Re: Precambrian geology

David Campbell (
Mon, 22 Mar 1999 12:59:38 -0400

>Similarity in deposition is a matter of interpretation not necessarily a
>matter of evidence. And, it is possible that all the evidence we see in
>the rocks is of catastrophic deposition and none of slow deposition. But
>that the reason for the evidence being interpreted as slow is because of
>the force fit of uniformitarian interpretation upon the evidence.

The uniformitarian interpretation was developed from looking at the
evidence, not forced upon it. Whether this development involved
misinterpretation is another question. As far as I can tell, the
young-earth interpretation is the more forced fit in every instance I know

>By the same token, what unique features exist in the ....... rocks that
>shows that they must have been formed over vast periods of time? The
>answer is in interpretation according to one's paradigm.

Well, the features are not unique, which is the problem for a young-earth
interpretation. Fossil hardgrounds are a good example. At many points
throughout the sedimentary record, there are layers that resemble modern
places of exposed rock on the seafloor. The underlying rock is chemically
altered (phosphatization and cemetation being particularly common). Boring
animals have left their holes in the rock. Sessile organisms such as
corals, bryozoans, sponges, and oysters have grown on top of the rock.
After this, a new layer of sediment has been deposited above, often with
different kinds of fossils than the layer below.

David C.