Rosa Rubicondior: Creationism Refuted - Earth Fine-Tuned For Regular Mass Extinctions

Meteor hit Oklahoma 100 Million Years Later Than Previously Thought | Jackson School of Geosciences | The University of Texas at Austin

A geological map noting the types of rock that make up the Ames impact structure. The locations of oil and gas wells are noted with arrows.

Credit: Catlos et al.

For a planet supposedly created as a perfect home for humans, Earth has a remarkable history of catastrophes, environmental upheavals and mass extinctions — almost all of it unfolding before humans and, according to a literal reading of Genesis, before even Earth itself existed. Beneath Ames, Oklahoma, lies a buried impact crater that adds another uncomfortable detail to that history. New research suggests that the collision responsible occurred about 100 million years later than previously thought. Unfortunately for young-Earth creationists, that still places it approximately 370 million years before their imagined ‘Creation Week’.

The study, led by Elizabeth Catlos of the University of Texas at Austin and published in Meteoritics & Planetary Science, challenges the long-standing assignment of the Ames impact to the Ordovician Period. The previous age estimate relied on conodont fossils — tiny tooth-like elements from extinct marine animals. These may have been inherited from older rocks disturbed and redeposited during the impact, rather than recording when the collision happened.

Uranium–lead dating of zircon crystals from the impacted rocks now points towards a much younger, Late Devonian event. The youngest dated zircons yielded an age of 369.7 ± 5.9 million years. That range overlaps the approximately 372-million-year-old Frasnian–Famennian extinction crisis, raising the possibility that Ames belongs in discussions of impacts associated with that episode of ecological devastation.

There is an essential distinction here: an overlap in estimated ages does not establish cause and effect. The study does not demonstrate that the Ames impact caused the Frasnian–Famennian extinction, or even that it made a substantial contribution. Further work is needed to strengthen the connection between the zircon dates and the impact itself, let alone establish a causal connection with the extinction. That uncertainty is part of the scientific account, not something to hide for the sake of a more dramatic headline.

Nevertheless, the difficulty for creationism does not depend on proving that particular connection. Whether the collision happened in the Ordovician or the Devonian, neither interpretation can be accommodated within the few thousand years allowed by a literalist reading of Genesis. Revising an event’s age by roughly 100 million years does not bring it within reach of biblical chronology. Even the size of the correction dwarfs the entire history young-Earth creationists allow the universe.

Nor does a world exposed to devastating collisions suggest that human safety was its overriding design specification. Humans were absent when Ames formed, but that is precisely the point: Earth’s history was not a brief preparation of a finished home awaiting its intended occupants. It was an immense succession of changing environments in which life survived, diversified and sometimes suffered catastrophic losses. Habitability is not a guarantee of protection, and our existence today does not turn every feature of the planet’s past into evidence of benevolent planning.

The research also illustrates why science can improve its account of that past. An accepted interpretation has been tested against additional evidence and a revision proposed, with its limitations openly discussed. Scientific understanding changes because conclusions remain answerable to evidence. Creationism reverses that relationship: the conclusion is fixed by scripture, and the evidence must somehow be made to comply.

The Frasnian–Famennian extinction^ when the Devonian seas lost their reefs. The Frasnian–Famennian extinction, approximately 372 million years ago, was a major episode in the Late Devonian mass extinction, traditionally counted among the “Big Five” mass extinctions. Its unfamiliar name comes from two successive subdivisions of the Devonian Period: the Frasnian and the Famennian. The crisis culminated around the boundary between them.

One extinction, or several?

The Late Devonian biodiversity crisis involved several episodes of environmental disruption and extinction. Around the end of the Frasnian, two particularly important pulses are known as the Lower and Upper Kellwasser events. The name comes from a locality in Germany where characteristic rock layers were studied. The Upper Kellwasser event coincides with the Frasnian–Famennian boundary.

This should not be confused with the Hangenberg crisis, which occurred near the end of the Devonian, approximately 359 million years ago — about 13 million years later. Accounts that compress all the Late Devonian losses into a single event can obscure this prolonged and complicated history.

What was lost?

The Frasnian–Famennian crisis was especially destructive to marine ecosystems. Devonian tropical seas supported extensive reefs built by corals and stromatoporoids — extinct groups of sponges with substantial mineral skeletons. These reef communities suffered a catastrophic collapse.

Other casualties included many species of brachiopods, the shelled animals that were abundant on ancient seabeds, together with trilobites, ammonoid cephalopods and conodont animals. The losses were selective: different groups and environments suffered to different degrees. The collapse of reef habitats also removed the shelter and feeding opportunities on which many other organisms depended.

What happened to the oceans?

A prominent feature of the geological record is evidence for widespread anoxia — a lack of dissolved oxygen in seawater. In many locations, the Kellwasser intervals contain dark, organic-rich sediments, including black shales. Their chemistry, alongside other geological evidence, indicates that oxygen-poor conditions expanded in parts of the oceans.

Marine animals need oxygen just as terrestrial animals do. When oxygen disappears from their habitat, animals must escape or die. Oxygen depletion therefore provides a plausible direct mechanism for many of the marine losses, although its severity and distribution varied between locations.

What caused the oxygen loss?

The ultimate causes remain debated, and several processes may have acted together:

Nutrient runoff: The expansion of deeply rooted land plants increased weathering and soil development. Additional nutrients reaching the sea could stimulate algal growth; microbial decomposition of the resulting organic matter would then consume dissolved oxygen.

Volcanism: Large eruptions could disturb climate, weathering and nutrient cycles, helping to drive changes in ocean chemistry.

Climate and sea-level changes: These could alter marine habitats, ocean circulation and the supply of oxygen to deeper waters.

Extraterrestrial impacts: Impacts have also been proposed as contributors, but a convincing causal connection requires more than a crater with an approximately matching age.

Where does the Ames impact fit?

The new zircon dates from Ames, Oklahoma, place it within an age range that overlaps the Frasnian–Famennian crisis. This makes it relevant to investigations of possible impact contributions. It does not, by itself, establish that the collision triggered the extinction. Researchers still need to refine the impact’s age and demonstrate any connection between its environmental effects and the observed biological losses.

The key distinction: The extinction and widespread marine oxygen depletion are supported by substantial evidence. The relative importance of the processes that initiated and sustained the crisis remains an active research question.

Precisely dating the Frasnian–Famennian boundary: implications for the cause of the Late Devonian mass extinction — Scientific Reports.

The expansion of land plants during the Late Devonian contributed to the marine mass extinction — Communications Earth & Environment.

The Ames impact structure, Oklahoma: New radioisotopic constraints and implications for North American impact chronology — Meteoritics & Planetary Science.

The paper in Meteoritics & Planetary Science was accompanied by University of Texas at Austin, Jackson School of Geosciences press release:

Meteor hit Oklahoma 100 Million Years Later Than Previously Thought
Researchers at The University of Texas at Austin have rewritten a small part of Oklahoma’s geologic history with global implications for ancient life.
Below the surface of the small town of Ames, Oklahoma, a meteor impact site spans miles. The crater is buried by sedimentary strata in the subsurface, but it remains an important marker of Oklahoma’s ancient past and present-day economy; the Ames impact structure is a major oil and gas producer.

It’s also part of a series of significant meteor impacts across North America with ages that center around 467.5 million years ago — it’s been called the Ordovician Meteor Event. The sheer number of impact sites that exist from this time period has led researchers to theorize that Earth might have had a Saturn-like ring of asteroid debris around it during the Middle Ordovician.

UT researchers, however, have recently discovered that the Ames impact structure is nearly 100 million years younger than previously believed. By dating zircon crystals found in impacted granites at the site, researchers have found that a meteorite hit Ames in Late Devonian times about 370 million years ago, not 467 million years ago in the Ordovician.

No matter what technique we used, it was coming back to this younger signal.

Associate Professor Elizabeth J. Catlos, lead author
Department of Earth & Planetary Sciences
Jackson School of Geosciences
The University of Texas at Austin
Austin, Texas, USA.

The research was published in July in Meteoritics & Planetary Science.

A map of upper North America shows the approximate area and location of impact structures from about 486-360 million years ago.
Credit: Catlos et al.

The Ames meteor impact site had previously only been dated biochronologically; researchers found the teeth of an ancient eel-like creature called a conodont in the rock, which were around during the older Ordovician age. However, the teeth were likely already millions of years old when the asteroid struck Ames, and likely just got jumbled around in the mix of the impact, remaining preserved, Catlos said.

This new radiometric date from the zircons from the Ames impact shows that it could not have been part of the Ordovician Meteor Event, but squarely fits into the timing of the Frasnian-Famennian mass extinction event, which occurred about 372 million years ago, and led to the extinction of a huge percentage of marine life on Earth.

Danny Stockli, dean of the Jackson School of Geosciences and a co-author of the study, said that zircon U-Pb dating is not only the most accurate way to tell when events like this occurred in Earth’s history, but that microstructures in zircon can record the shock pressures of impacts.

These small crystals allow us to go back in time and learn about the major changes to Earth’s ancient landscapes. It would be great to do this for more of the meteor impact sites across the continent so we could get a more accurate timeline for these major events.

Daniel F. Stockli, co-author
Department of Earth & Planetary Sciences
Jackson School of Geosciences
The University of Texas at Austin
Austin, Texas, USA.

To prove that the zircons they dated were in fact impacted by the meteor, the research team worked with NASA to image the crystals using cathodoluminescence and electron backscatter diffraction. When a zircon is hit by an impact like this, it recrystallizes in a very specific way, which they can see through these methods.

Catlos said that having a more accurate timeline for mass extinction events and other big moments in Earth’s history is crucial for understanding how our planet works. It matters whether these extinctions were driven by an extraterrestrial force such as this one, or an interior force such as a series of massive volcanic eruptions, she said.

With this research, we’re basically taking a major pawn out of the Ordovician Meteor Event and dumping it into the Frasnian-Famennian event, and saying, ‘This is where this impact belongs’.

Associate Professor Elizabeth J. Catlos.

This research was instigated by former Jackson School of Geosciences graduate student Andrew Parisi, who graduated in 2018 and has since passed away. He went to Oklahoma to collect the Ames rock core from the Oklahoma Geological Survey, extracted the zircons and helped to date them.

Co-author Michael Brookfield, an affiliated researcher at the school, also passed away before the paper was published.

Research Professor Sean Gulick and Professor Emeritus Mark Cloos at the Jackson School also contributed to this research.

Publication:
Elizabeth J. Catlos, Andrew F. Parisi, Michael E. Brookfield, Timmons Erickson, Sean P.S. Gulick, Axel K. Schmitt, Daniel F. Stockli, Daniel P. Miggins, Ben Ruchte, Mark Cloos
The Ames impact structure, Oklahoma: New radioisotopic constraints and implications for North American impact chronology
Meteoritics & Planetary Science 07 July 2026 https://doi.org/10.1111/maps.70191

Abstract
The Ames impact structure (Oklahoma) is thought to have formed during the Ordovician Meteor Event, based on conodont biostratigraphy of its crater fill. Here, U–Pb zircon dates from its impact-melt portion, conducted using secondary ion mass spectrometry and laser ablation–inductively coupled plasma–mass spectrometry (n = 37 spots), yield a Mesoproterozoic emplacement age for the impacted granodiorite (1401.2 ± 8.1 Ma, ±2σ, upper Concordia intercept). However, the youngest zircon dates define a weighted mean age of 369.7 ± 5.9 Ma (n = 10/11), with MSWD = 0.71 and p(χ²) = 0.7. Cathodoluminescence and electron backscattered diffraction images reveal that most zircons, including the youngest Devonian-age grains, show primary oscillatory zoning and lack deformation. However, two have impact-related textures, including regions of low-angle grain boundaries within microcracks and discrete arrays of granular zircon crosscutting oscillatory growth zoning. Plagioclase (n = 6 samples, ⁴⁰Ar/³⁹Ar) yields Late Carboniferous (~310.5 Ma) and Permian (~250.5 Ma) approximate total fusion dates that overlap the timing of heating and hydrocarbon maturation in the crater, suggesting the argon system records postimpact thermal overprinting. Based on the youngest zircon dates, the Ames impact structure may record activity near the Frasnian–Famennian boundary, contemporaneous with other North American impacts.

FIGURE 1
Regional context of the Ames structure relative to other reported, confirmed, and proposed North American Ordovician and Late Devonian impact structures. The map shows locations and estimated diameters. The 38th parallel is highlighted. Additional information is provided in Table 1. Map generated using PyGMT (Wessel et al., 2019).

FIGURE 2
Structural and regional setting of the Ames impact structure. (a) Location of the Ames impact structure in Oklahoma relative to geological provinces and mapped faults (Johnson, 2008). The inset shows the area in (b). (b) Spatial relationship between the Ames and proposed Ingalls “impact-like” structures. Lineament colors represent pseudo-depth values (red = shallow; blue = deeper). Pink ring outlines an interpreted circular ~145 km circular feature surrounding the Ames impact site (Lautzenhiser & Earley, 2017). Fault data from Marsh and Holland (2016). (c) Geological map of the Ames structure after Koeberl et al. (1997), showing lithologic units, oil and gas wells, including the Nicor No. 18-4 Chestnut, Continental Resources (CR) Dorothy 1-19, and D. & J. James 1-20 wells, where analyses have been conducted on impacted samples. Subsurface horizon structural contour lines are also shown. (Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com)

Elizabeth J. Catlos, Andrew F. Parisi, Michael E. Brookfield, Timmons Erickson, Sean P.S. Gulick, Axel K. Schmitt, Daniel F. Stockli, Daniel P. Miggins, Ben Ruchte, Mark Cloos
The Ames impact structure, Oklahoma: New radioisotopic constraints and implications for North American impact chronology
Meteoritics & Planetary Science 07 July 2026 https://doi.org/10.1111/maps.70191

Copyright: © 2026 The authors.
Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Open access.
Reprinted under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0)

The possible connection between the Ames impact and the Frasnian–Famennian extinction remains a hypothesis requiring further evidence. An overlap in estimated dates is a reason to investigate, not a licence to declare the case closed. But neither the chronological problem for young-Earth creationism nor the challenge to claims of benevolent design depends on establishing that connection. A devastating impact approximately 370 million years ago is no more compatible with a recent ‘Creation Week’ than one approximately 467 million years ago.

Creationists may be tempted to present this revision as evidence that scientists cannot be trusted. What it actually demonstrates is that scientific conclusions can be challenged by additional evidence, even after decades of acceptance. Researchers have examined a different source of information, proposed a revised interpretation and explained what further work is needed. Changing an explanation when the evidence warrants it is how knowledge improves. Refusing to change because an ancient text supposedly supplies the answer is how error becomes permanent.

The wider picture is equally uncomfortable for the claim that Earth was perfectly prepared for human life. Its history includes flourishing ecosystems devastated by environmental changes and collisions with objects from space. Humans eventually evolved within that changing world; our arrival does not retrospectively make its catastrophes part of a benevolent provision for our welfare. Life’s capacity to survive and diversify is evidence of adaptation, not a guarantee that the planet was designed to protect its inhabitants.

There is still much to discover about the Ames impact and the Late Devonian extinctions. Science makes that uncertainty explicit and asks what observations could resolve it. Creationism begins with an answer it will not surrender. The difference is visible here in miniature: one approach allows the rocks to correct the story; the other requires the story to overrule the rocks.

Advertisement

Amazon