insisted that it (a) was wood and (b) he has proof in a drawer somewhere.
Aside from the obvious poor documentation by Snelling, he made the
following statement:

"If it wasn't a sample of fossilised wood, then apart from Dr Cherkinsky's
obfuscation, how do Drs Meert and Cherkinsky explain its radiocarbon
content? Quite clearly their opposition to the results of this genuine
research study are more to do with their a priori belief about the age of
the earth and its rock strata than with science. The evidence they are
trying to cover with a smokescreen of personal abuse instead speaks for
itself."

Is this a valid criticism?  It might appear to be, but there are several
clues from Snellings own hand that indicate there are problems with this
analysis.  Please note, Snelling seems puzzled that an iron concretion
could give a radiocarbon age.  This is not at all uncommon and a cursory
look at the literature would have given Snelling something to think about
when he noticed the iron present in the sample.  The first is Snellings
description of the 'wood' impregnated with silica and hematite.  Hematite
is an iron oxide (rust essentially).  Snelling adamantly maintains that the
sample is wood from the Hawkesbury Formation  Indeed, carbonized wood and
plant matter is reported from the Hawkesbury Formation, but Snelling
provides no detailed description of possible subsequent alteration---with
the exception of the 'impregnated' sentence above.   However, this
alteration is probably the key to the 'dilemma'.  It likely explains why
Geochron labs identified it as an iron concretion with structures
resembling wood.   The replacement of wood by iron and silica would give it
just that appearance.   This alteration immediately calls into question the
use of C-14 dating on the sample.  There have been studies on iron
concretions and 'dating' of them.  For example Bird et al. (1994, The
Carbon Isotope Composition of Organic matter occluded in iron nodules; Chem
Geol, 114) states:

Abstract:

This study presents 13C and 14C results for soil organic carbon and carbon
occluded by iron nodules from a quaternary soil profile developed on basalt
in western Victoria, Australia. The results suggest that the 13C-value of
organic matter in the iron nodules is directly inherited from the
surrounding soil profile without isotopic fractionation, and that therefore
the 13C-value of organic matter occluded by the iron nodules can be related
to the vegetation present during nodule formation. However, 14C results
suggest that iron nodules are not closed systems with respect to organic
carbon, and that even chemically resistant immobile particulate carbon (of
probably microbial origin) has been added to the nodule carbon pool since
formation.

Interestingly, the sample run in that study gave d13C values typical of
organic material (as in the Snelling study) and the iron concretion also
gave radiocarbon dates due to contamination.   For example, nodules in the
Bird et al. (1994) study gave  d13C= -24 0/00.  In this study (from a
different area of Australia), the nodules gave C-14 ages between 7470-1960
14C (before 1950).  So, despite Snelling's incredulity about how one
obtains an age from iron concretions, the answer is with some
contamination.   Therefore, although Snelling claims that cleaning would
remove all possible contaminants, the paper by Bird et al. (1994) shows
that this is not the case for iron concretions because they do not remove
microbial contamination as clearly demonstrated by the study.

Furthermore, it is this microbial contamination that is responsible for the
'apparent age' of the sample.   We have Snelling admitting that the sample
was altered (silica and iron-rich), the radiocarbon lab manager-- whose
specialty is C-14 dating of woody material-- stating that the sample
appears to be a concretion and a study that shows quite clearly how such
samples can give 'dates' through contamination.  Unfortunately, Snelling
keeps the data locked in a drawer and refuses to submit it for peer-review.
   Until he does so, recent contamination of the sample remains the most
viable explanation for the supposed 'anomalous' dates.  Note, this is not a
case of he said, she said.  This is a case of poorly documented science on
the part of Snelling.   He wants to overturn all of geology, but does not
want to properly document the evidence.

     It is also very likely that Snelling repeated this error half a world
away.  In his 'study' of the Marlstone rock bed in England, he also reports
anomalous C-14 ages in an area known to contain younger iron oxidative
products.  Of course, Snelling also closely guards these data in some
drawer and refuses to submit the publication for peer-review.  Note that in
the picture included in the Snelling article, it is impossible to determine
whether or not this is wood. Fossil wood is reported as a rare occurrence
around Banbury, so it is possible that Snelling has indeed sample fossil
wood, but the evidence provided in the photo is scanty.


A recent paper (there are a number of these) by Deyell et al. (2000, Can J.
Earth Sci., Age and Origin of advanced argillic alteration zones and
related exotic limonite deposits in Limonite Creek area, central British
Columbia) shows that limonite will indeed give C-14 ages as it replaces
plant material. Even if we assume that Snelling has indeed sampled fossil
wood of Jurassic age, no carbon should be left in the wood and therefore it
is imperative in his 'test' to fully document that there is no
contamination present.

Snelling lists 4 reasons why contamination can be ruled out.  He states:

(1) since labs all obtained similar ages this rules out contamination.

That is simply twisted logic.  If the contamination is all of a similar
age, then the data will be similar.

(2) he talks about levels of  'unavoidable contamination'

This seems to cancel the logic in point number 1, he also 'invents a 0.2%
value out of thin air, contamination could be more and he needs to document
that HIS samples contain no more than 0.2% of contaminants. Cherkinsky
noted (in a personal communication) that iron deposite contain up to 15%
organic matter. Furthermore, if the sample is indeed a Jurassic wood any
contamination would be a problem.

(3) He states the the d13C values are indicative of organic plant material.

This is correct but as noted above contamination by younger organic plant
material will still result in 'characteristic d13C values.

(4) Snelling asserts that if anyone claims contamination it would be an
ad-hominem attack against respected laboratories.

One wonders why Snelling might mention this since he claims (kind of) that
the samples are not contaminated.  Perhaps, it is a pre-emptive strike
since he realized that he has not fully documented his case for no
contamination?   Unfortunately, contamination can occur at any point along
the way including during formation of the sample.  As noted above and again
below, there are cases where contamination cannot be removed.  Hence, not a
single one of his 4 reasons involves unequivocal proof that his samples
were not contaminated!  It is also not a slam on the laboratories.

Let's move on to the specifics of this second case.   Snelling's
description of the site reads:

"When sampled, the fossil wood readily splintered, diagnostic of it still
being ‘woody’ in spite of its impregnation with iron minerals during
fossilisation."

The Geologic description of the site (Geology of the Country around Banbury
and Edge Hill, Edmunds et al., 1965, GS Great Britain) describes the
section as follows:

     "Locally the Marlstone rock bed is known as the Hornton Stone and it
has been quarried for ornamental purposes in three large excavations"

A section is described as follows (pg 47 of the report):

(1) Red soil with ironstone debris (1 foot)
(2) Shelly, false-bedded oolite (3.5 feet)
(3) thinly bedded, shelly, calcitic sideritic chamosite ooilite with
partings of limonite chamosite and oolite (6 feet)
(4) Calcitic sideritic siderite oolite (4 feet 3 inches)
(5) limonite (0.5 ft)
(6) calcitic sideritic chamosite oolite (10 inches)
(7) limonite (2 inches)
(8) Calcitic sideritic chamosite oolite (10 inches)
(9) calcitic sideritic chamositic siderite oolite with limonite partings at
the top and bottom (1.5 feet)
(10) Shelly siderite limestone (5 feet)

Under 'Petrography' (a study of the makeup of the rock), the authors note
that some of the limonite was formed contemporaneoulsy with the deposition
of the rocks, but they go on to say:

"Nevetheless, it is likely that most of the oxidation of the Marlstone rock
bed is of recent origin.

Snelling does not demonstrate that the fossil wood was 'impregnated during
fossilisation' nor does he demonstrate that this 'wood' is in-situ.
Limonite will also 'splinter'.  The photo is not helpful in either regard
and in fact, the small deposit shown in the photo (reported to be an end-on
belemnite) looks like a coating of limonite rather than a fossil.  Snelling
expresses some concerns about finding land plants interbedded with
ammonites and belemnites and calls on a global flood to explain the
occurrence.  An equally valid explanation is that the wood is not in-situ
(i.e. did not form at the same time as the limestone) or since oolitic
limestones form in very shallow (near-shore) environments, the wood may
have floated there.  His assertion that the wood shows roots etc is not
supported by any firm documentation. Rather than reflecting damage to the
old earth hypothesis, it shows that Snelling is not a very careful
scientist as he once again does not document his results.  Snelling needs
to show conclusively that the only explanation for this is that (a) the
wood is really wood; (b) it is in-situ and not younger; (c) that his sample
contained no limonite or other contamination which is present throughout
the outcrop.  The onus is always on the person making extraordinary claims
to document their case.  Snelling can prove me wrong by producing the data
(preferably with SEM photos and elemental analyses).  Of course, he won't
do this and it is much more likely that he will fume and cry foul.  I will
happily retract this page if Snelling produces the data.  Will he retract
his story if the elemental analyses and SEM photos disprove his hypothesis?
  Note: These data would be absolutely required by peer-reviewed journals in
light of the known complications of C-14 dating in iro-rich deposits so I
am asking the same thing any good editor would ask.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

SNELLING ANSWERS (SORT OF)

Please NOTE: The following was posted on an internet bulletin board by
someone claiming to have spoken with Snelling.  The person who posted this
to the board provided no evidence that he/she had actually spoken with
Snelling so caveat emptor.   However, the points raised by the person
(Snelling or otherwise) do not answer the relevant questions regarding the
sample.

AS: Snelling?
JM: Meert

AS: I don't want to waste valuable time on the Joe Meert accusations and
the discussion you are having over the net. You are quite correct in
insisting that Joe's case stands or falls on Dr Alex Cherkinsky producing a
copy of his claimed correspondence with me (which we know doesn't exist).
You are also correct in emphasising that in the lab report which came to me
there made no mention whatsoever about the sample being unsuitable for
radiocarbon analysis.

JM: Actually, Cherkinsky can be credited with the impetus for delving
further into this issue.  As noted, this is not a case of he said, she
said.  This is a scientific argument and the onus falls squarely on the
shoulders of the person overturning the paradigm.  Now, Snelling may not
like this and he may complain bitterly about it, but he has failed to
document his case.    I don't want claims, I want evidence as would any
good scientist.  It is also important to note (since several have called
Cherkinsky's honesty into question--and mine) that Cherkinsky claims 'he
told the submitter'.   Snelling wants a letter, but Cherkinsky may have
phoned Snelling, a secretary or a lab assistant.  At this point, we simply
do not know.  Cherkinsky was given the sample reference number in my
e-mail, so presumably he checked his notes regarding the sample.  The main
point is that the contents of Cherkinsky's letter are irrelevant to the
points below as Snelling has admitted that the sample was iron bearing.

AS:However, the major point I wanted to make here are in response to the
appropriateness of the sample and the sampling technique. First of all, the
sandstone in which the fossilised wood was found is a tight,
silica-cemented sandstone that contains no oil whatsoever, and through
which no oil has been known to penetrate.

JM: Apparently Snelling thinks that oil has something to do with the
contamination.  This probably comes from Cherkinsky's e-mail letter, but as
it turns out, oil is irrelevant in this case.  The Hawkesbury sandstone is
highly jointed (BMR Report The Sydney Basin) which allows fluid flow and
rootlet and other microbial material penetrate the sandstone.  At any rate,
the relevant points are outlined above.

AS: Second, it is not inappropriate to analyse fossilised wood for
radiocarbon.

JM: I don't believe I made this claim neither did Cherkinsky.   It is very
inappropriate not to include the full results of the analysis including
documentation that the sample was not altered.  Snelling did not do this.

AS:Fossilised human bones are regularly radiocarbon dated, as are wood
samples from archaeological sites, etc., even if some fossilisation has
occurred. The real question is not whether the wood has been fossilised, as
what constitutes a fossil is a fuzzy area anyway.

JM: Irrelevant side show.

AS: The real issue is how much permineralization has occurred, that is,
infiltration and replacement of the wood by silica, iron carbonate, or
other chemicals.

JM: I believe the real issue-- is demonstrating that Snelling sent a sample
of wood that has not been altered or contaminated.  Replacement is a
secondary and critical issue as outlined above. Here Snelling admits the
importance of this issue, but does nothing to substantiate that the sample
was not altered.

AS: Even if other chemicals have replaced most of the wood, as long as some
of the original organic material has remained, fossilised wood can still be
tested for radiocarbon, and as far as we young earth creationists are
concerned we would expect to possibly find some radiocarbon still left.

JM: Partly true, because no one disputes the fact that wood can be dated.
The problem is that the type of replacement suggested by BOTH Snelling and
Cherkinsky allows contamination of the sample.    If the original wood is
older than ~50K years, there would be no original carbon in the wood and
the lab would be measuring only the contamination.   This is a critical
point NEVER addressed by Snelling with the proper analysis.

AS: That was the rationale behind submitting this sample to Geochron's
radiocarbon laboratory. Its validity as fossilised wood was carefully
checked and was never in doubt.

JM: Actually, it is very much in doubt as the letter from Dr. Cherkinsky
attests.  Snelling has provided hearsay evidence to support his claim and
he could rightly claim Cherkinsky's statement is hearsay.  At this point
both are irrelevant.   It might be righteous indignation, but as any
scientist worth his/her salt knows---the case rests on the evidence.
Snelling can settle this by providing the SEM photos (Scanning Electron
Microscopy) and the chemical analyses of the sample.  I assume, as a
careful scientist, he ran these critical tests.

AS: The question was whether Geochron would find any residual organic
material in the sample, and therefore be able to obtain a radiocarbon
analysis. Thus their lab report answered our questions.

JM: Actually it did no such thing.  The lab reported an age.  Snelling
would have had to do the contamination analysis himself.

AS: Third, the question of contamination is dealt with in the lab report by
the chemical treatment of the sample in its preparation for analysis.

JM: Actually, this is very much in doubt as the paper by Bird et al. (1994)
indicates.  The procedure followed in that study shows that the cleaning
methods do not remove all contaminants in these iron nodules:  The
procedure for AMS C-14 sample prep is described by Bird et al. (1994) is
lengthy (compare to Snellings): Here is the summary:

(1) Sieving and hand-picking of sample
(2) Cleaning in ultrasonic bath
(3) boiled briefly in 6 N HCl
(4) washed in distilled water/ultrasonically cleaned
(5) boiled for 1 hour in 5 N chromic acid to destroy organic carbon
available to solution (soil organic matter and opal phytoliths)
(6) washed and boiled repeatedly to remove chromic acid
(7) oven dried 100 C
(8) crushed and boiled in 500 ml 6 N HCl to dissolve iron oxides
(9) residue transferred to a 300 ml HCl-HF-H2o (1:1:1) solution at 50 C
overnight
(10) remaining residue washed free of HF
(11) treated with 0.1 N NaOH to remove alkali soluble organics
(12) residue ultrasonically cleaned for 30 minutes in chloroform-methanol
(2x), methanol (2x) and water (2x) to remove chemically resistant solvent
extractable organic compounds.

The sample still gave C-14 ages due to microbial contamination that was not
removed by this procedure.  Compare to what Snelling reports.

AS:  Indeed, the analytical report from Geochron Laboratories described the
sample as wood and under the heading 'Pretreatment' reported that 'The wood
sample was cleaned of dirt or other foreign material and was split into
small pieces. It was then treated with hot dilute HCl to remove any
carbonates and with hot dilute NaOH to remove humic acids and other organic
contaminates. After washing and drying, it was combusted to recover carbon
dioxide for the analysis.'

JM: Irrelevant.  This procedure will not remove all organic contamination
as noted by Bird et al. (1994).  If you were paying me to call the sample
wood, I would do so to appease you---especially after insisting the lab run
it after being advised it was not wood.

AS: Under 'Description' it was described as 'sample of wood', and elsewhere
under 'Sample name' it was described as 'organic material'.

JM: Irrelevant.  You need to show the evidence through chemical analyses.
Indeed, in Snelling's paper he noted the presence of contamination.   Is he
now denying this RELEVANT fact?  Poor science on Snelling's part does not
require extraordinary expenditure on my part.  Show us the data that proves
this is uncontaminated wood.  The submittal form also asks the submitter to
describe the sample.  More than likely the final report parrots the claims
in the submission form.   Snelling should produce both of these documents.

AS: So much for Dr Alex Chernisky's claims and for the arguments about
appropriateness of doing a radiocarbon analysis of fossilised wood!

JM: Not quite true. Snelling and Cherkinsky have both admitted to the
presence of iron in the sample.  As I also mentioned, no one is debating
the ability to date fossilized wood---it is a question of WHAT wood and IS
IT WOOD?  Cherkinsky is a trained C-14 geochronologist, Snelling is not.
However, the point is that the type of contamination noted by BOTH Snelling
and Cherkinsky along with the material discussed above is enough to throw
Snelling's poorly documented science into the trash heap.

AS: If you feel it is appropriate to settle the matter, then I can always
scan in the one page analytical report from Geochron Laboratories and send
it to you as an attached file for you to post on the Internet if you want
to. I have absolutely nothing to hide from this procedure.

JM: The lab report from Geochron is not at issue here.   Nor is the
'age'---for what it is worth, I do believe that Geochron returned the age
to Snelling as documented.  The issues are the significance of the age and
the possibility of contamination.  Snelling has not answered those questions.

Final  Note: If Snelling can indeed substantiate his case, I will publicly
apologize and withdraw this material.  Most scientists, when criticized
respond by thoroughly documenting their case.  You can see examples of
these in the scientific literature by looking at comment/reply sections.
If you want an example, some work I had done in 1994 was criticized and I
wrote the following comment.

This is another excellent example of supposed 'creation science'.  All
creation science is reactionary.  There is no creation model and there is
no original research aimed at establishing a creation model.  Creationists,
like Snelling, rely on a false dichotomy and conclude that if evolution is
wrong, then their narrow misinterpretation of Genesis is correct.
Interestingly, Snelling has published a few articles using old-earth
chronology.  He, like John Baumgardner and John Woodmorappe (aka Jan
Peczkis) have all published old-earth evolutionary articles in the
mainstream literature while, supposedly, clinging to a young earth
viewpoint.  Snelling claims (essentially) that he was forced to publish old
earth views.  This statement is ludicrous as no one forces anyone to
publish anything.

............. et cetera

From:  http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/crefaqs.htm#who









2)  TASMAN WALKER REPLY TO THESE SKEPTICS OF CREATIONIST VIEWS




Skeptical of Sisters


The Three Sisters: strong evidence for Noah’s Flood in Australia
by Tas Walker

Summary

An article in the journal of the Australian Skeptics has sought to refute a
creationist claim that the Three Sisters formed during Noah’s Flood. These
impressive rock outcrops are a popular tourist icon near Sydney, Australia.
Instead of a refutation, it turns out that the Skeptic article enhances the
creationists’ argument. For example, the article tacitly acknowledges that
none of the geological environments previously proposed is workable,
because the author does not attempt to defend any of them. But the new,
previously unpublished model offered turns out to be an inferior match of
the geological evidence. Carbon-14 from wood is still evidence that the
geological strata are young because the explanation that the wood was an
iron concretion is impossible. The article does not even try to refute the
strong evidence provided by the shape of the landscape. The creationist
case relies, not on one or two speculative resemblances, but a whole host
of consistent evidences that tie in beautifully to the sequence of events
involved in Noah’s Flood. The Skeptic article does nothing to diminish the
creationist case, but much to strengthen it.

Creationists have claimed that the geology of Australia’s Three Sisters,
provides compelling evidence for the global Flood of Noah,1 a claim that a
recent article in the journal of Australian Skeptics has sought to refute.2
The Skeptic is not a peer-reviewed geological journal, nor would it profess
to be. However, a geologist wrote the article and it is now available on
the web, so a response to the criticisms is given here.

But before we consider the geological evidence, we need to clear away some
peripheral distractions.

Clearing the decks
The author of the Skeptic article seemed outraged that creationists are
trying to mix science and religion. That sense of outrage was expressed in
the title, ‘Creationist weds three sisters’ and the opening sentence:

‘Creationist Dr Tasman Walker of Answers in Genesis has tried to wed the
geological unit that forms the Three Sisters … to his religious beliefs
that the geology of the Earth is the result of Noah’s Flood.’
This is the classic religion-versus-science tactic, regularly employed to
sidestep creationist arguments. Defining science in this way disqualifies
the biblical worldview from the outset, dismissing scientific arguments
without addressing them. We are all sceptical when governments ban opposing
political parties. And we should be sceptical of skeptics claiming that
this debate is just about science—about objectively considering alternative
hypotheses and weighing the evidence.

Skeptics are quick to accuse creationists of being biased but won’t
acknowledge that they are biased too. The conflict is between the Christian
faith, which gave the West its values and heritage, and the new religion of
secular humanism. Simply put, one side accepts the Bible as authoritative,
the other does not.

The article in the Skeptic reveals its antibiblical prejudice in several
places. For example, in one place the author argues, ‘You do not need to
invoke some magically created worldwide flood to explain sediment
dispersal.’ In another he says, ‘There is no reason to invoke a worldwide
flood.’

In other words, there is a stubborn refusal to acknowledge the biblical
worldview, even as a possibility. An open scientific inquiry would
willingly contemplate the question, ‘If there really was a worldwide flood
just like the Bible says, then what evidence would we expect to find?’

A favourite political tactic is to attack the credibility of the opponent.
The article in the Skeptic does just that.

‘Dr Walker is trying to impress his audience with large numbers.’ ‘He has
not bothered to do any research.’ ‘Dr Walker, like all creationists, never
seems to be aware of inconsistencies within his own writings.’ ‘Dr Walker
then continues his assault on science.’

Even the subtitle to the article claims that ‘creationists don’t know which
bed they are in’, implying, among other things, that creationists are
ignorant of geology. However, the article reveals the opposite. It says the
Three Sisters are ‘part of the rock unit known as the Hawkesbury
Sandstone’. Not so. They are exposures of the Banks Wall Sandstone, which
is part of the Narrabeen Group.3 The creationist article always described
the Hawkesbury Sandstone as ‘overlying’ the Three Sisters.1 So, the author
of the Skeptic article has confused his stratigraphy, not the creationist.

A reader of the Skeptic pointed out this error in a letter:

‘This incorrect statement does not appear in Walker’s website article,
where he (Walker) refers correctly (several times) to “… the overlying
Hawkesbury Sandstone …”.’4

The letter goes on to say ‘don’t let our enthusiasm … lead to mis­stating
the facts of well-known geology.’

The purpose of this enthusiasm is supposedly to ‘demolish the patently
absurd “geology” of the creationists at every opportunity’, which does not
sound like a careful, unbiased scientific approach to the data.


The Skeptic article similarly attacks the credibility of the Bible,
referring to Noah’s Flood as ‘some magically created worldwide flood’ and
‘fairytales’. We should not allow these assaults on credibility to distract
us from properly weighing the evidence.

So let’s look at the geological evidence and how it is interpreted.

Evidence for catastrophe

As the creationist article explained, the immense size and lateral extent
of the geological formations, which the Three Sisters are part of, point to
an unusual depositional environment in the past. Moreover, the ever-present
cross-bedding in the sandstone strata, visible in the cuttings and cliffs
around Sydney, means that deposition was from fast, deep-flowing water.

Any tourist can appreciate these geologic features. But for 150 years,
geologists have struggled to match a satisfactory depositional environment
to these strata, based on normal, everyday geologic environments. The more
recent suggestions have tended toward the exotic and have a distinctive
catastrophist flavour. These developments do not surprise creationists
because the geological features are what we would expect from the global
catastrophic Flood of Noah as described in the Bible.

Catastrophe? What catastrophe?

The article in the Skeptic tries to avoid the implications of large-scale
deposition, first by poking fun. ‘Be impressed by big things.’ ‘Dr Walker
is trying to impress his audience with large numbers.’ Then the author
suggests that large-scale deposition is easy to explain. ‘It seems that he
has not bothered to do any research into modern environments that
geologists would consider similar to that which produced the Hawkesbury
Sandstone.’ The article then suggests that the scale of the Hawkesbury
Sandstone is easily explained as a stream-dominated fan (figure 1).

Now, this is an interesting proposal because this is the first time anyone
has suggested a stream-dominated fan as a modern environment analogous to
the Hawkesbury Sandstone. Over the years, geologists have suggested many
different depositional environments, but these have fallen from favour one
after the other:5

Marine (1844)
Partly glacial (1880)
Aeolian (1883)
Aeolian and lacustrine (1883)
Freshwater lake (1920)
Fluvial (1964)
Marine barrier tidal delta (1969)
Braided alluvial (1975, 1980, 1983)
No geologist has previously suggested a stream-dominated fan. I wonder if
the author of the Skeptic article would also say that these geologists have
‘not bothered to actually do any research into modern environments’.


This list of ever-changing paleoenvironmental interpretations demonstrates
the creationist point. The Hawkesbury Sandstone challenges the mainstream
geological philosophy that the present is the key to the past. That, of
course, is why Dr Patrick Connaghan of the School of Earth Sciences at
Macquarie University proposed deposition by massive volumes of glacial-lake
water. He envisaged that these periodically burst through ice dams, which
accumulated enormous volumes of floodwaters in ancient Lake Napperby to the
north.6

Interestingly, the author of the Skeptic article failed to examine Dr
Conagahan’s model, saying, ‘I have not looked at the newspaper article.’
But that does not change the fact that creationists are not the only
geologists who see that the evidence points to large-scale watery
catastrophe.

By proposing a stream-dominated fan as the past depositional environment,
the author of the Skeptic article effectively acknowledges that none of the
previously proposed environments is satisfactory. I agree. But I doubt that
many geologists will embrace this new depositional model either. Let’s see
why.

The Skeptic article refers to the Kosi fan as the world’s largest,
well-studied stream-dominated fan. This fan is in India, on the Kosi River,
which emerges from the Himalayan foothills (figure 2). There are many
features of this example which are inconsistent with the characteristics of
the Hawkesbury Sandstone

< snip >

Carbon-14 in iron concretions?
The article in the Skeptic also tried to discount the import of a carbon-14
analysis on wood from the Hawkesbury Sandstone.19 This returned a date of
33,720  ±  430 years and provided objective, experimental evidence that the
sandstone is only thousands of years old, not 225–230 million years as
conventionally quoted.

Although the carbon-14 analysis was performed by a reputable commercial
laboratory, the Skeptic article claimed that ‘the sample looked more like
an iron concretion than a piece of wood’. It’s strange that an experienced
carbon-14 dating laboratory would report carbon from an iron concretion.

The Skeptic article also said the carbon-14 result ‘could easily have been
contaminated by ground water’. But the writer ignored the associated
carbon-13 analysis, which is not consistent with ground water contaminating
the wood.

These sorts of arguments about the carbon-14 analysis simply demonstrate
what creationists have said in many places. Geologists accept radioactive
ages only when they agree with what they already believe the age to be.

Broken trees are consistent evidence
The article in the Skeptic tried to dismiss the obvious evidence for
catastrophe provided by the broken tree trunks standing vertically in
sandstone outcrops. The author said ‘floods are well known in modern river
systems. There is no reason to invoke a worldwide flood to explain tree
trunks in fluvial deposited sedimentary rocks.’

However, the vertical logs are at least 3 m long and enclosed within only
one or two beds of a large-scale sandstone formation. These features point
to vast and fast water flows. The Kosi fan does not have similar logs
standing vertically in the earth waiting to be buried by gradually
accumulating sediment. Neither do large logs commonly protrude vertically
from the beds of braided-river environments. Thus, in spite of the author’s
attempt to brush off the evidence, it is not possible to dismiss so easily
the significance for catastrophe of the vertical trees within thick,
cross-bedded strata.

Rapid erosion not addressed
The form of the landscapes provides more evidence consistent with the Three
Sisters forming during Noah’s Flood. The creationist article discussed the
landscapes but the Skeptic article did not address them at all. In broad
terms, the landscape in the Blue Mountains consists of an uplifted plateau
subsequently dissected into wide valleys with steep cliffs—a pattern easily
explained from a biblical model.

The plateaux represent a huge planation surface shaved flat during the
second half of the Flood as receding floodwaters flowed in sheets from the
continent. The escarpments and large valleys eroded later in the Flood when
the volume of water decreased and the flow was restricted to large
channels. The rivers and waterfalls that now occupy valleys are minuscule
compared with the volume of waters that carved the landscape during the
Flood. Underfit rivers are the norm around the world, but we would expect
conformable-fit rivers if millions of years were available to reach an
equilibrium position.

It is interesting that Darwin, when he visited Australia in 1844, thought
the idea that rivers cut the gorges was ‘preposterous’.20 He proposed that
the main agent of erosion must have been a retreating sea—remarkably
similar to the creationist position.

Conclusion
The article in the Skeptic has not refuted the creationists’ claim that the
Three Sisters provide compelling evidence for Noah’s Flood.

The depositional features of the sediments are different from any
depositional environment we see on the earth today, including the author’s
suggestion of a stream-dominated alluvial fan. The fact that the author
proposed a new, previously unpublished model, rather than trying to defend
one of the existing ones, suggests that he thinks none is adequate to
explain the geology.

Thus, the creationist claim still stands, that the geological
characteristics of the Three Sisters are consistent with the global
catastrophic Flood of Noah. These characteristics include:

the geographical extent of the sedimentary deposits
the thickness of the sedimentary deposits
the shape of the sedimentary deposits
the ubiquitous presence of thick, cross-bedded strata in the sediments
the absence of vegetated soil horizons in the strata
the presence of broken tree stumps standing vertically in thickly bedded
strata
the presence of carbon-14 in wood enclosed in the sediments
the form of the landscapes such as the extensive plateaus, and wide, deep
and steep valleys.
The case for the Three Sisters forming during Noah’s Flood is strong. It
relies, not on one or two speculative similarities, but a whole host of
consistent evidences that tie in beautifully to the sequence of events
involved in the global catastrophe.

References

Walker, T., 3 Sisters: evidence for Noah’s Flood, Creation 25(2):38–42, 2003.

Blake, P., Creationist weds Three Sisters: evidence that creationists don’t
know which bed they are in, the Skeptic 24(1):49–51, 2004.

Jones, D.C. and Clark, N.R. (Eds.), Geology of the Penrith 1:100,000 Sheet
9030, New South Wales Geological Survey, Sydney, p. 10, 1991.

Bembrick, C., Three Sisters defamed, the Skeptic 24(2):67, 2004.

Jones and Clark, ref. 3, p.14.

Woodford, J., Rock doctor catches up with our prehistoric surf, The Sydney
Morning Herald, p. 2, 30 April 1994.

Collinson, J.D., Alluvial sediments; in: Reading, H.G., Sedimentary
Environments: Processes, Facies and Stratigraphy (3rd ed.), Blackwell
Science, Oxford, UK, p. 60, 1996.

Jones and Clark, ref. 3, p. 14–15.

Singh, H., Parkash, B. and Gohain, K., Facies analysis of the Kosi megafan
deposits, Sedimentary Geology 85:87–113, 1993.
Sydney 1:255,000 Geological Map Series, 3rd ed., 1966.

The Sydney Basin, Australian Museum,
<www.amonline.net.au/geoscience/earth/sydbasin.htm>, 6 June 2004.

Day, R.W., Whitaker, W.G., Murray, C.G., Wilson, I.H. and Grimes, K.G.,
Queensland Geology: A companion volume to the 1:2,500,000 scale geological
map, (1975), Geological Survey of Queensland, Publication 383, Brisbane, p.
127, 1983.

Walker, T., The Great Artesian Basin, Australia, Journal of Creation
10(3):379–390, 1996.

Walker, T., Geology and the Bible—an answer, The Australian Geologist 110,
p. 8, 31 March 1999.

Archer, M., Hand, S.J. and Godthelp, H., Riversleigh, Reed Books, Sydney
pp. 44–53, 1991.
Snelling, A.A., Dating dilemma: fossil wood in ‘ancient’ sandstone,
Creation 21(3):39–41, 1999.
Jones and Clark, ref. 3, p. 104.

Stanistreet, I.G. and McCarthy, T.S., The Okavango Fan and the
classification of subaerial fan systems, Sedimentary Geology 85:115–133,
1993.


FROM:  http://biblicalgeology.net/content/view/65/9

Nice Info John,

Great site and Pictures, really interesting. I have seen so many
different structures in the Hawkesbury Sandstone, its such an
amazing formation...so much cross bedding, iron stains, concretions,
spherical iron stained bedding plains and so much more that i
couldnt even explain to you!

Thanks for the info and a great read!

When are you going to the fish quarry? i would love to get in there
and have a look aswell, is it a part of the fossil Club? when are
you planning on going?

Regards Chris

--- In fossilclubgroup@..., John <john.mail@...>
wrote:
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
> An excurion took place recently to see the fossil trees
photographed in an
> article by creationist geologist Tasman Walker.
>
> The site is Box Hill, Bouddi Peninsula.
>
> The existence of the Box Head "fossil trees" structures was first
published
> on in 2003, including a photo of them taken by Andrew Taylor.
>
> The cyclindrical objects photographed certainly look like
> sideritised/haematitic trunks.
>
> However, many other vertical ferruginous cylindrical structures
were found
> to be present in the sandstone there and from the range of
features it is
> seen that they are definitely vertical concretionary structures,
not trees.
>
> Photos may be see under "GOSFORD" at
> http://www.lachlanhunter.deadsetfreestuff.com/JB/geo-sitesG-I.htm
>
> Still to be visited is Coal and Candle Creek on the other side of
the
> Hawkesbury where a fossil stump was discovered by a member of the
Fossil
> Club many years ago.
>
> The Coal and Candle Creek position (near the tidewater limit) is
likely at
> the same or very similar stratigraphic level near the top of the
Narrabeen
> Group and first guess would now be that it is another
occurrence/exposure
> of these vertical ferruginous cylinders.
>
> I do not know of any other occurrences of similar things in other
parts of
> the world .. does anybody else?
>
> Also planned for 2008 is a revisiting of the famous fossil fish
beds at
> Gosford.  I've never been to that quarry myself yet.  It is known
as Blunts
> Quarry.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
>
> John Byrnes
>
> (LachlanHunter Associates, Sydney)
>

Thanks For all the Info People!
Im sure if I head up there I will see what I can find, hopefully a
huge, opalised dino skull with all teeth intact... HAHAHAHAHA...
mabey in my dreams!

Thanks again!

Regards Chris



--- In fossilclubgroup@..., Rodney Berrell

<rod_rex@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
> Happy new year to you too!!!
>
> Lightning Ridge is tighting down on the laws and
> people that go through other peoples claims are often
> called ratters, you hear some stories of peoples hands
> being cutt off, but i am sure that there urban myths.
> the best person to talk to other there about fossils
> is Jenni Brammal, she is the project manager of a new
> museum trying to be biult to showcase the fossils
> found in the area. the other person to contact is Liz
> Smith (she is an expert in fossil turtles).
>
> Jenni's work number is 02 68291667
>
> every year arround june july there is the opal expo at
> the Ridge and some fossil often turn up at reasional
> prices.
>
> All the best
>
> Rodney
>
>
>
>
_____________________________________________________________________
_______________
> Looking for last minute shopping deals?
> Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?
category=shopping
>

Hello,


An excurion took place recently to see the fossil trees photographed in an
article by creationist geologist Tasman Walker.

The site is Box Hill, Bouddi Peninsula.

The existence of the Box Head "fossil trees" structures was first published
on in 2003, including a photo of them taken by Andrew Taylor.

The cyclindrical objects photographed certainly look like
sideritised/haematitic trunks.

However, many other vertical ferruginous cylindrical structures were found
to be present in the sandstone there and from the range of features it is
seen that they are definitely vertical concretionary structures, not trees.

Photos may be see under "GOSFORD" at
http://www.lachlanhunter.deadsetfreestuff.com/JB/geo-sitesG-I.htm

Still to be visited is Coal and Candle Creek on the other side of the
Hawkesbury where a fossil stump was discovered by a member of the Fossil
Club many years ago.

The Coal and Candle Creek position (near the tidewater limit) is likely at
the same or very similar stratigraphic level near the top of the Narrabeen
Group and first guess would now be that it is another occurrence/exposure
of these vertical ferruginous cylinders.

I do not know of any other occurrences of similar things in other parts of
the world .. does anybody else?

Also planned for 2008 is a revisiting of the famous fossil fish beds at
Gosford.  I've never been to that quarry myself yet.  It is known as Blunts
Quarry.


Regards,




John Byrnes

(LachlanHunter Associates, Sydney)

Hi Chris,
Happy new year to you too!!!

Lightning Ridge is tighting down on the laws and
people that go through other peoples claims are often
called ratters, you hear some stories of peoples hands
being cutt off, but i am sure that there urban myths.
the best person to talk to other there about fossils
is Jenni Brammal, she is the project manager of a new
museum trying to be biult to showcase the fossils
found in the area. the other person to contact is Liz
Smith (she is an expert in fossil turtles).

Jenni's work number is 02 68291667

every year arround june july there is the opal expo at
the Ridge and some fossil often turn up at reasional
prices.

All the best

Rodney



      
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. 
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

Hello Chris,



Lightning Ridge is (or was) the "wild west" so you should get a free enough
run.

A place where they do not like the guvmint, or being regulated in any way.

Most people just can play it by ear.  I'm sure you'll work something out
there.

There's tens of thousands of abandonned shafts nobody is interested in.

Working ones will be obvious, so talk to the owners or to the locals
generally.

There's said to be some bodies buried somewhere ... down some of the
shafts, but I don't know how true that is.

If you get deep enough underground there you should find it quite interesting.

I welcome any good photos of guillielmites (radially striated "nobbies")
etc. that I can use on website if you can get any.

Fossils are RARE there but people/miners will invariably show you ones
which they have found.  I doubt you'll find any opalised fossils yourself
on spoil heaps, but who knows?


Best Regards,




John



~~~~~~~~~

At 12:58 PM 11/01/08 -0000, you wrote:

>Hey Everyone
>Happy New Year!
>Im hoping someone will be able to help me with this. Im wondering if
>it is possible to collect at the lighting Ridge opal fields. Is there
>any way to get permission to look through spoil piles for opalised
>fossils? If so can anyone give me some details on how I would obtain
>permission?
>any info would be helpfull

>Regards Chris

Hey Everyone
Happy New Year!
Im hoping someone will be able to help me with this. Im wondering if
it is possible to collect at the lighting Ridge opal fields. Is there
any way to get permission to look through spoil piles for opalised
fossils? If so can anyone give me some details on how I would obtain
permission?
any info would be helpfull

Regards Chris

Hi Everyone
Thanks for all the info im sure it will make for a good day of
collecting and exploring.
Hope everyone has a great Christmas!
Regards Chris

--- In fossilclubgroup@..., Fossil Club of NSW
<fossilclubnsw@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Chris
>   At present we have not made any plans in the New Year but I
would think sometime in February. As for places to look for fossils
try the headlands around Crookhaven Lighthouse - you might find
brachiopods etc. or Avalon Beach for some plant fossils but be
careful of falling rocks.
>
> Albert
> Merry Christmas
>
> cows_300 <cows_300@...> wrote:
Thanks for the reply Albert
>  I Will send in my forms to become a member at the end of this
week
>  so i can join you on your outings! cant wait!
>  I was hoping to just go for a bit of a drive with my dad and find
a
>  few fossils. Im not looking to go on private land but natural
>  exposures such as headlands or road cuts that are legal to hunt
on.
>  Any info on places like this would help as i want to go this
weekend.
>  Thanks a lot.
>  Also When and where is the next fossil club trip?
>
>  Regards Chris
>
>  --- In fossilclubgroup@..., Fossil Club of NSW
>  <fossilclubnsw@> wrote:
>  >
>  > Hi Chris
>  > The Fossil Club has a field trip just about every month. If you
>  joined the club you will be able to go on these outings. Most of
the
>  sites are on private properties and the club has a very good
rapport
>  with the owners. The club tries to discourage individual
>  (representing the Fossil Club) to go on these sites as in the
past
>  some people caused havoc to the property which did not sit well
with
>  the owner.
>  >
>  > Regards
>  > Albert
>  >
>  > cows_300 <cows_300@> wrote:                               Hey
>  Everyone
>  >
>  >  I was hoping someone would be able to help me to find some
fossil
>  >  sites on the south coast.
>  >  I know of a few but not 100% sure about the reliablility of
the
>  >  sources. Wollongong; plant fossils? where abouts?
>  >  Also does gerringong have fossils, eurydesma?
>  >  Also are their any outcrops in berry?
>  >  Any  info onother sites would be greatly appriciated!
>  >  any sites no further thank 3 hours drive from sydney! Thanks!
>  >
>  >  Regards Chris
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > ---------------------------------
>  > Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7
>  Mail now.
>  >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7
Mail now.
>

Thanks for the reply Albert
I Will send in my forms to become a member at the end of this week
so i can join you on your outings! cant wait!
I was hoping to just go for a bit of a drive with my dad and find a
few fossils. Im not looking to go on private land but natural
exposures such as headlands or road cuts that are legal to hunt on.
Any info on places like this would help as i want to go this weekend.
Thanks a lot.
Also When and where is the next fossil club trip?

Regards Chris

--- In fossilclubgroup@yahoogroups.com.au, Fossil Club of NSW
<fossilclubnsw@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Chris
> The Fossil Club has a field trip just about every month. If you
joined the club you will be able to go on these outings. Most of the
sites are on private properties and the club has a very good rapport
with the owners. The club tries to discourage individual
(representing the Fossil Club) to go on these sites as in the past
some people caused havoc to the property which did not sit well with
the owner.
>
> Regards
> Albert
>
> cows_300 <cows_300@...> wrote: Hey
Everyone
>
> I was hoping someone would be able to help me to find some fossil
> sites on the south coast.
> I know of a few but not 100% sure about the reliablility of the
> sources. Wollongong; plant fossils? where abouts?
> Also does gerringong have fossils, eurydesma?
> Also are their any outcrops in berry?
> Any info onother sites would be greatly appriciated!
> any sites no further thank 3 hours drive from sydney! Thanks!
>
> Regards Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7
Mail now.
>

Hello,

Fossil trees at Box Head were first reported in 2003, with a photo of them
which was taken by Andrew Taylor published by Tasman Walker in that year.
The photo has also been widely used in a creationist leaflet letterboxed in
the Gosford area and elsewhere.

Recently the site was visited by a locally organised excursion .. which had
been a long time coming (getting organised, with NPWS help to open locked
gate etc).  It is found that the vertical objects in sandstone are not
trees but rather some curious vertical pipelike iron oxide concretions.
There are probably very many of them present.  Box Head is a fair hike to
get to (unless one had a motorbike or something, and the track in is
accessible to some vehicles but rough and with a locked gate part way along
it) and it thus seems to have been very rarely visited by geologists.

At the moment I don't know of anything comparable to there vertical
concretions from anywhere else in the world.

Photos and description are under "GOSFORD" at:

http://www.lachlanhunter.deadsetfreestuff.com/JB/geo-sitesG-I.htm

Also there (under GOSFORD) is consideration of a concretions horizon which
occurs high in the Hawkesbury Sandstone.  I suspect that this continues
over to the southern side of Broken Bay and also west as far as Maroota.

These concretions are not very substantial internally and 'outcrop' often
as circles or small partially weathered out "cup marks" on the sandstone
outcrops .. and have been thought to be human (Aboriginal) engravings by
some persons interested in rock art engravings .. So because there are very
many of them, one idea had developed that they may represent stars, and
hence that patterns of them could record Aboriginal cosmology etc.  ... but
no chance of that if they are concretions.

Information on any other known concretion occurrences in Hawkebury
Sandstone, or indeed any quarry sites or fossil sites or interest features
not yet in the ongoing "directory", would be appreciated .. since most
things/sites are presumably not yet in it (yet the number that are is
increasing).

I've also gotten recently a little info about Bowral fossil fish from
someone who works with someone whose brother works or worked at Bowral
brickpit.  The account goes that one person told another, from whom I
learned it, that "some years ago, South Australian Museum staff went for a
dig at the bottom of the quarry. Some hours later they arrived at his
office, breathless, carrying a fish fossil which they declared would be on
display at the Adelaide Museum".  This is said to have happened years ago.
I'm following up to try and confirm this.   From the railway cutting nearby
(approach to Mt Gibraltar tunnel) fish and a fragmentary labryrinthodont
were recovered long ago.  When I worked at the Mining Museum I think they
too had quite bit of material from Bowral but I don't know if that was from
the railway line exposures or from the quarry.  The source is either the
Mittagong Formation or basal Ashfield Shale.

Cheers,



John Byrnes

Thanks for the reply Albert
I Will send in my forms to become a member at the end of this week
so i can join you on your outings! cant wait!
I was hoping to just go for a bit of a drive with my dad and find a
few fossils. Im not looking to go on private land but natural
exposures such as headlands or road cuts that are legal to hunt on.
Any info on places like this would help as i want to go this weekend.
Thanks a lot.
Also When and where is the next fossil club trip?

Regards Chris

--- In fossilclubgroup@..., Fossil Club of NSW
<fossilclubnsw@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Chris
> The Fossil Club has a field trip just about every month. If you
joined the club you will be able to go on these outings. Most of the
sites are on private properties and the club has a very good rapport
with the owners. The club tries to discourage individual
(representing the Fossil Club) to go on these sites as in the past
some people caused havoc to the property which did not sit well with
the owner.
>
> Regards
> Albert
>
> cows_300 <cows_300@...> wrote:                               Hey
Everyone
>
>  I was hoping someone would be able to help me to find some fossil
>  sites on the south coast.
>  I know of a few but not 100% sure about the reliablility of the
>  sources. Wollongong; plant fossils? where abouts?
>  Also does gerringong have fossils, eurydesma?
>  Also are their any outcrops in berry?
>  Any  info onother sites would be greatly appriciated!
>  any sites no further thank 3 hours drive from sydney! Thanks!
>
>  Regards Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7
Mail now.
>

Hey Everyone

I was hoping someone would be able to help me to find some fossil
sites on the south coast.
I know of a few but not 100% sure about the reliablility of the
sources. Wollongong; plant fossils? where abouts?
Also does gerringong have fossils, eurydesma?
Also are their any outcrops in berry?
Any info onother sites would be greatly appriciated!
any sites no further thank 3 hours drive from sydney! Thanks!

Regards Chris

Hey Everyone

I was hoping someone would be able to help me to find some fossil
sites on the south coast.
I know of a few but not 100% sure about the reliablility of the
sources. Wollongong; plant fossils? where abouts?
Also does gerringong have fossils, eurydesma?
Also are their any outcrops in berry?
Any  info onother sites would be greatly appriciated!
any sites no further thank 3 hours drive from sydney! Thanks!


Regards Chris

--- In fossilclubgroup@..., "fossilclubnsw"
<fossilclubnsw@...> wrote:
>
> Hi John
> I have uploaded the file in the file section.
>
> Regards
> Albert
-------------------------------------
Thanks Albert

I'll send that link to several people. 650kb is too big for dialup
inboxes or quickie messages to people at work.  With a URL the people
with a slow connection can put the kettle on while downloading. Others
with broadband at home might prefer to read it there.

John N.

Hi John
I have uploaded the file in the file section.

Regards
Albert

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the fossilclubgroup
group.

   File        : /The Saga of the Stump.pdf
   Uploaded by : fossilclubnsw <fossilclubnsw@...>
   Description :

You can access this file at the URL:
http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/fossilclubgroup/files/The%20Saga%20of%20the%20S\
tump.pdf

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/au/groups/files

Regards,

fossilclubnsw <fossilclubnsw@...>

Greetings

Apparently the lateral roots will be araldited to the Jurassic stump
sometime. Any chance of making the pdf downloadable to non-members of
NSWFC?

Peter Harris and I hope to acquire a 'companion' log for the Museum
from Eocene-Miocene tuffs bordering the upper Derwent river.

On Nov 10 I should be at the Zeehan Gem Show then Phil Sansom and I
will check out a nearby grid ref for Ordovician trilobites given in a
paper by club patron Greg Edgecombe. It appears to involve a 500m
spludge through leech and tiger snake infested swamp.

Regards
John in Tassie