Using Stromatolites to Rethink the Precambrian-Cambrian Pre-Flood/Flood Boundary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 550-meter-thick upper Cambrian (Furongian Epoch) Notch Peak Formation of western Utah has over a dozen horizons of meter- to multiple-meter-thick sequences of stromatolites that have been correlated with similar stromatolitic beds in the Drum Mountains to the north and the Wah Wah mountains to the south, providing a total geographic distribution greater than 2,600 square kilometres. Cambrian stromatolitic beds have also been described from other areas in North America that circumscribe what appears to be the ancient coast of the North American craton associated with Laurentia. A total of 24 different locations span North America starting in Newfoundland, traveling down to the New York area, crossing the southern United States to Texas, then moving over to the region around Utah, California, and Nevada, before continuing the trail northward through Idaho, Alberta and on into the Northwest Territories of Canada. These growth structures challenge the majority creationist consensus that places the onset of the Flood at, or near, the Proterozoic/Paleozoic boundary. For this latter position to be valid, thick, and geographically widespread sequences of stromatolites would necessarily have had to have grown during the initial stages of the Flood (in just months), when, according to many creationists upwards of 1000 meters of continental crust was being eroded from the craton at almost the same time. For this reason, I propose that processes related to the erosion of the craton and associated with the Great Unconformity be placed within Creation Week, thus removing its place as a primary marker for the onset of the Flood.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".