Re: Precambrian geology (1)

Jonathan Clarke (
Sun, 28 Mar 1999 12:43:01 +1000

Hi Allen

Thanks for your response.

Allen Roy wrote:

> 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.

To me this implies you accept biostratigraphy. I know you do not accept that
numerical ages equate with actual chronological ages. But do you believe that
they are internally consistent? That a Cambrian rock will always give a
numerical age of 540-510 Ma for example (even though it is in fact only 6000
years old).

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

If you do reject biostratigraphy then certainly all you are left with is
lithostratigraphy. Do you believe that inter regional correlation is
possible? What methods do you use?

> > 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
> not
> > 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
> others.

Surely you need to think about the specifics. I understand you run field
trips to the Grand Canyon. Doesn't this require you to think about specifics
in a real world situation? Does it not also require you to test others
theories against what you see?

> Allen

God Bless