From: allenroy (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Mar 27 2003 - 12:49:27 EST
Don Winterstein wrote:
> The definition of reef was much narrower among the geologists I knew
> than it
> is in the ICR papers Allen Roy referred to. I don't believe our
> geologists would have considered most of the things discussed in the ICR
> papers to be reefs.
> Interestingly, neither of Allen's ICR papers mentions the Devonian
> reefs in Alberta. The reefs there had definite reef structure, unlike
> most of those discussed in the ICR papers. I recall our geologists
> and paleontologists in Calgary talking about which part of the reef
> the drill bit had penetrated on the basis of which fossils they'd found.
1. A minor point. The papers referred to were originally published in
"Origins," a publication of the Geoscience Research Institute (GRI)
located at Loma Linda University and operated by the Seveth-day
Adventist church. ICR (Institute for Creation Research) is another
group based in San Diego, CA
2. It is true that neither Hodges nor Roth make mention of the Silurian
and Devonian reefs in Alberta. However, Hodges does make a case that
the Silurian and Devonian reefs in the Great Lakes region are markedly
different in many respects from the modern-appearing Pleistocene Key
Largo Limestone in Key West. Are they truly reefs in the typical
understanding of reef or carbonate mud mounds?
3. The question is does the description of the Great Lakes region reefs
compare favorably with those in Alberta? If so, why do they differ so
markedly from the Pleistocene Key Largo Limestone reef? If not, do the
Alberta reefs compare with the modern reefs such as in Key Largo? We
could sure use some good descriptions from primary sources here.
-- "I have been shown that, without Bible history, geology can prove nothing. Relics found in the earth do give evidence of a state of things differing in many respects from the present. But the time of their existence, and how long a period these things have been in the earth, are only to be understood by Bible history. It may be innocent to conjecture beyond Bible history, if our suppositions do not contradict the facts found in the sacred Scriptures. But when men leave the word of God in regard to the history of creation, and seek to account for God's creative works upon natural principles, they are upon a boundless ocean of uncertainty. Just how God accomplished the work of creation in six literal days, he has never revealed to mortals. His creative works are just as incomprehensible as his existence." Ellen Gould Harmon White, 1864
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Mar 27 2003 - 12:48:02 EST