Lake Suigetsu: Flocculence Requires a Reevaluation

[Dave Hawkins]

Mike, they are using C14 to date dead pieces of wood which are lying around in what they call "Methusealh Walk." I don't believe they EVER date living trees with C14. I'll call the lab this week and confirm this for you.

[RAFH]

Make sure, davey, you explain you are wondering if they date samples from live trees, not the live tree itself.

I'd think this would be an obvious and needless caution, but when dealing with folks that try to use ¹⁴C dating for samples that are millions of years old, one must be explicit and careful.

ETA: Oh yeah, davey, have you settled on your candidate for scientifically error-free AIG article or worked on your defense of Bergman's work? Or figured out why the curves agree? Or started in on answering this list of questions: http://www.rantsnraves.org/showthread.php?t=4661. Just wondering, wouldn't want you to forget these items.

[Mike PSS]

Mike, they are using C14 to date dead pieces of wood which are lying around in what they call "Methusealh Walk." I don't believe they EVER date living trees with C14. I'll call the lab this week and confirm this for you.

Dave. Why is it that when I make a statement I support this with actual quotes from the published papers, and include the reference.

When you make a statement you make an assertion, not supported by any paper, and with no quoted references.

Quote the paper to support your contention. Your "understanding" is meaningless here.

I'm ONLY discussing the testing of cores from a living tree. I KNOW they tested all the other pieces on the walk, but they ALSO tested the cores from the trees. The seperated some of these cores into decade blocks for testing. What don't you get about this.

Your objections are meaningless and unsupported assertions without merit so far. Get a quote, repeat that quote here, and reference the paper. Only then will I even believe what your trying to say is supported by anything other than your own internal television.

OR... continue to try and rebut my claims with your unsupported and unsubstantiated statements. That way everyone can compare my statements to yours one for one and see who has reasoning and logic on their sides and who doesn't.

[Dave Hawkins]

Mike ... the support for my statement comes from reading all those papers you linked quite thoroughly about 6 months ago when I was debating BWE. This is old news to me. If the radiocarbon lab is open this week, I will call them and ask them if anyone has ever dated a dead portion of a still-living tree. I have always been told that no one does (before you and JonF came along recently) so this will be a great opportunity to find out once and for all.

[Gary Hurd]

Other than some trivial "up-manship" points, why would anyone care?

It does not alter anything at all.

[Virginia-American]

I'm not sure what the problem here is supposed to be (I don't think I'm alone in this!)

1) Core a living tree. Count the rings to date the inner portions. Measure the ¹⁴C as you go inward. It just happens to be just about what one would expect if the amount of ¹⁴C in the atmosphere were constant and it were decaying at the measusred rate, but that's irrelevant here.

2) Now we find a dead tree in the same grove as the one we just meaured. We measure the ¹⁴C in its outer layers and find its the same as the amount of ¹⁴C we found in the measured tree at a date of, say, 1000 years ago. So we take a close look at the rings, and they exactly match the ones in the measured tree if we start at ring 1077, and the match stays exact as far as we can follow it (i.e. until we get to the oldest ring in the measured tree). But we can continue counting the new tree's rings back further, and we can measure the ¹⁴C in them. Rinse. Repeat

What's the matter with this? What hidden assumptions make it invalid?

Why does the percentage of ¹⁴C that we calculate for the ancient atmosphere at various dates using these measurements agree with the amount we calculate doing a similar analysis on, oh say, lake varves or ice cores?

[RAFH]

Mike ... the support for my statement comes from reading all those papers you linked quite thoroughly about 6 months ago when I was debating BWE. This is old news to me. If the radiocarbon lab is open this week, I will call them and ask them if anyone has ever dated a dead portion of a still-living tree. I have always been told that no one does (before you and JonF came along recently) so this will be a great opportunity to find out once and for all.

How do you suppose they get the calibration curves for ¹⁴C, davey, unless the do a dating of the cores they take. If they did not, you wouldn't have your nemesis, the curves you can't explain why they are all the same. There would be no calibration curves.

And sampling a core from a living or dead tree is not a problem, davey, as soon as they take the core, even the part that was living at the time the core was taken, the cambrium, will die pretty quickly, a day or so. But nobody really has much interest in the most recent parts of the cores davey, because we know when they stopped interacting with the atmosphere, uh, like when the core was taken, in other words, currently.

What they are interested in are the oldest parts of the core, of parts of the core that correlate with known geological, climactic or historic events. That's why they take the cores davey. To calibrate the ¹⁴C curves.

What a buffoon.

[VoxRat]

I'm not sure what the problem here is supposed to be (I don't think I'm alone in this!)

1) Core a living tree. Count the rings to date the inner portions. Measure the ¹⁴C as you go inward. It just happens to be just about what one would expect if the amount of ¹⁴C in the atmosphere were constant and it were decaying at the measusred rate, but that's irrelevant here.

2) Now we find a dead tree in the same grove as the one we just meaured. We measure the ¹⁴C in its outer layers and find its the same as the amount of ¹⁴C we found in the measured tree at a date of, say, 1000 years ago. So we take a close look at the rings, and they exactly match the ones in the measured tree if we start at ring 1077, and the match stays exact as far as we can follow it (i.e. until we get to the oldest ring in the measured tree). But we can continue counting the new tree's rings back further, and we can measure the ¹⁴C in them. Rinse. Repeat

What's the matter with this? What hidden assumptions make it invalid?

Once again, I predict you won't get a straight answer to your question from our creationist friend.

So I'm going to attempt to represent the case he's tried to make in the past.
(Mind you: I'm just the messenger here.)

Dave says the whole radiocarbon - dendrochronology thing is circular. The researchers use radiocarbon dating to get a ballpark estimate on a given sample, then armed with that estimate, they match the "wiggle" pattern to the ever-growing consensus. Dave asserted that, once he had the data, he would be able to show us that a sample matched to the 5000 year old consensus could be at least as convincingly matched to, say, the 1000 year old consensus. It was just going to take him a couple of weeks to do it. That was a few months ago. I don't believe we've heard any progress reports on that project.

How's that coming, Dave?

Why does the percentage of ¹⁴C that we calculate for the ancient atmosphere at various dates using these measurements agree with the amount we calculate doing a similar analysis on, oh say, lake varves or ice cores?

I think what V-A is asking, Dave, in so many words, is


Why do the curves agree?

[Virginia-American]

... I predict you won't get a straight answer to your question from our creationist friend.

No shit.

So I'm going to attempt to represent the case he's tried to make in the past.
(Mind you: I'm just the messenger here.)

Dave says the whole radiocarbon - dendrochronology thing is circular. The researchers use radiocarbon dating to get a ballpark estimate on a given sample, then armed with that estimate, they match the "wiggle" pattern to the ever-growing consensus. Dave asserted that, once he had the data, he would be able to show us that a sample matched to the 5000 year old consensus could be at least as convincingly matched to, say, the 1000 year old consensus. It was just going to take him a couple of weeks to do it. That was a few months ago. I don't believe we've heard any progress reports on that project.

How's that coming, Dave?

Circular?! Surely he would agree that two pieces of wood that grew at the same time in the same place would have the same percentage of radiocarbon? Is he actually proposing "matching" just on the basis of the wiggle analysis while ignoring the amount of ¹⁴C?

Why does the percentage of ¹⁴C that we calculate for the ancient atmosphere at various dates using these measurements agree with the amount we calculate doing a similar analysis on, oh say, lake varves or ice cores?

I think what V-A is asking, Dave, in so many words, is


Why do the curves agree?

Yup, I just thought it would be good to summarize what the curves are referring to.

Sometimes I think it's sad, especially when I think of the sunday school students he's hurting, sometimes I think it's surreal, sometines I think it's psychotic [delusional] or psychopathic [lacking a conscience] or neurological [amnesia]. Making sense of creationism is confusing. But there are a few unifying principals, like

Chechez l'argent.

A confidence artist named Ham
Came up with a wonderful scam
At twenty a head
He made plenty of bread
And managed to stay out of slam.

[Lucretius II]

Chechez l'argent.

A confidence artist named Ham
Came up with a wonderful scam
At twenty a head
He made plenty of bread
And managed to stay out of slam.

This scans better if the last line is

And managed to stay out of the slam.

Who said I coulnd't make a decent contribution to a scientific thread ?

Also if dendrochronologists visit a funfair is that then the definition of a Tree Ring Circus?

[Dave Hawkins]

Other than some trivial "up-manship" points, why would anyone care?

It does not alter anything at all.

There's a very good reason for caring. Creationist writer Paul Giem of GRISDA has proposed using Carbon 14 dating on the inner portion of one of these living 4700 year old trees to test the "Rapidly Increasing post-Flood C14" hypothesis. If it's been done, I'd sure like to know about it.

[Dave Hawkins]

I'm not sure what the problem here is supposed to be (I don't think I'm alone in this!)

1) Core a living tree. Count the rings to date the inner portions. Measure the ¹⁴C as you go inward. It just happens to be just about what one would expect if the amount of ¹⁴C in the atmosphere were constant and it were decaying at the measusred rate, but that's irrelevant here.

2) Now we find a dead tree in the same grove as the one we just meaured. We measure the ¹⁴C in its outer layers and find its the same as the amount of ¹⁴C we found in the measured tree at a date of, say, 1000 years ago. So we take a close look at the rings, and they exactly match the ones in the measured tree if we start at ring 1077, and the match stays exact as far as we can follow it (i.e. until we get to the oldest ring in the measured tree). But we can continue counting the new tree's rings back further, and we can measure the ¹⁴C in them. Rinse. Repeat

What's the matter with this? What hidden assumptions make it invalid?

Why does the percentage of ¹⁴C that we calculate for the ancient atmosphere at various dates using these measurements agree with the amount we calculate doing a similar analysis on, oh say, lake varves or ice cores?

Here's what creationist Paul Giem wants to do ...

1) Take a core from a 4700 year old tree - already done.
2) Count the rings and assume ~1 ring per year (maybe 2 in some years) --already done.
3) Date the inner portion (which grew first ~4700 years ago) with Carbon 14 - not done yet AFAIK.

We already know it's Real Age = 4700 years. We knew that from counting the rings, right? Are you with me?

Now let's say that the pMC value for the inner core material comes back at 0.5 pMC. What is that in years? About 37,000. Mike PSS can verify my math here.

Do you see the problem? We know this core material is really only 4700 years old, but our "Carbon 14 Clock" is telling us it's 37,000 years old. Hmmm ...

So this type of test result would be a major problem for the conventional radiocarbon community.

I say "Bring on the test!"

[JOZeldenrust]

Here's what creationist Paul Giem wants to do ...

1) Take a core from a 4700 year old tree - already done.
2) Count the rings and assume ~1 ring per year (maybe 2 in some years) --already done.
3) Date the inner portion (which grew first ~4700 years ago) with Carbon 14 - not done yet AFAIK.

We already know it's Real Age = 4700 years. We knew that from counting the rings, right? Are you with me?

Now let's say that the pMC value for the inner core material comes back at 0.5 pMC. What is that in years? About 37,000. Mike PSS can verify my math here.

Do you see the problem? We know this core material is really only 4700 years old, but our "Carbon 14 Clock" is telling us it's 37,000 years old. Hmmm ...

So this type of test result would be a major problem for the conventional radiocarbon community.

I say "Bring on the test!"

Oh, I'd like to see too, and I'm guessing the test has allready been done. We'll just have to wait till somebody finds the result. I could go looking for it, but others here are much more familiar with the field of dendrochronology, so I guess they'll be able to find a more accurate and reliable source in less time then me.

But Dave, if it turns out that the inner portion of a 4700 year old tree indeed has a ¹⁴C age of approximately 4700 years (it might appear to be a bit younger, as we'd be measuring the time elapsed since carbon exchange with the atmosphere ceased), will you then accept that ¹⁴C dating is a valid dating technique, and that the world is significantly older then 6000 years?

I'm not going to ask you to become an atheist just because of this, as the age of the earth has very little to do with the existence of a supernatural supreme being, just that you change your rediculous YEC beliefs to slightly less rediculous OEC beliefs. It would be the intellectually honest thing to do, Dave.

In return, I can say that if the inner portion of a 4700 year old tree turns out to have a carbon age of more then 5000 years, I will admit that the assumption made in ¹⁴C dating of relatively constant ¹⁴C levels in the last 60.000 years is shaky, and unless a source of ancient carbon is found that would explain the apparent carbon age (such as the tree standing on a tar pit or something), I would consider ¹⁴C dating unreliable.

Do we have a deal here?

[Febble]

I'm not sure what the problem here is supposed to be (I don't think I'm alone in this!)

1) Core a living tree. Count the rings to date the inner portions. Measure the ¹⁴C as you go inward. It just happens to be just about what one would expect if the amount of ¹⁴C in the atmosphere were constant and it were decaying at the measusred rate, but that's irrelevant here.

2) Now we find a dead tree in the same grove as the one we just meaured. We measure the ¹⁴C in its outer layers and find its the same as the amount of ¹⁴C we found in the measured tree at a date of, say, 1000 years ago. So we take a close look at the rings, and they exactly match the ones in the measured tree if we start at ring 1077, and the match stays exact as far as we can follow it (i.e. until we get to the oldest ring in the measured tree). But we can continue counting the new tree's rings back further, and we can measure the ¹⁴C in them. Rinse. Repeat

What's the matter with this? What hidden assumptions make it invalid?

Why does the percentage of ¹⁴C that we calculate for the ancient atmosphere at various dates using these measurements agree with the amount we calculate doing a similar analysis on, oh say, lake varves or ice cores?

Here's what creationist Paul Giem wants to do ...

1) Take a core from a 4700 year old tree - already done.
2) Count the rings and assume ~1 ring per year (maybe 2 in some years) --already done.
3) Date the inner portion (which grew first ~4700 years ago) with Carbon 14 - not done yet AFAIK.

We already know it's Real Age = 4700 years. We knew that from counting the rings, right? Are you with me?

Now let's say that the pMC value for the inner core material comes back at 0.5 pMC. What is that in years? About 37,000. Mike PSS can verify my math here.

Do you see the problem? We know this core material is really only 4700 years old, but our "Carbon 14 Clock" is telling us it's 37,000 years old. Hmmm ...

So this type of test result would be a major problem for the conventional radiocarbon community.

I say "Bring on the test!"

Right. So your objection isn't with using living versus dead wood, but to the principle of cross matching samples from different trees. You seem to want a sample from a single tree, rather than from a cross matched series. Right?

So what is your problem with cross-matching, exactly? There is a good page about it here:

http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/lorim/basic.html

The thing is, Dave, I smell a rat. Cross matching allows the series to be extended into the past beyond the life of a single living tree. So by insisting on using a single sample from a single living tree you have a neat way of evading the evidence that the series goes on well beyond 6,000 years. Sure, it would be good to get a single sample from (the dead wood of) a single living tree. But actually, not as reliable as lots of samples from lots of bits of
trees, because a single tree could be anomalous. The more samples you have, the more confidence you can have in the values that are common across the series.

It's the old consilience thing again.

[Gary Hurd]

Other than some trivial "up-manship" points, why would anyone care?

It does not alter anything at all.

There's a very good reason for caring. Creationist writer Paul Giem of GRISDA has proposed using Carbon 14 dating on the inner portion of one of these living 4700 year old trees to test the "Rapidly Increasing post-Flood C14" hypothesis. If it's been done, I'd sure like to know about it.

Your "good reason" is bull shit based on a total misunderstanding of dendrochronology. If the "rapidly increasing c14" was not total crap in the first place, dead stand wood would be superior sampling material anyway. And, how did all that wood manage to survive a flood that tore apart all the mountains, carved the Grand Canyon, and deposited 70,000 feet of sediment? Of course for there to be a rational "Rapidly Increasing post-Flood C14 hypothesis" there would have to have been a flood. Since there is no evidence to support the Noah's Flood as an actual global event, there is no rational basis for the "hypothesis." This "hypotheis" is better called a "wild-eyed desperate attempt to salvage our superstition."

The most commonly encountered error in C14 sampling is a sample that is still exchanging C14 with the environment. So, I would hesitate using any wood from a living tree. True, there is not any active building of new tissue, but there is still water moving about inside. I would much prefer dead dry wood, or totally dead and saturated "swamp" wood. The later can be strongly cleaned chemically removing contaminants. (This could be done with the interior of live tree cores, but there is another reason not to use rare core material from the living tree- C14 samples are destroyed by the analysis and you can't go back and core and core and core. Much larger samples can be collected from dead wood without endangering the living tree, or destroying the very best "baseline" sample for dendro studies).

[ericmurphy]

Other than some trivial "up-manship" points, why would anyone care?

It does not alter anything at all.

There's a very good reason for caring. Creationist writer Paul Giem of GRISDA has proposed using Carbon 14 dating on the inner portion of one of these living 4700 year old trees to test the "Rapidly Increasing post-Flood C14" hypothesis. If it's been done, I'd sure like to know about it.

Dave, we don't need to date Methuselah to know that hypothesis is wrong. We have high-resolution calibration curves available that track atmospheric concentrations of ¹⁴C going back nearly 60,000 years, and we already know this concentrations are slightly lower now than they were then, meaning raw radiocarbon dates underestimate the age of objects more than 15,000 years old.

We already know this, Dave, and you know why we know it. We've been telling you for months.

We know it because the curves agree.

[Mike PSS]

Other than some trivial "up-manship" points, why would anyone care?

It does not alter anything at all.

There's a very good reason for caring. Creationist writer Paul Giem of GRISDA has proposed using Carbon 14 dating on the inner portion of one of these living 4700 year old trees to test the "Rapidly Increasing post-Flood C14" hypothesis. If it's been done, I'd sure like to know about it.

Here you go Dave.
A "display" of a paper showing 14C measurements of some live samples.
http://woods.geography.unr.edu/Poste...2006poster.pdf

So, are you STILL contending that the 40,000 layers of Lake Suigetsu, with 14C tested macrofossils that show a linear relationship with the counted varves, were laid in a matter of a single flood year?

Get your head out of the gutter Dave and pony up some data that either supports your position or at least goes against what I've been posting. Your personal increduality has no stake in this discussion.

[Lasting Damage]

Other than some trivial "up-manship" points, why would anyone care?

It does not alter anything at all.

There's a very good reason for caring. Creationist writer Paul Giem of GRISDA has proposed using Carbon 14 dating on the inner portion of one of these living 4700 year old trees to test the "Rapidly Increasing post-Flood C14" hypothesis. If it's been done, I'd sure like to know about it.

Dave, we don't need to date Methuselah to know that hypothesis is wrong. We have high-resolution calibration curves available that track atmospheric concentrations of ¹⁴C going back nearly 60,000 years, and we already know this concentrations are slightly lower now than they were then, meaning raw radiocarbon dates underestimate the age of objects more than 15,000 years old.

We already know this, Dave, and you know why we know it. We've been telling you for months.

We know it because the curves agree.

not again, please. not again.

[Virginia-American]

... Here's what creationist Paul Giem wants to do ...

1) Take a core from a 4700 year old tree - already done.
2) Count the rings and assume ~1 ring per year (maybe 2 in some years) --already done.
3) Date the inner portion (which grew first ~4700 years ago) with Carbon 14 - not done yet AFAIK.

Are you sure about that? I was under the impression that's how one of those consilient curves was produced.

We already know it's Real Age = 4700 years. We knew that from counting the rings, right? Are you with me?

Now let's say that the pMC value for the inner core material comes back at 0.5 pMC. What is that in years? About 37,000. Mike PSS can verify my math here.

Huh? Isn't 0.5pMC the same thing as "half what modern wood has" i.e. one half life of ¹⁴C i.e. about 5730 years?!

Where does that 37,000 come from?

Mike PSS, what's AFD talking about? Is the 37K some well-known example?

Do you see the problem? We know this core material is really only 4700 years old, but our "Carbon 14 Clock" is telling us it's 37,000 years old. Hmmm ...

So this type of test result would be a major problem for the conventional radiocarbon community.

I say "Bring on the test!"

No, I don't see the problem. It sounds entirely hypothetical.

[RAFH]

... Here's what creationist Paul Giem wants to do ...

1) Take a core from a 4700 year old tree - already done.
2) Count the rings and assume ~1 ring per year (maybe 2 in some years) --already done.
3) Date the inner portion (which grew first ~4700 years ago) with Carbon 14 - not done yet AFAIK.

Are you sure about that? I was under the impression that's how one of those consilient curves was produced.

We already know it's Real Age = 4700 years. We knew that from counting the rings, right? Are you with me?

Now let's say that the pMC value for the inner core material comes back at 0.5 pMC. What is that in years? About 37,000. Mike PSS can verify my math here.

Huh? Isn't 0.5pMC the same thing as "half what modern wood has" i.e. one half life of ¹⁴C i.e. about 5730 years?!

Actually, Virginia, 'half' would be 50% Modern Carbon, which would translate to 5568 years, 0.5p is .005 and it's the natural log of that times 8033 years that gives you the number. Or you can use 5568 times log base 2 of 0.005. Those give me about 42,560 as a raw figure. At least that's my understanding.

Where does that 37,000 come from?

davey's ass. Or some other dark recess. Who knows?

Mike PSS, what's AFD talking about? Is the 37K some well-known example?

Not that I am aware of.

Do you see the problem? We know this core material is really only 4700 years old, but our "Carbon 14 Clock" is telling us it's 37,000 years old. Hmmm ...

So this type of test result would be a major problem for the conventional radiocarbon community.

I say "Bring on the test!"

No, I don't see the problem. It sounds entirely hypothetical.

Yes, Virginia, you have hit the nail on the head. This isn't an argument, it's just one of davey's favorite ideas, he seems to think hypothetical is real, just like he thinks few means many or most, some means all or most or many, or 2 equals 14. As you suggest, what would davey do if the results came back with 5pMC. which would give 5568 bp.

davey has funny ideas. But then you already suspected that.

[Elká]

Here's what creationist Paul Giem wants to do ...

>snip pointless rant<

I say "Bring on the test!"

Then go ahead and bankroll it already or stop whining!

But davey, don't think for a minute anyone will believe your results unless you have qualified experienced professionals riding herd on the test or it'll have all the validity of your "take 2 parts sand and 1 part water in a glass and shake vigorously silliness."

You know, like the RATE boys, Manny, Moe and Hackjob.

Elká

[Rhaedas]

I'm not sure what the problem here is supposed to be (I don't think I'm alone in this!)

1) Core a living tree. Count the rings to date the inner portions. Measure the ¹⁴C as you go inward. It just happens to be just about what one would expect if the amount of ¹⁴C in the atmosphere were constant and it were decaying at the measusred rate, but that's irrelevant here.

2) Now we find a dead tree in the same grove as the one we just meaured. We measure the ¹⁴C in its outer layers and find its the same as the amount of ¹⁴C we found in the measured tree at a date of, say, 1000 years ago. So we take a close look at the rings, and they exactly match the ones in the measured tree if we start at ring 1077, and the match stays exact as far as we can follow it (i.e. until we get to the oldest ring in the measured tree). But we can continue counting the new tree's rings back further, and we can measure the ¹⁴C in them. Rinse. Repeat

What's the matter with this? What hidden assumptions make it invalid?

Dave's not so hidden assumption that makes it invalid to him is that the bible has to be correct, and the real world facts need to bend around this.

So it doesn't matter to him how much independent validation there is. The bible is his center, regardless of how it conflicts with anything else.

In a court case where there is physical evidence, video tape, hundreds of witnesses, and a confession, Dave is bound and determined to believe the little kid who says he doesn't think the guy did it, and the kid admits he wasn't even there to see anything.

[Mike PSS]

Hey Dave, or any other creationist.

This thread is about evidence and the interpretation thereof. I've posted numerous cites and studies showing 14C measures of macrofossils and counting of Lake Varves. Plus some side trips into dendrochronology.

Do you have anything to reply or are we settled now that the Lake Varves correctly predict the 14C measurements for the past 40,000 years.

[Dave Hawkins]

Mike-- I am becoming more convinced than ever that the Suigetsu varves are not indicative of annual deposition. The explanations for the "flocculent" layer in this thread are very unconvincing. No one seems to agree. Some think that it was laid during the earthquake. Some realize that that is not what the Suigetsu papers said. They said that the turbidite layer under the flocculence was laid by the earthquake. Some think the flocculence represents normal deposition and if we come back in 150 years we'll see 150 more nice neat layers. So no, I'm not even close to believing Suigetsu proves an old earth. Moving the other direction actually.

[mosesnoses]

So the ultimate point that creationists are trying to make in regard to this new research is that the sedimentary rock record was deposited by "Noah's Flood". We can dance around the varve question endlessly with these guys and it won't go anywhere.

There is evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the sedimentary record was deposited in fits and starts separated by loooong periods of no deposition. That evidence is HARDGROUNDS!!! Dave won't address this problem because he cannot. Creationists can't explain how corroded, encrusted horizons can occur scattered pretty much throughout the marine sedimentary record. Encrusting organisms take time to grow in situ. They couldn't have grown time and time again in a flood depositional event, period!