16 The Journal of Adventist Education • December 2011/January 2012 http:// jae.adventist.org

B Y R O B E R T O E . B I A G G I

data, great care should be taken inmaking interpretations and construct-ing arguments to support our views. Inthe next section, we will discuss somewidely held views that are not sup-ported by the data.

Dispelling Erroneous ConceptionsAs Christian scientists, students, and

teachers, we need to be on the lookoutfor “bad science”—claims that are un-supported by either data or the Scrip-tures. Examples of erroneous ideas thathave been promoted by some creation-ists are listed on the next page.

What Does the Fossil record

Tell us?

The fossil record is an archiveshowing the history of lifeon Earth. It includes relateddata—for example, the na-ture of the rock layers in

which it is found. Researchers have de-veloped an impressively large database1

containing not only raw data, but alsointerpretations about the remains,rocks, processes, time involved, and thesupposed ecology of those organisms.It is important to keep in mind that thedatabase contains both objective dataand interpretations of it. How well known is the fossil record?

A recent study2 has shown that when thefossil collector’s curves3 are analyzed, thenumber of fossil vertebrate and inverte-brate families described during the past200 years have shown a continuous in-crease to more than 3.000 families atpresent. On the other hand, the numberof families with both fossil and livingrepresentatives has leveled off at about1,600 families. This suggests that theglobal Phanerozoic (that is, current geo-logic era) record of fossil metazoans(multicellular organisms) is still fairlyincomplete; however, it is believed thatthe known record is quite representative. When considering the available

17http:// jae.adventist.org The Journal of Adventist Education • December 2011/January 2012

remains so) based on claims of such adiscovery in the bedrock at PaluxyRiver, Texas. What is not well-known isthat Seventh-day Adventist creationscientists were the ones who put the ev-idence to the test and discovered thefraudulent nature of the human trackclaims. As Christians, we must be waryof claims publicized as “proofs” that arenecessary to sustain our beliefs.

Misconception 5: The entire fossil record or geologic

column was laid down during the oneyear of the biblical flood. Some may haveenvisioned the formation of the geologiccolumn as the result of a single cata-strophic event, but we now know thatthe record is more complex than a singleevent could produce. Based on the data,a reasonable scenario suggests that partof the lower portion of the record con-sists of pre-Flood rocks that were notcompletely altered or eroded away by thecatastrophe. In the same way, an upperpart of the section most likely representsthe strata and processes that occurredafter the Flood. In this way, a significantamount of geological activity would berepresented in the “pre-Flood” and the“post-Flood” rocks.

Misconception 6:Marine fossils high in the mountains

are proof that the floodwaters coveredthe highest peaks and therefore the wholeearth. Those fossils were not strewnaround the mountain peaks as the watercovered them, but were produced whenorganisms died in a body of water (orwere washed in) and were then coveredwith layers of sediment. Later, those lay-ers were uplifted during mountain-forming processes. The fossils or thesediments that buried them could havebeen a direct result of the Flood or aconsequence of Flood-related events.

Misconception 7:The fossil record proves evolution (or

proves the biblical flood).We like cer-tainty—the knowledge that we have theright answers or beliefs. Unfortunately,science, because of its methods andlimitations, does not provide ultimatetruth, especially regarding theoriessuch as evolution or Creation, whichhave a metaphysical component. Whatit can do is provide evidence for aspectsof evolutionary theory, such as theways in which similar organisms areadapted for different environments, orfor catastrophic processes that led tothe extinction of some life forms.

Evidence Consistent With aShort-Age Geological Model ThatConsiders Data From the BiblicalRecord5

We will now consider some of the ar-guments that earth scientists have pro-posed in attempting to develop a degreeof harmony between the biblical recordand the scientific evidence.6 At present,we still experience serious problemswith some unresolved questions. First, we don’t yet have a satisfactory

overarching detailed model for the de-velopment of the geologic column andits fossil record. Hypotheses have beenproposed (for example, trying to fit allthe geologic column in the year of theFlood, or in an extended Flood model),but each one has numerous problemsand raises more questions than it an-swers. Nevertheless, some attemptshave been made,7 and this remains anarea of active research. Second, some major features of the

fossil record are difficult to interpretwithin a short time frame.8 These in-clude (1) the existence of fossils withcharacteristics that appear to be inter-mediate between recognized groups ofspecies (however, some of these“forms” may have been part of theoriginal creation); (2) the existence ofan overall fossil sequence, and evensome sequences within certain groupsof fossil organisms; (3) the number of

Misconception 1:Because the geologic or stratigraphic

(rock layer) column is a construct/theorybased on an evolutionary paradigm, it isfalse and likely to mislead us. We notedearlier that the record is real, the data arereal, and in spite of problems with someinterpretations, the overall stratigraphicsequence is real. Problems arise fromdifferences in interpretation regardingthe origin of the observed sequence orthe nature of the processes that pro-duced the sequence. How could there beorder, some ask, if everything resultedfrom a major catastrophe such as aglobal flood? However, experience in thefield consistently shows that order ispresent in the fossil record. This veryconsistency in the ordered sequence isthe reason for the success of various ge-ological exploration technologies thatare used in the exploitation of mineraland fossil resources.

Misconception 2: Fossil reconstructions are full of

errors. In the first years of paleontol -ogy as a science, many errors werecom mitted as organisms were recon-structed based on very few fossil bones,or when parts that had been discoveredwere assigned to a particular organism.However, today’s reconstructions havebecome quite accurate due to the de-velopment of various subspecialtiesand the discovery of vast numbers ofremains on all continents.

Misconception 3:Dinosaurs are not real. Today, nearly

everyone recognizes that dinosaurs re-ally existed.4 Paleontologists as well asdinosaur enthusiasts have found thou-sands of dinosaur fossils, including eggsand embryos, and recently, organic mol-ecules, such as the protein collagen, andwhat appear to be well-preserved bloodand bone cells and blood vessels.

Misconception 4:There are human footprints along-

side those of dinosaurs. This notion be-came very popular (and in some places

recognition of turbidites (rock units re-sulting from high-speed subaqueousflows)12; rapid accumulation of rhyth-mites13—layers of sedimentary rock laiddown with an obvious periodicity—which were previously interpreted as aresult of slow multiyear deposition orattributed to yearly seasonal deposition,such as varves (layers of sediment de-posited in a body of still water in a singleyear); the influence of large-scale vol-canism in rapid burial events (for exam-ple, sedimentary accumulation of vol-canic ash)14; the large-scale effects ofbolide impacts15—from meteors that hitthe Earth (an amazing number of aster-oids have hit the Earth and exploded,causing environmental disruption anddestruction of life). One must keep inmind that the fossil record is embeddedin rock units possessing these features,showing that the fossils accumulated incatastrophic conditions. Associated with this evidence of

rapid geological activity are many non-uniformitarian features,16 such as large-scale sedimentary processes (for exam-ple, Jurassic Morrison Formation andassociated rock units); global distribu-

tion of marine rocks (with extensivestrata bearing fossils such as trilobitesand ammonites); continent-scale pat-terns of paleocurrents (for example,Chinle Formation)17; discontinuities inthe stratigraphic record, such as para-conformities—gaps in the record withno apparent evidence for the amount oftime supposedly represented; large-scalevolcanism (for example, Deccan basalts,India; Columbia River basalts, north-western U.S.)18; global/regional tectonicevents (for example, mountain uplifting,plate movements, basin subsidence,massive sediment supply for basinal in-filling);19 and bolide impacts20—morethan 150 structures of possible extrater-restrial impact origin since the Precam-brian, some of which measure up to250-300 kilometers in diameter (for ex-ample, Vredefort in South Africa; Chicx-ulub in Yucatan, Mexico).

Evidence 2: Fossil preservation and occurrence.

The preservation of abundant organ-isms, their remains, or evidence of theiractivities (such as tracks and burrows)is very difficult to explain using pres-ent-day processes (that is, in actualisticterms), particularly when we considerthe nature of the fossiliferous deposits.Many features of the fossils themselvessupport catastrophic events or rapidburial processes. A description of thesefeatures follows.

• Abundance of mass mortality eventsthroughout the record.21 Currently, pale-ontologists recognize that the majorityof these deposits formed catastrophi-cally. An example of this is the massiveburial of dinosaur remains. Thousandsof bones and complete skeletons havebeen discovered. In many cases, sedi-ments in which these remains arefound contain a significant amount ofvolcanic material.

• Worldwide extinction events.22

Throughout the fossil record, there aremany (not only the popular “big five”)strata that record the sudden disap-pearance of numerous taxa. For exam-ple, when discussing extinctions, weusually refer to popular species like di-

fossil families with living representa-tives, which increases as one moves up-ward through the geologic column; and(4) some biogeographic distributionpatterns that prove difficult to explain. In spite of these problems, there is

abundant evidence suggesting an alter-native view to that of conventional ge-ology and paleontology, as describedbelow.

Evidence 1:Geological and paleontological data

demonstrate sediment and fossil accu-mulation through catastrophic processes.There is increased recognition amongmainstream earth scientists that manyrock strata have formed catastrophically.Until only a few decades ago, the domi-nant principle for geological interpreta-tion was that of uniformitarianism—theidea that processes in the past occurredat the same rates as they do in the pres-ent. However, many scientists have rec-ognized the problems of this influentialparadigm and have come to accept theoccurrence of many catastrophic eventsin the geologic past. Examples of cata-strophic features include recognition ofwell-documented megaflood events(Lake Missoula,9 Mediterranean Sea,10

and British Channel,11 among others);

18 The Journal of Adventist Education • December 2011/January 2012 http:// jae.adventist.org

omplete articulated skeletons

have been found as well as preserved

soft body parts (for example, whale baleen;

internal organs such as those in the Santana

Formation fossilized fish; articulated shells in

both clams and ostracodes [tiny shrimplike

crustaceans]).

19http:// jae.adventist.org The Journal of Adventist Education • December 2011/January 2012

for long on the surface (on land orunder water). All point to rapid burialand/or rapid mineralization.

• Opisthotonic posture of many well-preserved articulated vertebrate skele-tons. An extreme, dorsally hyperex-tended posture of the spine,25 where theskull and neck are curved over theback, and strong extension of the tail, isattributed not to postmortem processesbut rather “death throes”; in turn, theconsequence of unusual chemicalchanges in the environment (for exam-ple, hypoxia, asphyxiation, environ-mental toxins) that could be reasonablyexpected in a catastrophic scenario.

Evidence 3:Appearance and distribution of fossil

remains. Many types of data relating to

the first occurrence of a fossil organismor group of organisms, and the subse-quent distribution of those species inthe record, support the biblical modelwell, and in turn present problems foran evolutionary interpretation.

• The Cambrian explosion.26 The sud-den appearance of more than 20 phylaor different types of organisms poses amajor problem for evolutionary theory,which proposes that all forms of lifecame from a single common ancestor.With no real ancestors farther down inthe geologic record, the evidence sup-ports a polyphyletic origin of life,27

something one would expect in a modelof creation including different “kinds.” In fact, while evolutionary theory has

proposed the development of life formsfrom a “universal common ancestor,” thefossil biodiversity trend data in the fossilrecord depicts precisely the opposite—an “inverted tree of life.” Several othersudden “explosions” present in the fossilrecord28 suggest the existence of differ-ent lineages with separate origins. Thediversity we see today may have comefrom diversification of the originallycreated kinds through a process of “de-scent with modification,” to use darwin-istic terminology. (In fact, the biblicalrecord is not incompatible with eventualevolutionary change such as microevo-lution and speciation.29)

• The sudden appearance of complexbody plans and structures. An exampleof this is the classic complex optical na-ture of the trilobite compound eye,with no “simpler” eye structures foundin the underlying strata.

• The lack of intermediate forms be-tween major phyla groups. Claimed “evo-lutionary links” turn out not to be sucheven for the paleontologists studyingthese fossils. In the past few years, sev-eral purported “evolutionary links” havebeen shown not to be such (for example,Archaeopteryx and the origin of birds).30

The presence of these morphologicalgaps among higher taxonomic categoriesactually serves to document the lack ofevolutionary continuity.

nosaurs, trilobites,23 and ammonites,but in reality, there are hundreds ofgenera and many more species that notonly have become extinct, but moresignificantly have been preserved,something that is extremely uncom-mon in present-day conditions.

• Exquisite preservation of organ -isms.24 Complete articulated skeletonshave been found as well as preservedsoft body parts (for example, whalebaleen; internal organs such as those inthe Santana Formation fossilized fish;articulated shells in both clams andostracodes [tiny shrimplike crus-taceans]). These parts would have de-cayed rapidly had they been exposed

20 The Journal of Adventist Education • December 2011/January 2012 http:// jae.adventist.org

of a diversity of complex life forms andthe lack of morphological continuityaffirm the biblical account of creationof many different kinds of organisms.Although there are still many ques-tions, when the different types of data(that is, from geology and paleontologyamong others) are considered, there issignificant evidence to support an in-terpretation of earth history that isconsistent with the biblical record. �

This article is slightly adapted from a chapterin the book Understanding Creation: Answers toQuestions on Faith and Science (Pacific Press,2011), and is printed with permission.

Roberto E. Biaggicompleted a scienceteaching degree inArgentina, dualM.S. degrees—inbiology (at WallaWalla University inCollege Place, Wash -

ington) and in geology (at La SierraUniversity in Riverside, California). Heholds a Ph.D. with emphasis in paleon-tology from Loma Linda University inLoma Linda, California. He has taughtnatural sciences in Chile, Mexico, andArgentina. His various research projects

have led to earth-science publicationsand presentations at many scientificmeetings. Dr. Biaggi currently teachesnatural sciences and philosophy of sci-ence and religion at River Plate Advent-ist University, in Libertador San Martin,Entre Rios, Argentina, where he also di-rects the South American Branch of theGeoscience Research Institute and con-tributes to the Institute’s publication,Ciencia de los Orígenes.

NOTES AND REFERENCES1. See M. J. Benton, The Fossil Record 2 (Lon-

don: Chapman and Hall, 1993); and the onlinedatabase at http://www.fossilrecord.net/fossilrecord/index.html. Also see M. J. Benton, “Diver-sification and Extinction in the History of Life,”Science 268 (1995):52-58.

2. A. Kalmar and D. J. Currie, “The Com-pleteness of the Continental Fossil Record and ItsImpact on Patterns of Diversification,” Paleobiol-ogy 36:1 (2010):51-60.

3. A “collector’s curve” is a graph of the rate ofdiscovery of new fossil types as more fossil speci-mens are collected. The line continues to rise aslong as new types are discovered and then levelsoff when essentially all types have been found.

4. See Raúl Esperante’s Chapter 14 on di-nosaurs in L. James Gibson and Humberto M. Rasi,eds., Understanding Creation (Nampa, Idaho: Pa-cific Press Publ. Assn., 2011) and his article in Min-istry (December 2009) titled “What Does the BibleSay About Dinosaurs?” available at http://www.ministrymagazine.org /archive / 2009/ december/ what-does-the-bible-say-about-dinosaurs.

5. For example, see Leonard Brand withDavid Jarnes, Beginnings: Are Science and Scrip-

• The occurrence of a number of suc-cessive strata containing allochthonousfossil remains (that is, remains that didnot live there but were transported intoplace) deposited catastrophically. The fa-mous Yellowstone “petrified forests”31

are an example—trees that first ap-peared to be in growth position turnedout to have been transported from else-where.

• Record of animal activity: The pres-ence of “ichnofossils” (that is, trace fossilssuch as trackways and burrows, larvalcases, and reptile and bird eggs).32 Thisdata is very valuable for the develop-ment of a depositional model since itmeans that, throughout the formationof the fossil record, some organisms re-mained alive and active. Even thoughthis data implies that a certain length oftime has elapsed, it also suggests thatabundant sediment input is needed, aswell as rapid burial processes. In addi-tion, the abundance of some of these re-mains (for example, thousands of di-nosaur tracks and eggs in many differentparts of the world), as well as the natureof the sediments in which they are pre-served, suggest unusual, possiblystressed, environmental conditions thatwould correspond to a worldwide cata-strophic scenario. A survey of 25 reported fossil pat-

terns and trends in the fossil record hasbeen published, with an evaluation ofthem in relation to evolutionary andbiblical accounts of earth history.33 Thestudy concluded that more research isneeded, but, by comparing the Scrip-tures and the fossil record, a better un-derstanding can be developed of the ge-ologic column.

Conclusion There is broad agreement among

Christian earth scientists who trust thebiblical account that the general aspectof the fossil record is catastrophic34—one of destruction and death. Muchdata in the fossil record point to dra-matically different physical conditionsexisting in the past and do not supporta naturalistic evolutionary history oflife on Earth. The sudden appearance

uch data in the fossil record

point to dramatically different

physical conditions existing in the

past and do not support a naturalistic

evolutionary history of life on Earth.

21http:// jae.adventist.org The Journal of Adventist Education • December 2011/January 2012

Impact and Mass Extinction at the Cretaceous -Paleogene Boundary,” Science 327 (2010):1214-1218. Read about the latest debate on the causesof the K-T mass extinction in Science 328 (2010),pages 973 and 974; R. A. F. Grieve, “TerrestrialImpact Structures,” Annual Review of Earth andPlanetary Science 15 (1987):245-270.

16. Baker, “The Channeled Scabland,” op cit.;D. V. Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record,3rd ed. (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1993).

17. R. F. Dubiel, et al., “The Pangaean Mega-monsoon—Evidence From the Upper TriassicChinle Formation, Colorado Plateau,” Palaios 6(1991):347-370; Roth, Origins: Linking Scienceand Scripture, op cit.

18. J. P. Lockwood and R. W. Hazlett, Volca-noes: Global Perspectives (Hoboken, N.J.: JohnWiley & Sons Ltd., 2010).

19. P. Kearey, et al., Global Tectonics, 3rd ed.(Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009).

20. K. R. Evans, et al., eds., “The SedimentaryRecord of Meteorite Impacts,” GSA Special Paper437 (2008).

21. For an example, see D. M. Martill, et al.,“Mass Mortality of Fishes in the Santana Forma-tion (Lower Cretaceous ?Albian) of NortheastBrazil,” Cretaceous Research 29 (2008): 649-658.See also D. J. Varricchio and J. R. Horner, “Hadro -saurid and Lambeosaurid Bone Beds From theUpper Cretaceous 2 Medicine Formation ofMontana—Taphonomic and Biologic Implica-tions,” Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 30:5(1993):997-1006.

22. C. Koeberl and K. G. MacLeod, eds., “Cat-astrophic Events and Mass Extinctions: Impactsand Beyond,” GSA Special Paper 356 (2002).

23. There are more than 15,000 species oftrilobites, all of them extinct, to mention onlyone example.

24. D. J. Bottjer, et al., Exceptional FossilPreservation: A Unique View on the Evolution ofMarine Life (New York: Columbia UniversityPress, 2002); P. A. Allison, “Konservat-Lagerstat-ten: Cause and Classification,” Paleobiology 14:4(1988):331-344.

25. C. M. Faux and K. Padian, “The Opistho-tonic Posture of Vertebrate Skeletons: Post-mortem Contraction or Death Throes?” Paleobi-ology 33:2 (2007):201-226.

26. See A. A. Roth, Science Discovers God, opcit., Chapter 5. Roth points out the major problemof explaining the origin of 19 different body plansin the phyla of the “Cambrian Explosion,” when inthe underlying Precambrian, and in very closestratigraphic proximity, there are only three.

27. See Brand, Beginnings (2006), op cit.,page 73, Figure 7.7 (A and B), for a description ofthe actual pattern found in the fossil record, inwhich the diversity of phyla (major category oforganisms), contrary to what one would expectin an evolutionary model, is higher at the bottomof the record and decreases upwards in the geo-logic column.

28. D. L. Rabosky and I. J. Lovette, “Explosive

Evolutionary Radiations: Decreasing Speciationor Increasing Extinction Through Time?” Evolu-tion 62 (2008):1866-1875.

29. For more on the question of microevolu-tion and speciation within an interventionist (bib-lical) framework, see Brand, Beginnings (2006), opcit., page 53, and _________, Faith, Reason, andEarth History (2009), op cit., pages 162-179.

30. Roth, Science Discovers God, op cit., Chap-ter 6, discusses at length this famous “intermedi-ate” and all the controversy among the paleontolo-gists studying the origin of birds, feathers, andflight.

31. For more than a hundred years, scientistsinterpreted these layers as a succession of about 48fossil forests. A body of data exists now (much of ita result of research stimulated by biblically shapedgeohistorical paradigms) that suggests a cata-strophic scenario of transported trees and veg -etation such as the one documented after theeruption of Mount St. Helens. See W. J. Fritz,“Reinterpretation of the Depositional Environ-ment of the Yellowstone ‘Fossil Forests,’” Geology 8(1980):309-313. For a detailed discussion, see Cof-fin, et al., Origin by Design, op cit., Chapter 18, andfor a brief summary, see Brand, Beginnings (2006),op cit., page 156. These results might very wellapply to other similar petrified forests.

32. Brand, Beginnings (2006), op cit., pages133 to 136, discusses the implications of tracefossils and fossil eggs in the fossil record. Whilemany of these activities require time (and anymodel should account for it), the preservation ofthese remains indicates unusual and catastrophicconditions.

33. See James Gibson, “Fossil Patterns: AClassification and Evaluation,” Origins 23:2(1996):68-96. These reported patterns found inthe fossil record are classified into four cate-gories: fossil diversity patterns, fossil morpholog-ical patterns, fossil ecological patterns, and depo-sitional patterns. Gibson concludes that thesepatterns, catastrophic activity, global patterns,sudden, abrupt appearance of morphologicaldisparity among marine animals in the “Cam-brian Explosion,” widespread extinction events,lack of ancestors in Precambrian rocks, and mor-phological gaps among higher taxa throughoutthe fossil record are all evidences expected withina biblical framework for the history of the Earth.

34. Almost 20 years ago, Ager, in The Natureof the Stratigraphical Record (op cit.), suggestedthat “we are beginning to see a somewhat ‘cata-strophic’ picture.” It is evident that he has beenproven right. In addition, this overall nature ofthe record might be directly related to the strongimprint of the taphonomic processes that led tothe preservation of remains of organisms in thefossil record, what has been termed the “tapho-nomic megabias” of the record (Kalmar and Cur-rie [2010]:51); for reference, see endnote 2).

ture Partners in the Search for Origins? (Nampa,Idaho: Pacific Press Publ. Assn., 2006), pages 120and 121. Brand here describes in his Model 2 a“wholistic geology” model, in which the Earthrecords geological processes that “have been op-erating from the time of the Fall [entrance of sinin the world] to the present.”

6. Recent literature by Adventist scientists whodiscuss many of the issues relating to Earth historyinclude Leonard Brand, Faith, Reason, and EarthHistory, A Paradigm of Earth and Biological Originsby Intelligent Design, 2nd rev. ed. (Berrien Springs,Mich.: Andrews University Press, 2009); H. G. Cof-fin, R. H. Brown, and L. James Gibson, Origin byDesign (Hagerstown, Md.: Review and Herald Publ.Assn., 2005); R. M. Ritland, A Search for Meaning inNature: A New Look at Creation and Evolution(Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press Publ. Assn.,1970); A. A. Roth, Origins: Linking Science andScripture (Hagerstown, Md.: Review and HeraldPubl. Assn., 1998); __________, Science DiscoversGod: Seven Convincing Lines of Evidence for His Ex-istence (Hagerstown, Md.: Autumn House Publish-ing, 2008). Keep in mind that when this articlerefers to the biblical record (of creation week andthe worldwide flood), it is referring to the tradi-tional Seventh-day Adventist interpretation of theevents recorded there. On the other hand, the evo-lutionary view implies a materialistic atheistic ex-planation of history.

7. Brand, Beginnings (2006), op cit., p. 120.8. Ibid., p. 76. 9. See V. R. Baker, “The Channeled Scabland:

a Retrospective,” Annual Review of Earth andPlanetary Science 37 (2009):393-411. In Baker’sview, the stronghold of Uniformitarianism onthe geologic community has hindered the ad-vancement of science. See also J. Soennichsen,Bretz’s Flood: The Remarkable Story of a Rebel Ge-ologist and the World’s Greatest Flood (Seattle,Wash.: Sasquatch Books, 2009).

10. D. Garcia-Castellanos, et al., “Cata-strophic Flood of the Mediterranean After theMessinian Salinity Crisis,” Nature 462 (2009): 778-781.

11. S. Gupta, et al., “Catastrophic FloodingOrigin of Shelf Valley Systems in the EnglishChannel,” Nature 448 (2007):342-345.

12. Brand, Beginnings, op cit.; Roth, Origins:Linking Science and Scripture, op cit.; G. Shan-mugam, “Fifty Years of the Turbidite Paradigm(1950s-1990s): Deep-Water Processes and FaciesModels: a Critical Perspective,” Marine and Petro-leum Geology 17 (2000):285-342.

13. B. C. Yang, et al., “Wave-Generated TidalBundles as an Indication of Wave-DominatedTidal Flats,” Geology 36 (2008):39-42.

14. See M. Brongersma-Sanders, “Mass Mortal-ity in the Sea,” GSA Memoir 67 (1957):941-1010;M. Lockley and A. Rice, “Volcanism and Fossil Bio-tas,” GSA Special Paper 244 (1990):1-136.

15. P. Schulte, et al., “The Chicxulub Asteroid