Rapid generation of layers in the GC

quote:

---

I'm not clear what you're arguing. Part of it may be my limited geology background (I took one intro course 25 years ago), but are you claiming that the few examples of polystrate fossils that have been discovered here and there around the world represent evidence for a flood of global proportions? If so, wouldn't there be substantial evidence for rapid deposition literally everywhere, rather than isolated incidences separated by space and time? I mean, wouldn't all polystrate fossils be found in the identical layers? The Yellowstone polystrates are found in Tertiary volcanic breccias, the Nova Scotia polystrates are Carboniferous, etc. It doesn't appear to this geology neophyte - regardless of the rapidity of the deposition - that these deposits occurred anywhere remotely at the same time.

---

First of all, I would like to state that I wish that individuals of the creation side would give identification of their basic position - Are they young earth agers or old earth agers? Knowing this is important, for someone from the evolution side to respond.The YEC perspective is totally out of line with mainstream geologic thought. They seem to want to put vast amounts of the geological sedimentary record into being the results of the flood event.The OEC perspective is more in line with mainstream geologic thought (insert plug for "Uniformitarianism" topic). They may, or may not, be looking for evidence of the flood event as being a small part of the total geologic column.All that said, I must compliment you on your perceptive observations. The flood geology avocates love to pull geologic data, that supports some sort of rapid depositional event, out of the greater context, of the data that supports other forms of deposition. This is much akin to taking verbal quotes out of their greater context, and thus distorting the meaning.The "flood geologist" focuses in on the flood support "evidence" (and it often seems to be volcanic deposits - note how often Mt. St. Helens shows up), and ignores the evidence that most of the sedimentary record is not a result of catastrophic processes.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Here is fig. 14-12 from page 520 of Pettijohn (the same source and page cited by TB). The data is not precisely what TB was referring to, but is related to it.I don't know how long this graphic will stay on my personal site, so Percy is welcome to reproduce and store it elsewhere, and modify the html acordingly.I'll try reducing the size, and reloading it to my site. Get back to you on that (note by edit: size reduction done).Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 05-21-2002]

Quoting myself, from message 69:

quote:

---

The data is not precisely what TB was referring to, but is related to it.

---

I thought I should step in, before this gets futher out of hand.I posted that graphic to illustrate paleocurrent variability and consistancy. It is not the data TB was specificly referring to, in his original citing of Pettijohn.Of course, none of this means that I agree with the conclusions he's comming to.Gotta go,Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe