Paleontology Commons^™

Fossil Baramins On Noah's Ark: The "Amphibians", Marcus R. Ross

Marcus R. Ross

Here I provide a compendium of extinct “amphibian” groups, representatives of which may have been carried aboard Noah’s Ark. Following previous work by the Ark Encounter team, I selected the taxonomic rank of family as a first-order proxy for the biblical “kind.” The resulting tabulation places 54 extinct “amphibian” families/kinds on board the Ark. While this number hinges upon taxonomies built upon fossil data (and its inherent shortcomings compared to extant forms), it serves as a reasonable approximation of the number of fossil “amphibians” taken aboard the Ark. When added to previously determined kinds of extant anurans, caudates, and gymnophionans, …

Forum On The Flood/Post-Flood Boudary, Marcus R. Ross

Marcus R. Ross

The location of the Flood/post-Flood boundary is an important issue for Flood geology because it is the starting point for a host of research questions. Many papers have been published on this topic, but its placement is still controversial. Three main views are advocated: a low Flood boundary in the Paleozoic or below, a boundary at or near the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary (now the Cretaceous/Paleogene boundary), and a variable boundary towards the upper Cenozoic but with each geographical area to be evaluated on its merits.

In 2012, Marcus Ross, published a biostratigraphic analysis and argued that a Flood/post-Flood boundary at or …

Letter: A Developing Schism In Flood Geology, Marcus R. Ross

Marcus R. Ross

First paragraph: Froede and Akridge are correct to recognize that creation geology includes two widely divergent groups seeking to reconstruct Earth history within a Biblical framework. Such has been the case throughout the history of creationism, going back to disagreements between Harold Clark and George McCready Price over the reality (or not) of the geologic column. With the increased number of geologically trained young-Earth creationists, discussions over these issues have become more common.

The Flood/Post-Flood Boundary (Comment And Reply), Marcus R. Ross

Marcus R. Ross

First paragraph: Michael Oard’s recent article on the Flood/post-Flood boundary consists of two parts: the first is response to my earlier paper on utilizing mammalian biostratigraphy in evaluating post-Flood boundary locations, which found placement of this boundary at or near the Pliocene/Pleistocene boundary untenable; the second part is a set of disparate observations placed in support of a high post-Flood boundary placed at variable locations in the “Late Cenozoic”. (comment continues; download for full comment and reply by Michael Oard)

Evaluating Potential Post-Flood Boundaries With Biostratigraphy--The Pliocene/Pleistocene Boundary, Marcus R. Ross

Marcus R. Ross

Here I report a biostratigraphic analysis of 303 genera from 28 North American terrestrial mammalian families, in which all families contain members that are either extant or last appear in Pliocene or Pleistocene deposits. The distribution of these taxa within the Cenozoic rock record is used to evaluate proposed demarcations for the Flood/post-Flood boundary. A pronounced biostratigraphic break is expected at the Flood/post-Flood boundary since the final devastation and burial of pre-Flood nephesh creatures should be stratigraphically overlain by the arrival of post-Flood migrants. It is found that when the Flood/post-Flood boundary is placed at or near the Pliocene/Pleistocene boundary, …