From: Bill Payne (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Mar 23 2003 - 23:14:51 EST
While I agree that there are underwater land slides, to say that they
"can account for all 'rapid deposition' arguments" is a bit of a stretch.
That mechanism would account for the exquisite soft-body preservation of
the Burgess Shale, but the fingerprint of a land slide is lacking in the
limestones which formed in broad, epicontinental seas.
On a related note, land slides do form turbidity currents which deposit
graded (coarse at the bottom, fining upward) beds which are quite thin
compared to their horizontal extent. For example, "the Dakota Formation
of the western United States, with an average thickness of 30 meters,
covers some 815,000 square kilometers." (from _Origins, Linking Science
and Scripture_ by Ariel Roth, P 218) Reckon how big that delta was,
Sorry, but I don't follow your logic on the lack of Precambrian fossils.
I guess you're going to have to close up those "gaping holes" for me.
On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:38:48 -0500 Dick Fischer
Bill Payne wrote:
Bivalve fossils (eg. clams) are commonly found closed, yet today when
bivalves die the shells open and are disarticulated. Articulated
bivalves are further evidence for rapid burial.
Underwater land slides, common around delta regions, can account for all
"rapid deposition" arguments. Yet what would account for the complete
lack of fossils in miles-deep Pre-Cambrian sedimentary rock other than
there was a long period of earth history where there were no animals
large enough to leave fossils? That long period of earth history would
be about 96 hours from day one to day five according to YEC doctrine.
Do these gaping holes in logic escape you?
Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Mar 23 2003 - 23:30:11 EST