Re: Precambrian geology (1)

Allen Roy (
Thu, 15 Apr 1999 22:58:34 -0700

> From: Jonathan Clarke <>
> Don't you think you should if you are going to criticise both
> and those who use it?

Biostratigraphy is just not all that important to me, compared with
lithostratigraphy. Because of my position on Asteroid impact catastrophe,
I can't help but think that whatever ordering that there appears to be is
mostly apparent and not real. There has been alot of discussion of ID here
on how one can (or cannot) recognize intelligence. I think the same
applies to the application of ordering onto the fossil record. I feel that
the fossils found thus far represent too small of a sample to make claims
of ordering.

> > This idea is new in Creationary circles.
> Impact crating and its environmental effect is not a new idea or
restricted to
> flood geological circles. There is an extensive literature on impact
> and its effects. ... Nobody should talk about impact
> effects without considering this literature.

I ment to say that the idea of asteroid impacts causing the Flood
catastrophe is new in Creationary Catastrophe circles, not that asteroid
impact disasters is new in the general field of Geology.

I have read several books on the topic, but not a whole lot in the
periodical literature. There have been a few articles in CRSQ and CENTJ
and some papers read at the last two ICCs (International Creation
Conferences). These papers and articles (and the books) all deal
extensively with the published literature.