Re: Precambrian geology (1)

Allen Roy (
Sat, 27 Mar 1999 09:33:04 -0700

> From: Jonathan Clarke <>
> "Archaeic" - do you mean "Archaean" - and "Precambrian" have precise
> definitions. Do you agree with these definitions? "Precambrian" is a
> biostratigraphic term which now has radiometric ages assigned to.
> is based on radiometric ages. Are you saying you believe that
> works and that radiometric dates are consistent? if not, why use these
> The same with terms like "Tertiary". Rocks are called this on the basis
> either biostratigraphy or radiometric ages. If you use terms like this
you are
> implying you agree that they are internally consistent. If you don't
> this - why use them?

You will find that in Creationary (YEC) literature conventional geologic
teminology is used, however it is made clear that the ages assigned to
these named periods are rejected. These terms are used only in the
relativistic sense such as Tertiary is usually above Cretaceous, Cretaceous
is usually above Cambrian, Cambrian is usually above Pre-cambrian.

These terms are used because that is the convention in Geology.
Creationary Catastrophists see no need to totally reinvent the wheel by
trying to rename everything in the geologic record. There is a movement to
develop a new geologic description based upon the Flood catastrophe
outline, but even if this becomes fully accepted in the creationary
catastrophist field, one would still need to develop a translations chart
between the conventional and catastrophic geologic record interpretations.
So, many simply use the conventional termonology with adjustments in
meaning, while recognizing that this may not be as accurate as a geologic
record devolped by catastophic thinking.

I prefer to only deal with formations and their superpositional
relationships with other formations.

> I hope this is not too pointed but: "That is about as specific as I can
get at
> this point." Why is that? constraints of time and space? Because you do
> know? or because you don't want to say?

There are others who are far more into trying to determine the boundaries
of the Flood event than I. I am merely reporting what I have read and
heard here within the constraints of time and space. I am satisfied at
this time with general deliniations, and am leaving the specifics to